Reply With Quote
Cool story, bro.
Most climate change deniers don't.
Cool story, bro.
I am afraid you are misinterpreting the word "punish". Again, if you read the passage in it's context, you would understand that "punishment" clearly refers to death as in other murderers, or banishment. The slaves were held in a different light for sure, but the consequence is that the debt be absolved, and the slave set free under beatings with consequences.
And I thought the passage you quoted explicitly said that if a slave was beaten to death, the owner would be punished (dealt with in the ways of a murderer.
It does not mean that the owner will face no consequence.
A theist's position is inherently illogical because of why? You seemed to be entrenched in the idea that you are somehow more logical than a huge number of people who have accepted Christianity or other religions as their beliefs, and that any views other than atheism is illogical, when atheism itself has scores of unanswered questions.
I have shown two that are misinterpreted because it was taken out of context. There are scores others that fall under this category. And to think that, a religion that has been around for 2000 years, including one that has been studied extensively by scholars for the last 5 or 6 hundred years, have contradictions that has not been noticed and debated to death is quite a bold position for you to take.
Thank you for telling me what I know and what I don't know. I know you have been doing that quite well throughout this thread.
How so? You have clearly misinterpreted that passage.still trying to rationalize murder
And I was raised an atheist, so? And somehow assuming that you are more objective than people you have never met is neither objective nor logical.
If you are referring to Leviticus 18:22, read the entire passage.
No it's not. Please, you have taken quite a strong position in quotes that are out of context. When I say out of context, I am not saying that under certain cir stances, some actions are allowed. I am saying that the phrase is taken out of context of what the entire passage actually means.
The slavery example is one. Leviticus 18:22 is another. The information is readily available on the internet, and given your strong view points in the subject and your ability to look up other people's arguments that have been circulating for centuries, I trust that you also have the ability to look up the contradicting view points.
I know I am not going to convince you one way or another because you have said so explicitly, so I will not try.
However, I will agree with you that there are many Christians who do not understand the Bible, and fall into the same trap that many atheists did of trying to explain away/ignore passages that are inconvenient instead of reading the entire book to understanding the context and what the Bible is trying to convey. And those people are as damaging to Christianity as those of atheists. Sadly, I felt that most, if not almost all Christians fall into that category.
I am not a Bible scholar by any stretch of imagination, but if you read the entire Leviticus, it is clear that this passage speaks directly to the practice of local Pagan rituals, and not of the act itself. It also talks extensively about other forms of acts that are "deserving" of death. The death is not for the actions itself, but a direct reflection to the holiness of God. The punishment is a direct reflection of the seriousness of the crimes of turning your back to God.
Well that didn't take long.
You ought to have the right to shoot these picket fences nutcases activists right in the head.
Really the first time I have ever heard of this, pretty extreme if you ask me.
In fact, the Pope has acknowledged climate change as an issue.
No, they have 1st amendment rights just like we do. If insecure mainstream Christians didn't get so hot and bothered by the Westboro Baptists and just ignored them, they'd run out of money and wouldn't be able to travel around the country to start up.
I believe that we are in our infancy as a species and have yet to even barely grasp the complexities of our world and in extension our universe. I also believe that the facts that we have currently gathered with our scientific understanding points to the world being much older but I also believe that it doesn't necessarily discount the Christian religion nor the existence of intelligent design.
Because if there's one person U.S. evangelicals take their marching orders from, it obviously would have to be the Pope.
Here's a recent quote from tea party congressman, Joe Barton:
“I would point out that if you’re a believer in in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”
Oh man... That got a good laugh from me lol...
Well then why do they hate lesbians? I see nothing in those passages that says anything about gay women. Also, what if the guy never s the woman in the ass, but will only a man in the ass. He isn't ing the dude the same way as the woman therefore according to that passage, he hasn't done anything wrong.
This is the problem with religious extremists. If they are going to defend their baggery by using literal text, they need to make sure there is no way to spin it as I just did.
I don't keep a list of facts in regards to Climate Change on my person in the off chance a discussion delves into it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...policy-makers/
When you say religious extremists, are you including atheism as well?
Your usage of that site is a hilarious example of confirmation bias.
Let me rephrase it to belief extremists.
I like how it calls itself "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.
Christians love coming up with terms and labels that make their groups sound a lot more popular and credible than they actually are, for example the Christian group that only has a few thousand followers on twitter but calls itself "One Million Moms".
but according to avante only islamists act like this
Then,
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10...climate-report
I just vaguely remembered some scientific organizations skewing their numbers so that they would receive more funding which is often a serious problem in the scientific community. So I just googled it and listed a site that seemed to have the a link to the news story. If you want to have a serious discussion about the validity of the originally proposed model of climate change then let me eat and take care of some and I'll get back to you with a list of facts and arguments from both sides of the dilemma.
Nothing says serious discussion like a site that has an outright lie on its front page about being "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"
I feel like religion still fits but that's just a bit of philosophical word play.
If you're just going to nitpick bits and pieces of a post then what's the point?
It's not a bit and piece. A site's cover page being an outright lie to deceive people into thinking it's a credible source demonstrates how much of a joke climate change deniers are.
Simple philosophic logic discounts the Christian religion
I also find it hilarious that someone using a few scientists who changed numbers around to get funding as proof that global climate change (a theory believed by thousands of scientists) is a hoax is accusing someone else of nitpicking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions