Reply With Quote
Oh ok, so you know EXACTLY what it means. Did you go to school for that? I'm just asking because I don't see where it is telling people to kill them. I'm not a translator though so I could be wrong.
wow they were 10 and even got press? Broussard sharing contacts TBH
Oh ok, so you know EXACTLY what it means. Did you go to school for that? I'm just asking because I don't see where it is telling people to kill them. I'm not a translator though so I could be wrong.
I already did. Read the part about punishment of striking a slave. You just refused to read it, and then immediately said I didn't answer you question while you quoted me. What am I supposed to do? Stuff it down your brain?
And yes, a good insult is a surefire way to get a debate going.
What was that supposed to mean? That proof of non-existence is supposed to be the default position and a proof of existence is required first?
S&G was wiped off based on their overall evils and possible influence. It was not specifically destroyed due to sexual acts.
Please explain logically.
considering the Bible has been ridiculously mistranslated by King James' ordained crew among many other translations, I'd say my translation is a good as any.
Here's the literal translation from Young's literal Bible:
Leviticus 20:13
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.<<<
We can go round and round what "put to death" and "their blood is on them means, but I think it's pretty clear.
......unless you're desperately trying to hold on to your Christian belief system in which case you can make it as murky as you need to.
Actually if God cared, he would have skipped the earth part and had us all in Heaven from day 1.
the best part is that loving caring God also created an eternal fiery torture chamber.
If that isn't caring, I don't know what is!
Did I miss the part where you explained why God condones slavery?
Let me know when you post something worth reading. I just wasted a few seconds. K thanks.
No, I don't think I will because I don't care about you. Sorry.
Sorry, but after 16 years of Roman Catholic education and an undergraduate minor in biblical theology, I do not accept the fact that I lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events.With just a moderate knowledge of history, this proves out as an extraordinarily untrue statement. From right out of the gate, starting in the 3rd century AD as Christianity gained political power in the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman empire, the fanaticism produced by the certainty they were right by divine knowledge while everyone else was wrong, and wrong in the most significant way possible, where the fate of the soul and existence were concerned, justified the Christians to act in unimaginably cruel ways, turturing and murdering countless thousands of people in the subsequent centuries. To run down some specifics, Christian "values" justified the enslavement and massacre of the brown people in the New World, for instance in the rubber plantations in South America. It was used to justify the massacre of Native Americans in North America. It was used to justify a century of enslavement of Africans.
In fact and reality, the only reason someone like yourself is able to blithely talk about "hatefulness" as being the "an hesis of Christianity" is because of the centuries of work that non-theologically-minded people have devoted to civilizing the Christians, by convincing them of the necessity of doubt and humility, and most of all of tolerance. For the vast majority of it's history, Christianity had nothing to do with those concepts, and in fact and reality was no different that the Muslim fanatics of our present day.
I so rarely bother letting myself get pulled into this type of "discussion" on an internet message board, because people so often lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events, but I guess sharing is caring and what not...
I do not disagree with any of your factual examples of when Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism was used to justify hateful and inhuman acts against not only people who were not Christians, as you pointed out, but toward other Christians as well. For example, the wars between the religious factions of Christianity that were waged during the years following Martin Luther's reformation, the hideous acts of barbarism by the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. etc. etc.
All of these things, as well as all of the things that you mentioned, were done in the name of Christianity.
So is what Westboro does.
My point is that regardless of whether or not the people of Westboro or the Inquisition or the Religious wars of Europe in the 1600's and 1700's call themselves Christian, they are the an hesis of the Christian doctrine.
I sometimes think that the Roman Church is guiltier than any other organization in the history of man for the degradation and brutalizing of human beings, particularly women.
That does not make Christianity horrible. It makes those who practice a corruption of Christianity horrible. I do make a distinction.
LOL I have no problem with the gays. I'm talking about translation homie. Believe it or not there are some Christians that actually live 2 Timothy 2:15 and don't just read it blindly and say oh ok let's kill the gays. There are words that have been translated differently that really alter meanings. For example your dueteronomy reference, one way it is interpreted is sexual when some people say that the actual verse talks about abusive sexual acts.
As for your youngs translation, another way it has been translated is "A man shall not lie with another in the bed of his wife, for this is an abomination..."
It depends on how the words were translated by the group translating it. Just like we have words that are spelled the same and mean different things they did back then too.
In all honestly I don't even care that much. It just annoys me how both groups Super Christians and Super Atheists argue and hate each other without even researching or knowing what they are talking about. You both sound like idiots.
I honestly don't know much about them except that they are obnoxious picketers. Exactly have they done that is corrupt?
Tie in a Bible verse to back it up, please.
I shouldn't have to be an expert. All powerful, all caring, unchanging God should be able to make these rules timeless and easy to understand.
Common sense says mankind made the Bible up.
Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes sexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past.
Sorry to butt in, but I felt my opinion might be worthwhile to share. I don't believe that a belief should be maintained because of its perceived effect of not allowing a person to do "horrible things". In my mind, a belief should be identifiable to the individual and can only be shared if the members fully understand and follow the faith's rules and guidelines. So in regards to Christianity, the followers of this foundational belief system should follow the faith's rules and guidelines. Period. One of the largest underlying principles of the Christian religion is to not judge others. Anyone who does and feels that they must do "God's work" by killing, torturing, beating, and in this case - picketing in front of the Thunder's stadium in response against Jason Collins coming out, are not Christians. I'm not saying they are not true Christians, they aren't Christians at all.Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes sexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past.
Well said.Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes sexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past.
Christians worship God.
God's rule is to kill the gay amongst a great number of crazy ed up Old Testament rules. Period.
Round and round.
What is the deal with atheists and their obsession with a spaghetti monster?
It is known that Jesus abolished many of the laws of the Old Testament by fulfilling the prophecy of his coming. This has been discussed.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The next verse: 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The law was not to be changed until he fulfilled it. Christians believe that He fulfilled it upon his death.
It's just a nod to the tenets of logic. There is no more evidence for the existence of god than there is for the existence of a spaghetti monster. It's not an obsession, just a matter of language usage.
You know what would be funny? If somewhere in the universe there really is a spaghetti monster that was all powerful. Wouldn't that be a trip? :Lmao
I am talking about the context of the teachings on rape and murder in the Bible, not just slavery.
And your excuse on the slavery issue is pathetic.
They should not be punished = They should not be punished.
And the fact that God would allow prisoners of war to be enslaved is sickening in itself.
Now, coward, please give me the proper context in which sexuals should be put to death. And the proper context in which an unruly should be put to death. Stop dodging my requests.
I'll call a coward like you a coward when you keep acting cowardly.And yes, a good insult is a surefire way to get a debate going.
No, coward. The default position is non-belief. Something should be beloved only when it has met it's burden of proof. Your God has not met the burden of proof. Therefore, your God should not be believed in by any reasonable person.What was that supposed to mean? That proof of non-existence is supposed to be the default position and a proof of existence is required first?
God wants us to believe in him and follow his teachings.
God has infinite power.
God should therefore use his infinite power to convince us (not force us) that he exists.
He hasn't done that, so he doesn't care. , God can't even get his word out effectively, for a supreme being. There is no logical reason why God hasn't convinced us that he exists, if he wanted us to believe. He could no doubt make a far more compelling argument for his existence than you ever could, but he doesn't.
It doesn't make sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
