• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religions of HATE!

Navy Pride said:
I don't like to get into the teachings of the Bible becasue to be honest with you I am not that versed on them
Click to expand...

Is that your way of saying you don't have to defend the scientific errors, historical misrepresentations, contradictions and outright impossibilities that I'm pointing out?

Navy Pride said:
and I don't think any atheist is either.......
Click to expand...

Any atheist? My disbelief presupposes a misunderstanding? How about those ex-believers, biblical scholars, and former ministers?

Do you think them not to be "well versed" in the bible?

Navy Pride said:
That said I know very well what is a sin and what is not in the eyes of God.............
Click to expand...

And you know this how? If not the bible, do you maintain that it is the infallible word of god?

Navy Pride said:
I think we will find out who is right when we meet our maker on judgment day....
Click to expand...

Christ's apostles thought the same thing, only they thought said day would occur in the lifetime of their generation of Christians.
 
Oxford? Is that the school they send all the wealthy inbred children on that Island off the coast of Europe? I guess if you had the misfortune of being born there Oxford might be something to aspire to. Though I doubt you could unless you were born to the right family.

Cult? Well. People who get together, turn off their brain, close their eyes, get on their knees, start chanting, and claim they sky fairies talk to them I often think of as cultist. Others attempt to label them into more precise categories. Like Christians, Catholics, Islamists, but really, why bother. It's not like I really care if by lumping them all together I offend their "sensibilities"!
 
TheHarshTruth said:
Oxford? Is that the school they send all the wealthy inbred children on that Island off the coast of Europe? I guess if you had the misfortune of being born there Oxford might be something to aspire to. Though I doubt you could unless you were born to the right family.
Click to expand...

The misfortune of being born in Europe? Oxford a yuppie school? Where do you get your delusions?

TheHarshTruth said:
Cult? Well. People who get together, turn off their brain, close their eyes, get on their knees, start chanting, and claim they sky fairies talk to them I often think of as cultist. Others attempt to label them into more precise categories. Like Christians, Catholics, Islamists, but really, why bother. It's not like I really care if by lumping them all together I offend their "sensibilities"!
Click to expand...

Well, you cant be all bad...
 
Navy Pride said:
That said I know very well what is a sin and what is not in the eyes of God.............

I think we will find out who is right when we meet our maker on judgment day....
Click to expand...


Since you know Navy: Is eating a shrimp cocktain before dinner still considered a sin in the eyes of God?
 
Lachean said:
The misfortune of being born in Europe? Oxford a yuppie school? Where do you get your delusions?

Well, you cant be all bad...
Click to expand...

There are schools and there are schools. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oxford are 2nd tier schools meant for kids of rich parents. They turn out the leaders of the market place. Then there are the 2nd tier schools for the smart kids. The UC system and a few others like it. The first rate schools are MIT, Stanford, and the Cal Techs of the world. Everybody who's honest with themselves know this.

Not that schooling helps much in the real world. It's a start though. This guy had all the short comings of a typical weenie from England. I'm kind of glad the cult leader called the cops on him. Too bad he didn't have a shot gun. Well, the two actually need each other. They feed off each other. Makes good story for the mass media channels.
 
TheHarshTruth said:
There are schools and there are schools. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oxford are 2nd tier schools meant for kids of rich parents. They turn out the leaders of the market place. Then there are the 2nd tier schools for the smart kids. The UC system and a few others like it. The first rate schools are MIT, Stanford, and the Cal Techs of the world. Everybody who's honest with themselves know this.
Click to expand...

You want to talk about honesty, and then you say:

TheHarshTruth said:
This guy had all the short comings of a typical weenie from England.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if your prejudices get in the way of my honesty.

TheHarshTruth said:
I'm kind of glad the cult leader called the cops on him. Too bad he didn't have a shot gun.
Click to expand...

Glad he called the cops? Shoot Richard Dawkins? Just what kind of morality is yours?

TheHarshTruth said:
Well, the two actually need each other. They feed off each other. Makes good story for the mass media channels.
Click to expand...

Your mischaracterizations of Professor Dawkins are very telling of your unfamiliarity with him.
 
Lachean said:
Its not as if somewhere in the Bible it says that Christians can jettison said savage passages once they come to the new world and are confronted with modern morality.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is:
Galations 3 said:
10. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
11. Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
12. However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."
13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--
14. in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15. Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
17. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
20. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
21. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Click to expand...

Unbound Bible
 
Binary_Digit said:
Actually, there is:

17. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
Click to expand...

Does not invalidate the previous covenant = Isn't that what I said?

If I understand the language correctly:
the law = New covenant
= came 430 years later
= doesn't invalidate Old covenant

THUS the old rules still apply. Am I missing something here?
 
TheHarshTruth said:
There are schools and there are schools. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oxford are 2nd tier schools meant for kids of rich parents. They turn out the leaders of the market place. Then there are the 2nd tier schools for the smart kids. The UC system and a few others like it. The first rate schools are MIT, Stanford, and the Cal Techs of the world. Everybody who's honest with themselves know this.

Not that schooling helps much in the real world. It's a start though. This guy had all the short comings of a typical weenie from England. I'm kind of glad the cult leader called the cops on him. Too bad he didn't have a shot gun. Well, the two actually need each other. They feed off each other. Makes good story for the mass media channels.
Click to expand...

You seem to be one of those people with all the 'short comings' of a typical moron from a deep, dark hole, scared of those intellectually above you- we get you guys sometimes, but you normally get tired of our debating and, to quote from another poster, "mean-spirited name-calling". If you decide to stay, I would suggest you stop heckling the elderly Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the most prestigious university on Earth. If schooling doesn't help in the real world, you must tell us how you gained your great stores of knowledge, and we can get some help for the real world.:roll:

Moderators: Can I call him a moron in a hole? I know that troll is the preferred term, but "troll in a hole" is far too cheesy. Pleeeease? :mrgreen:
 
moderator, I have no problems with being called whatever. If somebody wants to call me something I'm all for it.

I don't have much respect for oxford or most of the ivy leagues. Stanford is the only decent school in the bunch and I do respect it. Greatly. It's by far the best university in the world. Not oxford. Oxford can and should stay in that little inbred country full of people who can't speak english right.
 
Lachean said:
Does not invalidate the previous covenant = Isn't that what I said?

If I understand the language correctly:
the law = New covenant
= came 430 years later
= doesn't invalidate Old covenant

THUS the old rules still apply. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
The "previous covenant" isn't the OT law, it was a separate agreement between Abraham and God. Part of that deal was that Abraham's "seed" would be blessed, which, according to Paul, meant that Jesus would be a decendant of Abraham ("'And to your seed,' that is, Christ").

That particular verse refers to a law that came 430 years after the covenant was made with Abraham, but the lesson seems to be "the law" was only a tutor until we were blessed with the spirit of Christ, then we no longer needed "the law." The rest of Galations talks about other old laws like circumcision in the same context:

Galations 5 said:
2. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
6. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
Click to expand...

In chapter 4 it says that Hagar the bondwoman's enslaved children represent the covenant handed down to Moses from Mount Sinai (the 10 Commandments plus about 600 others), and the free woman's son represents Jesus ("through the promise"). And we are children of the free woman, not the bondwoman.

Galations 4 said:
21. Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
23. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
24. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
25. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27. For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
28. And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30. But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON,
FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."
31. So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of metaphorical stuff to wade through, but the conclusion I get is that since Jesus was here, we should "cast out the bondwoman" and only practice laws that coincide with the spirit and teachings of Jesus.

Also just so you know, I don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible. I have serious doubts that any of it was inspired by God. I'm just familiar with how some Christians explain why they're allowed to eat pork and mix cotton and polyester in the same wardrobe. :2razz:
 
I dont mean to offend anyone because I'm not really religious but it is a sin to kill a person to my knowledge, so shouldnt they be going after the killers?

And when people do listen to their god and all will everything start to get better or what?

Does all this mean that Bush didn't really make a mistake to go to war he just wanted people to see how the reality of beliving god is???
 
TheHarshTruth said:
It's by far the best university in the world. Not oxford. Oxford can and should stay in that little inbred country full of people who can't speak english right.
Click to expand...
I guess it's now clear to everyone how intelligent your argument is in this particular debate.

Putting down universities and trying to make one better than the other is to dismiss the concept of learning in what is referred to (justifiably so) as HIGHER EDUCATION.

As far as your bigotry against Brits you've clearly identified yourself to everyone here.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Why does it seem that any religion other than Christianity is able to publicly state Hate Speech and that their right to discuss their feelings is acceptable, since we don't want to suppress any people's "Religious Beliefs". But with Christians it is not acceptable. Are other religions more mysterious? What is the psychological thing that allows people to accept this double standard. If we saw thousands of christians in London marching and screaming Death to Islam...Death to Persians! There would be an outcry like you have never heard from our media, but we are shown media of them doing so all of the time, over cartoons, over just about anything.

Is an open discussion even possible?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Strange thread. But I do have a question. Exactly how much hate speech do Christians want to express?
 
TheHarshTruth said:
moderator, I have no problems with being called whatever. If somebody wants to call me something I'm all for it.

I don't have much respect for oxford or most of the ivy leagues. Stanford is the only decent school in the bunch and I do respect it. Greatly. It's by far the best university in the world. Not oxford. Oxford can and should stay in that little inbred country full of people who can't speak english right.
Click to expand...

[insulting]

You, dear sir, are pathetic. You have made no actual argument to support your claims, overriding the prevailing attitude with no more evidence than your word. To top it off, you insult the British, forgetting the massive achievements (invention of computers, anyone?) that have originated in Britain.

Are you a hysterical Stanford grad or something? Why do you suppose Stanford to be such a great school when condemning all of the others? Use logic, please.

[/insulting]
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Why does it seem that any religion other than Christianity is able to publicly state Hate Speech and that their right to discuss their feelings is acceptable, since we don't want to suppress any people's "Religious Beliefs". But with Christians it is not acceptable. Are other religions more mysterious? What is the psychological thing that allows people to accept this double standard. If we saw thousands of christians in London marching and screaming Death to Islam...Death to Persians! There would be an outcry like you have never heard from our media, but we are shown media of them doing so all of the time, over cartoons, over just about anything.

Is an open discussion even possible?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Uh... Buddhists?
Christians that mar the religion with hate speech are unacceptable.
I would expect that christians in their right mind hold themselves to a higher standard than to compare their faith with fanatical islamics to state how simply because Death to islam is not screamed is some how better?
 
Binary_Digit said:
The "previous covenant" isn't the OT law,
Click to expand...

But wasn't the point of quoting that passage to show me that the commandments of the OT no longer apply?

Binary_Digit said:
it was a separate agreement between Abraham and God. Part of that deal was that Abraham's "seed" would be blessed, which, according to Paul, meant that Jesus would be a decendant of Abraham ("'And to your seed,' that is, Christ").

That particular verse refers to a law that came 430 years after the covenant was made with Abraham, but the lesson seems to be "the law" was only a tutor until we were blessed with the spirit of Christ, then we no longer needed "the law." The rest of Galations talks about other old laws like circumcision in the same context:

In chapter 4 it says that Hagar the bondwoman's enslaved children represent the covenant handed down to Moses from Mount Sinai (the 10 Commandments plus about 600 others), and the free woman's son represents Jesus ("through the promise"). And we are children of the free woman, not the bondwoman.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, instead of defending your previous passage, you give me this obscure and blatantly ambiguous parable.

Binary_Digit said:
There's a lot of metaphorical stuff to wade through, but the conclusion I get is that since Jesus was here, we should "cast out the bondwoman" and only practice laws that coincide with the spirit and teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll humor you. New Testament it is then:

Luke 19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Please explain the metaphor Christ was trying to get across in this parable. Please read the preceding lines so that you do not accuse me of taking an absurd line out of context. Its an interesting story about how a rich noble rewards and punishes those who invest wisely with what he has given them.

Binary_Digit said:
Also just so you know, I don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible. I have serious doubts that any of it was inspired by God. I'm just familiar with how some Christians explain why they're allowed to eat pork and mix cotton and polyester in the same wardrobe. :2razz:
Click to expand...

What? You don't think its the inspired word of god? Then why in god's name am I trying to get you to defend it as so.
 
Lachean said:
But wasn't the point of quoting that passage to show me that the commandments of the OT no longer apply?
Click to expand...
Yes and that's exactly what I did. The law became a tutor, we no longer need a tutor now that Christ was here. It's a simple lesson.

Lachean said:
Oh I get it, instead of defending your previous passage, you give me this obscure and blatantly ambiguous parable.
Click to expand...
No, I defended the previous passage by clarifying to you what it means. You made assumptions about it that weren't true, and I so clarified what the message really is and gave you that obscure parable to further support the idea that the law was a tutor and we no longer need a tutor now that Christ was here.

Lachean said:
Alright, I'll humor you. New Testament it is then:

Luke 19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Please explain the metaphor Christ was trying to get across in this parable. Please read the preceding lines so that you do not accuse me of taking an absurd line out of context. Its an interesting story about how a rich noble rewards and punishes those who invest wisely with what he has given them.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the topic. Jesus also acknowleged that slavery was acceptable (in Ephesians, I think), what's that got to do with whether or not the OT laws still apply to us today? You're preaching to the saved if you intend to show me that the Bible isn't necessarily true.

Lachean said:
What? You don't think its the inspired word of god? Then why in god's name am I trying to get you to defend it as so.
Click to expand...
Because you said there is nothing in the Bible that tells people they can forget about the old laws, and I wanted to show you that there actually is.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
What?!?... Ahem

[youtube]gubiP3mP3Ds[/youtube]

And you know whats really nuts, I'm on her side. Within the context of her religious fundamentalist beliefs, everything she says is rational and can be supported by her scripture. Hannity's moderation, his taking the overall message of the new testament and ignoring the rest of his god's commandments, is theologically bankrupt.

Either your bible is the infallible word of god, or it isn't.

She considers the religious moderate types to be Christians in name only because they cherry pick the passages they agree with from the 1st century antiquated barbarism that Fundamentalists take literally.

Its not as if somewhere in the Bible it says that Christians can jettison said savage passages once they come to the new world and are confronted with modern morality.
Click to expand...

lmfao, Phelps has a church consisting of his family members, they are not even representative of Christian fundamentalism let alone Christianity, and in all probablility they're a liberal plant. Furthermore; comparing a church of like 20 people to the millions upon millions of Islamic Fascists is apples an oranges.
 
Binary_Digit said:
That has nothing to do with the topic. Jesus also supported slavery, what's that got to do with whether or not the OT laws still apply to us today? You're preaching to the saved if you intend to show me that the Bible isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the topic. I don't need to show you that "the bible is the infallible word of god" is not true. You already said that you don't think it to be.

I am "preaching to the saved" who cannot answer for its immoral passages, and its contradictions.

Binary_Digit said:
Yes and that's exactly what I did. The law became a tutor, we no longer need a tutor now that Christ was here. It's a simple lesson.

No, I defended the previous passage by clarifying to you what it means. You made assumptions about it that weren't true, and I so clarified what the message really is and gave you that obscure parable to further support the idea that the law was a tutor and we no longer need a tutor now that Christ was here.

Because you said there is nothing in the Bible that tells people they can forget about the old laws, and I wanted to show you that there actually is.
Click to expand...

No, you showed me an obscure passage that MAY be interpreted to say that the agreement between Abraham and God could be forgotten. You keep shifting the focus of your statement from the old testament.

Again I ask you, where can I find that the commandments, and what was considered to be an abomination by god, that we find in the OT, are no longer applicable since Christ's ministry.

And also, can you answer for the inconsistencies in god's morality? I don't buy this "the old laws were a tutor" nonsense. Why would a perfect god allow for such immoral tutoring? Wouldn't he have gotten it right the 1st time?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao, Phelps has a church consisting of his family members, they are not even representative of Christian fundamentalism let alone Christianity, and in all probablility they're a liberal plant. Furthermore; comparing a church of like 20 people to the millions upon millions of Islamic Fascists is apples an oranges.
Click to expand...

Yes! ToT! A real debate!

Okay, first of all I didn't compare them to Islamic Fascists, I merely said that their beliefs can be supported by biblical scripture. Just like Saint Augustine's arguments for the torture of heretics (which laid the foundation for the Inquisition.)

My contempt is for dangerous dogma, which consists of ANY religious fundamentalism.

Second of all, as for her being a liberal plant. She isnt, she's the wife of the nutjob famous for "God Hates Fags".com

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

Not quite an answer to my challenge ToT. The passage you quoted would suggest that it would be just for Christ to fulfill the barbaric morality of the OT because he himself is free of sin.

This is a falsification of morality, and doesn't answer for how it was considered just to god for the people of antiquity to stone adulterers and heretics.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Yeah right....two words for you Navy Pride...BILL CLINTON...tell us all how you love the sinner....:rofl
Click to expand...

I am telling you what the Catholoc Church teaches my left wing friend...Sadly I am imperfect and not without sin and I don't hate Clinton but I think he is a scumbag........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom