• 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!

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
When was the term Jew, Judaism or Jewish used in the first 5 books of the Bible? These were Israelites not Jews.

I'm not sure, I'll have to do a bit of research. However Judaism is based on the Torah, which was given to all tribes. Maybe that the term was used beginning with Judah's blessing where he was given to hold the scepter of Israel for all eternity (just a guess).
 
Is there any equivalent and overtly stated precept of violence in Christian theology or uniquely Christian scripture, excepting the crucifixion of Christ
?



Try reading the Old Testament when you have time.

Stoning someone to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath sounds pretty violent to me.
 
Actually it not rationalizing, it is identifying what I am reading and understanding it prior to forming an opinion. You'd do well to try that!

No, it's just you trying to get around the parts of the book that you don't like. The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice anyhow.
 
Try reading the Old Testament when you have time.

Stoning someone to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath sounds pretty violent to me.

I have read it in its entirety, examples from the OT do not constitute Christian Theology. You have just committed a very common error that atheists are usually guilty of, equating ancient cultural Judaism with Christian theology. Nothing could be further from truth, and the difference is the exact reason that Caiaphas sought the life of Jesus. OT passages are not uniquely Christian, many are simply historical many, are instructive but they are not directive to the Christian faith.
 
Last edited:
No, it's just you trying to get around the parts of the book that you don't like. The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice anyhow.

Absolutly not. Again you show your lack of knowledge. The Bible is not multiple choice it is systematic, how ever it is also a collection of separate books that were given to different people at different times for different purposes. It is an error to conflate the immediate purpose of the writing given to it's original recipients with the theological value of the particular book when read in concert with the others. You lack basic interpretive skills, you lack a systematic understanding of scripture, and you my friend are the one cherry picking those things that suit you.

With respect to uniquely Christian Theology, Ie New testament theology, there is no such histories or directives to the "church" is there?
 
I have read it in its entirety, examples from the OT do not constitute Christian Theology. You have just committed a very common error that atheists are usually guilty of, equating ancient cultural Judaism with Christian theology. Nothing could be further from truth, and the difference is the exact reason that Caiaphas sought the life of Jesus. OT passages are not uniquely Christian, many are simply historical many, are instructive but they are not directive to
the Christian faith.


Tell your story to all of the right-wing evangelicals. I'm not interested.



"In truth there was only one christian and he died on the cross."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Tell your story to all of the right-wing evangelicals. I'm not interested.



"In truth there was only one christian and he died on the cross."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

So you make a statement of equivalency amongst religions, then fail to back up your assertion when questioned. I guess you are right, you're not interested... in the truth.
 
So you make a statement of equivalency amongst religions, then fail to back up your assertion when questioned. I guess you are right,
you're not interested... in the truth.



Wrong.

I'm interested in the truth, but you don't have it,

If you did you wouldn't be wasting your time here.




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

I'm interested in the truth, but you don't have it,

If you did you wouldn't be wasting your time here.




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie

I'm not the one that made the ridiculous claim that all religions are peaceful, that was you. We all know (and you have shown with your previous posts) that is a false equivalency, just admit it.
 
Back
Top Bottom