• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Facing Uncomfortable Truths

Viktyr Gehrig said:
Tell that to the ****ing Christians.
Click to expand...

"ye shall know them by the fruit" In other words alot of people claim to be Christians but if they do un Christian things they are not Christians. Some of the worst people I have met in my life call themselves Christians but their actions indicate otherwise.
 
Paschendale said:
Deuteronomy 13:6-11

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Literally commands you to kill anyone who even suggests worshiping another god to terrorize future dissenters into submission.

Try again.
Click to expand...

That is the law for God's chosen people, the Israelites. It is not the law for Christians.

So no, you try again.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
So you just completely neglect the OT? Interesting. Or is it more of a "cherry-picking" type deal?

Oh, and here's this:
Click to expand...
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

That is concerning the wrath of God and does not encourage or command man killing anybody.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
So you just completely neglect the OT? Interesting. Or is it more of a "cherry-picking" type deal?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about neglecting the OT? It is a historical account of our God and the prophecies leading up to Christs birth. It is not however intended to be the law for other than the ancient Israelites.

zgoldsmith23 said:
Oh, and here's this:
Click to expand...

Yea it is a verse talking about God's vengeful wrath. Not quite certain what you are getting at though. It's not telling Christians to go out and do anything wrong.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not entirely true, as the creation and many other parts of the OT are in no way "superceded" by the NT. There are conflicts among many books of the bible, usually expained away as god works in mysterious ways, or some such babble.
Click to expand...

I am very far from a Christian scholar but the way I understand it the new testament is what defines Christianity.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
My mistake, I meant to quote 10 commandments
Click to expand...

Which are in Exodus. And repeated in Deuteronomy. Why is your go to example of Christian morality found in the Jewish holy book?

Black Manta said:
That is the law for God's chosen people, the Israelites. It is not the law for Christians.

So no, you try again.
Click to expand...

Same question. Why is one part of Deuteronomy (or Exodus) the law and other parts aren't?
 
Paschendale said:
Which are in Exodus. And repeated in Deuteronomy. Why is your go to example of Christian morality found in the Jewish holy book?



Same question. Why is one part of Deuteronomy (or Exodus) the law and other parts aren't?
Click to expand...

"The New Testament restates each of the Ten Commandments, either in exact words or in words conveying the same meaning. The inspired writers of the New Testament understood that the law given on Mt. Sinai which was "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10) was NOT abrogated or abolished when Jesus died on the cross."
 
Paschendale said:
Same question. Why is one part of Deuteronomy (or Exodus) the law and other parts aren't?
Click to expand...

Because we are not ancient Israelites. We are gentiles. I mean if you wanted it to apply to you you could become a "noahide" but since the destruction of the temple, even the Jews no longer follow the old law. As for Christians, Jesus fullfilled the old law and prophecies and laid down a new covenant with all men, not just the Jews. I don't understand why rabid atheists find that so hard to understand.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I'll try again. Christians pressured the FCC. Muslims would have drug Janet into the street and stoned her to death, You hate Christians more than Muslims because.....
Click to expand...

I don't hate Christians or Muslims. I think religion is silly and inaccurate. I hate aspects of their religions, the aspects that drive some of them to interfere with other people's rights and well being. Here in the United States, Christians, some conservative Christians that is, have more of a negative affect on my life than Muslims, so I complain about those particular people more than any other religious sect. Not only do they impact us more directly and frequently, they are here in the audience on this forum and need to hear some criticism.

By the way, most of the worlds two billion Muslims don't do stonings.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

That is concerning the wrath of God and does not encourage or command man killing anybody.
Click to expand...

They deserve death - not they deserve death by "god". It's "god's decree." It would appear to me that a "decree of 'god'" is what his will to be done.

Black Manta said:
Who said anything about neglecting the OT? It is a historical account of our God and the prophecies leading up to Christs birth. It is not however intended to be the law for other than the ancient Israelites.

Yea it is a verse talking about God's vengeful wrath. Not quite certain what you are getting at though. It's not telling Christians to go out and do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Do anything "wrong?" :lol: It's not very historical, either. It's a nice story about wrath, jealousy, murder, sex, and conquests, but that's about it. It could quite easily be read to justify the murder of those people.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Do anything "wrong?" :lol: It's not very historical, either. It's a nice story about wrath, jealousy, murder, sex, and conquests, but that's about it. It could quite easily be read to justify the murder of those people.
Click to expand...

So in other words instead of replying to my actual statement and addressing the evidence that shows you were wrong, you are now trying to say people who read an historical or in your case non-historical piece of literature go out and commit crimes etc in the face of overwhelming evidence that is not what the book intended. You would rather place blame on the religion rather than the person who got it wrong or as in your case completely misinterpreted what it said and was presenting.

I will keep that in mind.
 
Black Manta said:
So in other words instead of replying to my actual statement and addressing the evidence that shows you were wrong, you are now trying to say people who read an historical or in your case non-historical piece of literature go out and commit crimes etc in the face of overwhelming evidence that is not what the book intended. You would rather place blame on the religion rather than the person who got it wrong or as in your case completely misinterpreted what it said and was presenting.

I will keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

It could easily be interpreted as such. I actually place the blame on the both simultaneously, nice falsehood there. One it's the person's fault for misinterpreting and, two, if the religion didn't exist, he couldn't have interpreted it as such.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
It could easily be interpreted as such. I actually place the blame on the both simultaneously, nice falsehood there. One it's the person's fault for misinterpreting and, two, if the religion didn't exist, he couldn't have interpreted it as such.
Click to expand...

No it can't, It points out clearly it's intention if you read it in context instead of picking just a few paragraphs from an entire section. Of course that kind of understanding from someone who would rather blame is common, so you are not alone.

As for the religion not existing? What kind of nonsense is that? That would be like saying Charles Manson, would not have murdered those people if the Beetles had not existed. Then blaming the Beetles for the murders he had committed. What utter nonsense.

If religion where to disappear tomorrow guess what would happen? We would be fighting wars over other things. It's not the religions fault man lusts for power and uses anything he can as an excuse. The bloodiest wars ever fought on this planet had nothing at all to do with religion and everything to to with human bigotry, period.

So no, that is just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Black Manta;1061527115 I. The bloodiest wars ever fought on this planet had nothing at all to do with religion and everything to to with human bigotry... So no said:
So how do you separate religious wars..and bigotry...???
Click to expand...
 
Black Manta said:
No it can't, It points out clearly it's intention if you read it in context instead of picking just a few paragraphs from an entire section. Of course that kind of understanding from someone who would rather blame is common, so you are not alone.

As for the religion not existing? What kind of nonsense is that? That would be like saying Charles Manson, would not have murdered those people if the Beetles had not existed. Then blaming the Beetles for the murders he had committed. What utter nonsense.

If religion where to disappear tomorrow guess what would happen? We would be fighting wars over other things. It's not the religions fault man lusts for power and uses anything he can as an excuse. The bloodiest wars ever fought on this planet had nothing at all to do with religion and everything to to with human bigotry, period.

So no, that is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Intentions are subjectively understood without an objective mediator (sorry, probably isn't one). The intention of what, Manta? Saying others are worthy to be put to death? Seems as such according to that passage.

As for the religion not exist, yes. It allows people to justify their actions.

The bloodiest wars? Perhaps. You are equivocating? "Well, wars would still occur with or without it, so what the hell, why not?" THAT is nonsense. Wars would occur with or without religion but it would remove something for humans to quarrel over - do we really want / need another thing for that?
 
Glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand that post.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Intentions are subjectively understood without an objective mediator (sorry, probably isn't one). The intention of what, Manta? Saying others are worthy to be put to death? Seems as such according to that passage.
Click to expand...

This is simply about God's wrath and has nothing to do with people going out and doing anything in the name of God, period. Paul is also referring to the final judgement not literally going out and killing anyone. You probably knew that though.

zgoldsmith23 said:
The bloodiest wars? Perhaps. You are equivocating? "Well, wars would still occur with or without it, so what the hell, why not?" THAT is nonsense. Wars would occur with or without religion but it would remove something for humans to quarrel over - do we really want / need another thing for that?
Click to expand...

Not playing the red herring, straw man game today.

You have no real argument here as I have shown.
 
Black Manta said:
This is simply about God's wrath and has nothing to do with people going out and doing anything in the name of God, period. Paul is also referring to the final judgement not literally going out and killing anyone. You probably knew that though.
Click to expand...

Does it say that? Or do you think it says that?

Not playing the red herring, straw man game today.

You have no real argument here as I have shown.
Click to expand...

I would continue the argument but I have to tow that thread-ban line for the religious protection.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Does it say that? Or do you think it says that?
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the whole thing? Do I really need to post it here?

zgoldsmith23 said:
I would continue the argument but I have to tow that thread-ban line for the religious protection.
Click to expand...

Nice excuse. :lol:

Has nothing to do with the fact that your red herring/strawman game failed.
 
Black Manta said:
Did you bother to read the whole thing? Do I really need to post it here?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. I've read that passage repeatedly, doesn't seem to change.

Nice excuse. :lol:

Has nothing to do with the fact that your red herring/strawman game failed.
Click to expand...

Hahaha - except it's not an excuse. And I didn't employ those fallacies, either.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Yes and yes. I've read that passage repeatedly, doesn't seem to change.
Click to expand...

Well point out where the "wrath of God" becomes our job? Or does it say...

32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

So if I say they deserve death, by Gods righteous decree, I am actually saying... Go out and kill them? That is a stretch man. Especially when taken into the context of Paul's message.

If you look at the beggining...

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

God's plan, not mans plan. It says nothing in the entire chapter about anyone is to do anything. Also no Christian in history has quoted that verse to justify any actions against anyone at all. Please point out where misguided Christians have used this verse to justify actions we would consider wrong? Any fool can quote scripture to justify almost anything they wanted to do wrong. Of course humans have a way of doing that with ANYTHING, not just religion.

Your whole argument is based on the same kind of bigotry you are saying you are rallying against. Two wrongs do not make a right.

zgoldsmith23 said:
Hahaha - except it's not an excuse. And I didn't employ those fallacies, either.
Click to expand...

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic...

zgoldsmith23 said:
Wars would occur with or without religion but it would remove something for humans to quarrel over - do we really want / need another thing for that?
Click to expand...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position...

zgoldsmith23 said:
The bloodiest wars? Perhaps. You are equivocating? "Well, wars would still occur with or without it, so what the hell, why not?" THAT is nonsense.
Click to expand...

That sums that up.
 
Black Manta said:
Well point out where the "wrath of God" becomes our job? Or does it say...

32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

So if I say they deserve death, by Gods righteous decree, I am actually saying... Go out and kill them? That is a stretch man. Especially when taken into the context of Paul's message.
Click to expand...

You're already dealing with inherently irrational people, so let's not act like it's THAT big of a stretch. I'd also like to add that, if you believe they deserve death, then why don't you follow through with your beliefs? That shows an inherent lack of courage of one's convictions.

Anyway, if it's "god's decree," then it is his will. It shows future action, no?

If you look at the beggining...

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

God's plan, not mans plan. It says nothing in the entire chapter about anyone is to do anything. Also no Christian in history has quoted that verse to justify any actions against anyone at all. Please point out where misguided Christians have used this verse to justify actions we would consider wrong? Any fool can quote scripture to justify almost anything they wanted to do wrong.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Of course humans have a way of doing that with ANYTHING, not just religion.
Click to expand...

But does another means really need to be there? Can't we start eliminating a few of them? Would that be so terrible?

Your whole argument is based on the same kind of bigotry you are saying you are rallying against. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

:lol: "wrongs" :lol:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic...
Click to expand...

Asking a side question, isn't necessarily a red herring. Sorry you're wrong.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position...

That sums that up.
Click to expand...

Again, I summed up your argument, basically. If you disagree, then correct it.
 
LowDown said:
Facing uncomfortable truths | The Jewish Chronicle



Heh.

Maybe Christians ought to behead a few of these guys to get some of the kind of fear and respect that Islam enjoys. It wouldn't take many -- most of these guys are cowards and poseurs who can be shut down by the least hint of risk.
Click to expand...

I need to read the actual article before forming an opinion. But if true, it was a rather cowardly copout
 
lizzie said:
In my almost-55 years of life, I have yet to meet anyone who claims to be atheistic, who has not examined the issue seriously, and has not explored various avenues in the arena of religion and religious thought.
Click to expand...

I have made the opposite observation in my environment. Atheism is the default worldview for most people here in Berlin, Germany ... in the eastern part even more than here in the western part of the city. Back in elementary school, the two or three pupils in my class who still claimed to believe in God were ridiculed just like the pupils who still believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

When I tell people I have joined a religious community and believe in God, many look at me in a flabbergasted manner and can't believe it. And there are many vocal atheists who attack religion, yet don't know much about it, except other attacks they've read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom