how the hell does that make it any better? if your corrupt dogmas compel people to respond to critique with violence, or even righteous indignation, then it's clear we don't do nearly enough critiquing. remember .... you guys are the ones forming world views based on talking snakes, 900 year old drunks, and genocidal sky fairies. nowhere to hide.
Know plenty of the above, guess what they have a sense of humour .. just as I do when they return it back with jokes etc about my heritage and beliefs.
Herein lies the problem, you don't understand or pretend not to understand the difference .. funny thing is you keep on about asking Muslims about bombing etc, please do show me anywhere in the Qu'ran where bombing is mentioned, or killing humanity for that matter .. now what you have written IS snide as it has no factually reference to ANYTHING that appears in their holy book. Can you deny that every single thing in the OP is part of the Christian holy book?
you're REALLY reaching. I'm afraid an accident of birth (being black, or female) isn't even in the same universe as "I choose to believe in violent sky pixies". the latter deserves all the contempt it gets, and like I said, it's long overdue.
Oh, my contempt is very honest Why do christians feel the overwhelming need to control...even others opinions and speech......?
because it's the only thing that's kept their death cult alive for all these centuries. the smarter ones know outright that freedom to critique means the death knell, the less smart have an urge to fight off questions, but probably don't understand why. no doubt programmed in at sunday school (don't question god ... on pain of eternal torture).
I wish I had a mouse with my laptop. Would make it a lot easier to organize my replies. So, everyone bear with me. [MENTION=61531]crank[/MENTION] - Historical injustices made correct by modern internet mockery? Overdue? I don't have time in the day to correct this. Toward your muslim quid pro quo address, I, in essence, agree with you. We do need to do more critiquing. My contention is that this needs to be done with honest intellectual debate, not mockery (ie your sky fairie comment). Toward your "double standard" post, I can only say that because I believe in something doesn't mean that I must treat all beliefs equally, but that I must treat people equally, or more precisely, that I cannot allow governmental discrimination, and that I shouldn't permit social double standards. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If mockery is the direction that we SHOULD go, then we shouldn't reserve it for certain groups. [MENTION=61087]Fugazi[/MENTION] - I'm not saying that your jokes are wrong, or that "all your friends" aren't totally cool with you mocking them. I'm just stating my opinions from my experience. That's it. My opinion is that your jokes aren't jokes, but barbs, and that society itself doesn't tolerate barbs in all directions. If you contention is that society doesn't treat these groups differently, and doesn't allow more barbs to flow in certain directions, then yes, you are dishonest, or worse, uninformed. To point that out isn't unChristian. If you aren't aware of how Christians address dishonesty, a more thorough reading of the New Testament is in order for you. I thought you were an expert or something?
Ok, I was actually enjoying this debate until this: At first I simply suspected dishonesty, and accused as such. Now I know there is dishonesty going on here. Nothing but pure disdain. This isn't even close to being what I'm doing. I have never even come close to saying that you should be allowed to say something, or make any move to control your speech. This is pure strawman. Allow me to quote what I have said about your right to say this stuff, in this very thread no less: An obvious attempt to stifle free speech! Now that's funny.
Firstly my friends do not look upon things like this as mocking them Secondly 90% of humour is seeking out the idiosyncrasies of others and creating sceneries from them. Thirdly, there is not one single thing in the OP that any person cannot look up in the bible, NONE of the things you have stated have any reference to ANY revered book or ideology of the people mentioned. There is no revered reference to bombing or killing humanity in the Qu'ran. There is no revered reference to hanging slaves or slavery at all in black history, so your attempts at comparisons fail. That is not what you did, your first response to the OP was measured and gave factual information .. everything since then has been an onslaught of attacks based on your assumptions of me. Fine that is your opinion and you have every right to express it.. but don't try to parade your assumptions as fact. No matter the group, humour is universal . .I suggest you watch a comedy show and just see how many various groups are involved in the comedians repertoire. Oh come off it, Christians are no more honest than any other person.. You seem to be under the impression that the point of the OP was to attack Christians . .it was not, you may choose to believe that or not
I have engaged you on your comments, I have not accused you of trying to stifle anything . .what other people post is up to them. My personal opinion is that you are over reacting and reaching to try and discredit me personally .. So for the third time of asking please show me anywhere in the Qu'ran that states anything about bombing or killing humanity and does the bible say the things stated in the OP or not?
Its not Christians you should be addressing these questions too. Its practicing Jews that these questions really pertain too....and I've always been curious and have never had a good answer that makes sense from Jewish people on why these things now don't petain to them, but I'm not incessently obsessed with bringing it up..
hmm . .so fundamental Christians don't consider the OT relevant then is that what you are saying? Really, care to point to any other thread of mine where it is brought up?
Its brought up a lot by people who target Christianity. Its a constant type of thread. Once a month by someone. But perhaps you missed those. Yes, Christians do consider the old testament relevant. It is the part of the Bible that allows us to know and understand God, what is righteous, what isn't and helps us understand the world and the reality which we live. Fundamental Christians read the old testement in the context of how it was written. Much of what you have there in your post is God's covenant with the Hebrews---and the history of God's relationship with the Hebrew people. Christians believe that Jesus is the new covenant--the next step in God's plan giving all people the opportunity to have a relationship with God. http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-jeremiah-31-31-34.htm My question---has been why Jews are never asked these types of questions. No one seems motivated to ask, but that would be the logical group to ask.
Sorry but how is asking questions (with a humorous twist) targeting Christianity? Having looked through the list of threads I see little that corresponds to this one, could you link to the past 6 months worth. If it is relevant then so are the questions to Christians, are the things listed righteous? So it isn't literal then and requires interpretation. So no literal relevance to Christians then, and as stated in your link " It is his promise of a new covenant, different from, and much improved, from the covenant made at Mount Sinai.", does this mean that the ten commandments are no longer part of the new covenant, and if they are could you point out where that is stated in the NT? Point out any people of the Jewish faith and I'll ask them.
I assume your labeling as a death cult is in reference to Christians being killed. Webster's gives a defining element of the word cult as a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion. The movement started off with 12 disciples and the early church with 120. Among these, they were beaten, flogged, stoned, imprisoned, crucified and crucified upside down.
So the parts of Leviticus that deal with homosexuality are no longer valid? Erased? Because I sure see a lot of fundamentalists hanging their hats on those abominations.
Homosexuality isn't just an old law thing. It's covered specifically in the new testament. Common misconception, though. Further, directive for a man to take a woman as a wife predates the old covenant in the bible.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Paul never knew Jesus and had very little contact with the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples). As far a the law was concerned the disciples disagreed with Pauls claims Paul made up his own religion as he went. HIs "Salvation by faith alone" teaching was condemned directly and vehemently by James (brother of Jesus) -See James 2. Pauls "Sola Fide" doctrine also contradicts the words of Jesus in the Synoptics in relation to salvation. See Matt 5-7 aka Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps this is why most of Christianity does not accept this doctrine. You need to clarify what you mean by Atheism becoming confrontational. For sure Christianity is confrontational (Trying to force religious beliefs on others though force of law) but I do not see Atheism doing the same.
Well, those descriptors cover just about everyone That kingdom must be a small place. That is, unless you are washed, apparently. Is that right? So homosexuals can't be washed? But that's beside the point about gays in general. So what if they can't inherit the Kingdom of God? Does that justify denying them certain privileges while they're on the earthly existence? And lastly, who wrote Corinthians and when?
