The Bible

What is up with the constant Jew/Hitler propaganda? There are other groups that were really oppressed and suffered more than they did. How about using some of them as talking points sometime?

 

Who was oppressed more than the 1940's jews.
Stalin killed the wealthy farmers, and other groups, but we an only guess at the groups and numbers.

 

Romans Chapter 11

 

trump fits the definition of a biblical demon.

 

Belgian king Leopold II killed 10-12 million black Africans and stole their country blind. They are still suffering from it.

The Catholics invaded Mexico and South America and killed millions of Indians.

The US government waged a war of extermination against the Indians.

The Jews of 1940 are just a blip on the screen. They were legitimate domestic enemies of Germany and had been trying to destroy it for years prior to WWII.

And black people in America were so oppressed during WWII that the government wouldn't let them kill white Nazis who were trying to conquer the world or even let them built weapons to fight them. And of course there is the slavery and Jim Crow things.

And of course there are countless other examples of assorted genocides and atrocities against other groups by various people around the world. Like the Israelis oppressing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

 

So you couldn't think of any I see. And went on a rant instead.


If we are going back into history, Muslims killed about 270 million people.
Higher body count than anyone.

 

Ah yes. Paul and his 'vision'. It's odd, perhaps not, that you accept Paul's 'vision' but reject Mohammeds 'contact' with Gabriel giving a new vision presented to the world, or the Mormons, or the JW's. All have started God's 'updated' vision for men. Paul is following Jewish belief that all nations will eventually accept their god in the end times. Paul's 'vision' updates Judaism.
You simply study what you want to believe and ignore the rest.
Study the OT prophecies concerning the Nativity story. They do not relate to Jesus in any way. Paul accepted them because they were part of his 'indictrination'. You've been taught the same. The church taught this down the centuries.
You've been taught that the OT says that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem Ephratah. It doesn't. It says he will come from Bethlehem. Even the Jews believe their Messiah will come from Bethlehem - as it was the place where David was supposedly born - but he will not be divine.

The point of the phrase is that this future ruler, who may indeed be the Messiah, will have come forth from Bethlehem because his royal origins are “of old, from days of yore,” i.e., from the old and venerable House of David, and David was born in Bethlehem. In other words, according to the most probable reading of this verse, it not only fails to say that the Messiah is everlasting, it doesn’t even say that he will be born in Bethlehem. The point is that Bethlehem will be his indirect point of origin because it was the birthplace of the father of his dynasty. Jews don’t have to insist on this last point; the Messiah may very well be born in Bethlehem. It’s just that the verse probably doesn’t say this.

 

Context. The meaning of a sentence and understanding of a word/sentence can often be in the context of the WHOLE scenario.

Someone tells me she's heard of a couple who have been trying for a baby for 4 years without luck. 'How sad'..
But she doesn't know them. She's only heard half of the story.
I know the couple already have 2 children naturally but have been trying to adopt a homeless, unwanted baby. So far the Adoption Societies have not found a 'suitable' baby. I know the whole context/truth - she has 'the wrong end of the stick'.

That's how Christianity came into being. Verses taken out of context.

 

All have sinned, but that does not mean nobody can judge. The Bible - both New and Old Testaments - demand people judge others, Christianity and Judaism are all about judgement particularly judging a persons position (including their actions)with respect to sin and salvation. The idea that Christians are commanded not to judge is false and is usually based on incomplete readings of Matthew 7:1 and John 8:7.

 

As an agnostic now If I remember rightly a man in the church who is bringing Jesus into disrepute must be told. If he continues he can be dismissed from the Church. 'Discipline' must be maintained. Discipline often results in judgement and punishment.

 

Why stop at Muslims? How many people have been killed by religion in general?

 

And why not include the 'religion' of atheistic naturalism in that data set?

Most people get killed by other people. Some ideologies may include provisions for genocide or creating a 'New Man!', but it still takes a person to formulate the ideology, and to carry it out.

Is it a contest? To see which ideology has the most power in wiping out inferiors? Or which one has tried to implement their feelings of superiority the most? Or are we merely feeling sorry for those less evolved, unable to survive fitly?

Which ideologies, from your education, are compelled to kill their opponents, or weaker humans, or ideological enemies?

From the last few centuries, i would rank them thusly:
1. Communists, trying to evolve a New Man.
2. Nazis, trying to evolve a Master Race.
3. Muslims, trying to establish an Islamic caliphate.
4. Japanese, trying to eradicate inferiors, and establish a Japanese empire.

..so far down on the list, it hardly bears mentioning, you would find,
*- American patriots, forcing their system of governance on others.
*- Christians, forcing their religious beliefs on others.

The typical phony narrative, from progressive indoctrinees usually has these lists reversed, for propaganda purposes.

 

If we are going back in History who knows how many people Muslims killed. Do your figures include how many Muslims have been killed by Muslims? Over 1400 years have historians been around to count the dead? Do we have historical registers of births, marriages and deaths? Any figures given over that period are simply guesstimates. .

 

I am in total agreement with that. We judge actions....opposed to judging and then condemning individuals. We are commanded to discern. I know exactly what you are saying. So my take on it is this..... Jesus saw the hypocrisy of the men that brought forth this women caught in the act of adultery. Where was the man? It takes two to commit adultery. He showed mercy to the women and got her out of a tight spot. He appealed to the accusers shame for being such hypocrites. Jesus DID judge the women's actions however, He told her " sin no more."

 

Because it is not a religion. What a stupid question.

 

Actually, most wars are over resources, ideologies and religions are just excuses.

 

He got heavy-handed and upped it to 10 generations.

 

That is too funny. Think about it.

 

probably depends on the writer, they did not have an internet back then so less people double checking their work, that is why Jesus last words are different depending on the writer, many errors could be corrected if someone could go back in time and fix them

but if this was really the word of God, they would already be correct

 

What tight spot? No-one was going to stone her to death. That wasn't allowed by the Romans. She was obviously known to all. All he did was showed up the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders. Did the woman 'sin no more'. Who knows?
And before you come back with the stoning of Stephen. Though this did happen, we don't know when. It was illegal and done by a mob. We are not told whether repercussions were felt by the Jewish leaders but towards the end of his period as Governor Pilate's influence in Palestine was waning. He was eventually recalled to Rome after slaughtering Samaritans. The theory is that this was during this time. The problem with Biblical events is the lack of times between them - tied in with the fact that we know that Jesus was crucified around 27-28CE and not the 33CE once assumed.

 

This post is akin to Biblical....fake News. What I don;t get about you, Trevor, is unlike several of the downright, self admitted "godless", you buy into certain Biblical facts, but twist them to your own satisfaction. The "godless", at least, count it ALL as made up fiction. Why would the Jews be able to stone Stephan, but not get away with stoning the women caught in the act of adultery? How can you accept the fact that Stephen was stoned, but refute the Acts of Paul/Saul which was instrumental in the Acts of the early Church? How do you reference even the crucifiction yet deny the very fact for which Jesus was crucified which was that He claimed to be equal with God? I can agree with you on the date discrepancy as I believe Jesus was born before ! AD, but those are things not spelled out in the Bible. Those are contemporary mistakes that don't change a thing. However, your seemingly "superior knowledge" as to what is true and untrue in the Biblical account is very peculiar..

 

It often is found under the guise of "Secular Humanism" ...which is a religion.

 

Very good point!

 

No it isn't, what a goofy thing to say.

 

Of course it is a religious belief, and as much a 'religion!' as any other belief system regarding the Big Questions of the Universe.

Denial does not change the obvious reality of atheistic naturalism as a belief, and the basis for many of the atrocities from the early 20th century until now.

Your ad hom just exposes the lack of reason.