STEVE: Atheists here are promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.Oh, you must be referring to the documentation that atheists are presently torturing Jesus followers, and uyghur Muslims in atheist and communist China.
an interesting concept..... but history has shown what happens when the numbers of practitioners of any given ideology increases beyond a certain percentage.
Which is why I don't follow man made religious belief.Long before I became a deist, I knew what Christians did do each other over doctrinal differences. French Wars of Religion (3 million dead) and the Thirty Years War (8 million). Or maybe we can agree that psychopaths will use whatever means they find necessary to maintain their hold on power, and what politicians claim to be when they are busy decimating the masses through wars, enslavement, starvation, etc. has more to do with the nature of psychopaths and less to do with the philosophy the psychopath is espousing.
STEVE: Atheists here are promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
ME: Not a single atheist here is promoting the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
STEVE: Ah, you are obviously denying the existence of those atrocities.
Well, if you ever actually learn to comprehend what you read, let me know.No, Steve, I was very explicitly saying that you had no "documentation" or citation or any basis whatsoever for saying, as you did, that "we" promoted or cheered for or supported or minimized the atrocities being committed by Communist China.
There is no possibility that you could mistake that point, so -- as usual -- instead of either acknowledging "no, I have no basis for saying that the atheists here support China" or making an actual case that some atheist here did support China, you make up some crap about what I "must" be referring to, which is of course basically the opposite of what I was actually, obviously, explicitly referring to. Again, no honest person behaves the way you do.
That is what Jesus said in John 10.Are Jesus and the Father YHWH one?
Scary thought, isn't it!If so, when YHWH orders the Israelites to overthrow then Canaanites or Philistines, and slaughter those who disagree with them, would that be the same as Jesus doing it?
I think that it's not a problem.Jesus seems really nice and loving until you get to "the Father and I are one", at which point all of the things done by YHWH's chosen people at the command of YHWH's was also at the command of Jesus.
Wow. . . . You never actually learned how to comprehend what you read, did you?
How on earth did you get out of junior high school?
Or are you?
Well, if you ever actually learn to comprehend what you read, let me know.
Until then, it's not possible to discuss this issue with you.
How is it any more "man made" than any other word? And there's nothing specifically "religious" about the word.Ironically, you're using man made religious words...
Nobody said anything about "old English," but the word has existed for hundreds of years. It's in Shakespeare, for example.that don't actually exist in the old English.
No it wasn't. The two words are quite distinct. "Quoth" just means "said." [See link to Merriam-Webster; go ahead and see if you can find any dictionary which defines it differently.]It was quoteth, not quoth.
No it isn't. I doubt that anybody in the history of the world has used it that way. Feel free to refute me by providing an example.In fact, quoth is a sarcastic use of the word quoteth.
Why is the government's job, as defined by God to fight against evil taken out of context?That's taken completely out of context.
Yep. If you treat me like crap, I'm to show you kindness and goodness.... up to the point where I can no longer tolerate your asinine behavior.Romans 12 says Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 13 goes on to tell a persecuted church to submit to the authorities, not that it's okay for Christians to join the arm of the state to go kill the enemy of the state.
And just war theory is from OT passages that make it clear that their are times the God's followers are just to go kill people, but Jesus never says it's okay to go kill people. See, you want it both ways. When the Christians kill millions in the War of Religion, then they weren't following Jesus, but if they kill millions stopping the Germans, then they are following Jesus. It's inconsistent. I would've had much more respect for you if you actually followed Jesus' teachings on peace, but you pick and choose the things that are okay and the things that aren't to bolster your argument with no consistency behind it. As it stands, the War of Religion was true Christians slaughtering and starving each other over doctrinal differences. Maybe you don't support it because it's 500 years after your time, so you can say it wasn't true Christians then, but I'm sure you have no problem with true Christians dropping bombs on Afghanistan and Iraqi villages, because that's a just war.
How is it any more "man made" than any other word? And there's nothing specifically "religious" about the word.
Nobody said anything about "old English," but the word has existed for hundreds of years. It's in Shakespeare, for example.
"I know not love," quoth he, "Nor will I know it..." -- Venus and Adonis
No it wasn't. The two words are quite distinct. "Quoth" just means "said." [See link to Merriam-Webster; go ahead and see if you can find any dictionary which defines it differently.]
No it isn't. I doubt that anybody in the history of the world has used it that way. Feel free to refute me by providing an example.
This would be the cue for an honest individual to say either "Oops, guess I was mistaken about that" or "no, I was correct, and I can show it using these citations..." You can astound us all by doing either.