The Inquisition Redux

Slyzr

Active member
The term Christian is muchly abused by religious beliefs.

A Christian is anointed of God to be as He is and in His same image that of Love for God is Love. Jesus was not god, he was only like Him by the same SPirit of Love.

Jesus didnt even know God or His heaven until God came to him by His SPirit and opened all of who He is and His heaven to the man. Matt 3:16. These religious cults who classify themselves as Christian do not believe Matt 3:16 at all and make laws to regulate their gods to obey them in their beliefs for one.

They are not subject to the same God who came to Jesus their gods are subject to them.

But your god already said .... you do not matter.


You speak for him, and you are on board with that.

It's kind of like you have been abducted and are going along with it.
 

Slyzr

Active member
It's very poor... not even worth considering, honestly. It's inconsistent, self-contradictory, unverifiable, and illogical, and even when someone takes the time to point it out, you don't seem to even see it... you're a caricature of the very values you claim to be fighting, and that is a deep irony.


BS .......

All you are saying is your Christian values matter more .

even Paiul admitted it with his gospel of death.

Just die ....... be an eternal sacrifice.

It is your spiritual duty.

seriously ...... ????

do you not see a problem with that?
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
BS .......

All you are saying is your Christian values matter more .

even Paiul admitted it with his gospel of death.

Just die ....... be an eternal sacrifice.

It is your spiritual duty.

seriously ...... ????

do you not see a problem with that?

You are not thinking clearly. You say random disconnected things. Perhaps something has affected your thought processes.
 
Nevertheless that is how Christians understand the Bible.
Ask any qualified (non fundamentalist) Bible scholar if the Bible is a unified whole, or better yet, ask a Jewish scholar if the New Testament can be unified with the Hebrew scriptures. They will no doubt agree with me that the Bible is anything but unified. Its sixty six books were written over centuries by different people with different agendas. For example, Christ's version of God differs markedly from Yahweh who was never a set of three persons.
So in order to understand the Bible from the orthodox perspective of Christianity that is the only way to understand it.
Many Christians don't insist that the Bible is a unified whole. The version of Christianity you are referring to is fundamentalism.
So if you take John's texts out of the context of the whole you will come to false understanding of Christian doctrine, this how cults and atheists almost always attack Christianity.
That's a very interesting argument. If you have a library of books, and one proves to be anti-Jewish, then just argue that the rest of the books in that library are not anti-Jewish!
BTW, How can a Jew be anti-jewish?
You may wish to ask John that question (assuming he was a Jew). At that time many Jewish factions rose up in resistance to the Romans, and those factions hated each other about as much as they hated the Romans. So many Jews were hating other Jews. It's possible that by the time John was written, the nascent Christian sect had given up on converting other Jews and started focusing on their need to explain to Gentiles why a Jewish Christ was apparently rejected by his own people. The obvious solution was to smear the Jews as evildoers who wanted to sin more than they wanted God.

You know--they used the same rhetoric against Jews as they do now against atheists.

Anyway, a lot of people can hate the other people in the groups they belong to.
He distinguished Nicodemus because he was open to Christs teachings and was not in favor of executing Jesus.
That makes little sense. If "the Jews" referred to Jewish rulers only, then to call Nicodemus a ruler of the Jews would not distinguish him.
As I stated It is only confusing when taken out of context. Part of this is due to the limiting of the access to the entire scriptures perpetuated by the corrupt leadership of the RCC during the Middle Ages.
You Protestants just love to beat up on the Catholics. You often fail to see the corruption in your own ranks as the many TV-evangelist scandals demonstrate.

In any case, I don't know how the phrase "the Jews" was ever taken out of context or what that even means.
Once the Bible became widely available anti-semitism began to be reduced significantly. Cromwell's England became one of the most Jew tolerant nations at the time after protestants came to power.
I don't know if that's true, but I do know that Martin Luther, the hero of Protestant Bible readers everywhere, called for violence against the Jews in his work The Jews and Their Lies. Here's an excerpt:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Note that Luther was a German, and centuries later his call to violence against Jews was fulfilled in The Night of Broken Glass by Protestant Christians.
As a Christian we are commanded to learn and study His entire word not become obsessed with just one book. Only those looking to justify their sin zero in on small sections of the His word so they can take it out of context.
Did Martin Luther take John out of context? Was he trying to justify his sin?
This has been true of all cults and unbelievers and biblically illiterate Christians. See above about why this period of anti-semitism occurred.
Then it sounds like Protestantism is a cult.
Most evangelicals are great supporters of Israel.
That's not love for Jews but a gleeful anticipation of the apocalypse in which all unconverted Jews will be cast into hell.
Stalin and Hitler believed that their source of morals was reason as well so you are in good company.
I can use reason to disagree with such monsters, and I do. By faith you must uphold everything your God does.
A Christians source of morals is the objective moral character of God.
That's what scares me.
I have been a Christian for over 40 years and I have never met a Christian that enjoyed bashing gays.
I've known at least four devout Christians who hated gays. One of them told me that homosexuals should be shot.
Actually most Christians want Gods best for gays which is a sexual life based on their God created anatomy in biological marriage in this life and life eternal with God and his people in the next life. If Christians hated gays they would never say anything about their lifestyle and just let them all go to hell.
How people have sex is none of your business. You Christians are not exactly perfectionists at it considering the divorce statistics and all the sex scandals.
Under the new covenant stoning homosexuals is a violation of Christian teaching.
You're making that up. The demand to have homosexuals cruelly bashed to death by rocks tossed by mobs of savages was never rescinded.
 

Slyzr

Active member
You are not thinking clearly. You say random disconnected things. Perhaps something has affected your thought processes.

OK .......

So if Paul say's be an eternal sacrifice; and I say "no thanks".

and you say yippy skippy .....

Who is the one not thinking clearly?

Maybe your dizerner button has got of kilter?


Eternal death is living?

Seriously?

And I'm the one "randomly disconnected".

welcome to Satan's gambit.
 
Last edited:

Towerwatchman

Active member
Yes. People are people and killing is killing. The only exception I can think of is the killing of an attacker bent on the murder or some other serious harm of an innocent, defenseless person if killing him is the only way to stop him.

Legally and politically speaking, yes, only authorities are normally seen as having the right to kill, but of course there are many exceptions to this rule.

Actually, I'd say that in a "just war" it is good to subdue any power that is bent on death and destruction. Killing members of that power should only be used as a last resort if it is absolutely necessary.

What is "proper authority"? Based on what I've seen of Christian apologetics, proper authority is whatever God wants to do.

Bingo! You denounce bodily mutilation but make an exception for what God commands. Thank you for that example of divine-command morality.

Origen was a prolific Christian writer and scholar who knew the Bible very well. He took Christ's commands very seriously and went ahead and castrated himself for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." I can obviously understand why most Christian men don't castrate themselves like Origen did, and their desire to avoid traumatizing themselves that way no doubt leads them to insist that Christ meant "eunuch" as a metaphor. A literal interpretation is a bit more serious.

I don't see how it's a metaphor. Why can't a man cut off his testicles for the kingdom of heaven? Why not just say that Christ's death on the cross was just a metaphor?

Origen didn't ignore Christ's laws! Unlike most Christians who are so full of excuses for ignoring Christ's injunctions that they end up living like anybody else, Origen lived the life of a Christian. Heck, the poor guy went barefoot. He may have been crazy, but nobody can accuse him of being a hypocrite.

So your idea of justice is to hurt people. I don't see it that way. I think justice is to make amends as much as possible. It makes no sense to kill people because all you end up with is dead people which isn't likely to make the world a better place.

Actually, I can't think of any God of true peace and love that people worship, and it doesn't appear that any religion has ever thought up such a God. Religious people use words like peace and love a lot, but those words tend to be bereft of substance and meaning.

I don't usually answer loaded questions, but I can see that you feel unloved. In lieu of a debate aimed at finding the truth of these issues, you want to be coddled and reassured in your beliefs. You want me to pat you on the pack and tell you that you just might be right! I'm not going to do that. I'm here to debate by using the most pertinent facts and employing the best reasoning I can muster. If your beliefs cannot stand up under such scrutiny, then you'd best keep them to yourself.
Typical Athiest. Nothing good can come if the will is wrong, and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give plentiful information for misinterpretation.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Are you a parent?
How many children do you have?

Have they ever deliberately hurt each other?

Why didn't you stop them?
You can claim you didn't know what they were doing, but your job is to know what your children are doing all the time.
Did your parents know what you did all the time? LOL
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
But your god already said .... you do not matter.


You speak for him, and you are on board with that.

It's kind of like you have been abducted and are going along with it.
Yes, God is Love, Holy Love and the disposition of, I have gone along with it, it is who I Am in Him. Love is His way, it is mine as well.

You dont understand that do you
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
OK .......

So if Paul say's be an eternal sacrifice; and I say "no thanks".

and you say yippy skippy .....

Who is the one not thinking clearly?

Maybe your dizerner button has got of kilter?


Eternal death is living?

Seriously?

And I'm the one "randomly disconnected".

welcome to Satan's gambit.

I'm the one not the one randomly, dizerner button has the gambit.
And I'm the one and I say, be your sacrifice; an eternal sacrifice; and I'm the one, not the one not off kilter?

Either?

welcome to Satan's be your disconnected.


OK ........


welcome to Satan's be your disconnected.


OK .......


And I say gambit. So who is the one yippy skippy...


So, thanks.


randomly disconnected.


Maybe.



The above has been a randomly generated reply with Gibberish Generator. Don't do drugs, kids.
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Active member
Typical Athiest. Nothing good can come if the will is wrong, and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give plentiful information for misinterpretation.

LOL .......

Now I'm an Atheist.

I must you have done an excellent job of not answering my post.



And blaming me for it.

Well done.
 

El Cid

Member
Not answering for the the unknown soldier.

but I'll take a crack at it.

Christians are the epitome of no one else matters but them.

Convert and die....

Or not convert and and Face the wrath of Hell!!!!!

Eternal death either way you go.
You obviously know nothing of the history of Christianity. Christians invented modern hospitals for everyone not just Christians, ended slavery, ended the Roman patriarchal laws where a father could legally kill any member of this family, ended infanticide in Roman society, ended the gladiatorial fights, and invented modern orphanages among many other things that have helped non Christians. On addition, Modern Christians contribute more to charity than any other group. That hardly sounds like that they are the "epitome of no one else matters but them".
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Ask any qualified (non fundamentalist) Bible scholar if the Bible is a unified whole, or better yet, ask a Jewish scholar if the New Testament can be unified with the Hebrew scriptures. They will no doubt agree with me that the Bible is anything but unified.
Are these the same qualified biblical scholars you disregard when it comes to their conclusion on the historical Jesus? :unsure: Now, don't get me wrong... I wholeheartedly agree with you here that no scholar outside fundamentalist and some evangelical circles thinks the Bible is a unified whole --- my problem is with your inconsistent appeal to scholarly consensus. The position you are here critiquing is just as idiosyncratic and bucking of critical scholarly consensus as the mythic Christ promulgated by Carrier and company...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

e v e

Super Member
this earth came to exist By
the murder of eden.

and soon

exactly as prophet chapters recount

it will be destroyed .

its sun will go dark
 
Top