Is all religion basically the same?

124678

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    cornnifer wrote:
    What was provided were a couple of soundbites taken out of context. There IS no discussion without context. It's like when the news media airs one carefully selected sentence taken from an hour long interview and completely changes the meaning of a person's statements. Its an old trick that means nothing.
    You asked for one passage from a religious text that condoned killing. A few were provided. You didn't say anything about context.

    In fact, if you're asking for one passage, you're specifically asking for something out of context.

    Killing is condoned by passages in the Bible. There's no getting around that.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    I think that the takeaway here is that context should be taken into consideration in any given situation.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    fanch75 wrote:
    I think that the takeaway here is that context should be taken into consideration in any given situation.

    HAS to be.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    RainDog wrote:
    The thing is, us "unbelievers" understand context, and many do look at the Bible in an historical frame. However, and I'm not sure cornifer has ever done this or not, we will also throw out passages like that when similar measures are used against us. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are ripe for these types of back-and-forths:
    CRAZED BELIEVER: Gays are an abomonation!!
    FROTHING UNBELIEVER: SO ARE SHELLFISH!!!

    CRAZED BELIEVER: Women must be subservient to their husbands!!
    FROTHING UNBELIEVER: Or be stoned to death!!

    And on and on for eternity. From my end, it's more a comment on why individual passages shouldn't be used to push a belief.

    Except for my response to cornifer. That was more of a logic thing.
    yeah, but you're taking it to the extreme though. i'm sure there's people that stand out in public saying radical things like "gays are an abomonation" and "women are men's slaves" but the majority of people don't. i'm sure you're aware of it and i know you're just making a point.

    but what i am saying is throwing these things as "back and forth" really holds no challenge to what we believe. if you read the bible as you say you do then you should understand that in the days of God's covenant with Abraham it was a completely different mindset. all the killings, and pillages were based on the choices the Israelites made. this is a very deep discussion... so i'm not going further... i'm just saying whhy these arguments don't mean a single cent to me, or to someone that really reads the bible. you could read it simply as a piece of literature and come up with the same thing. or maybe not... it depends. but other than that i completely understand where you're coming from.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    RainDog wrote:
    The thing is, us "unbelievers" understand context, and many do look at the Bible in an historical frame. However, and I'm not sure cornifer has ever done this or not, we will also throw out passages like that when similar measures are used against us. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are ripe for these types of back-and-forths:
    CRAZED BELIEVER: Gays are an abomonation!!
    FROTHING UNBELIEVER: SO ARE SHELLFISH!!!

    CRAZED BELIEVER: Women must be subservient to their husbands!!
    FROTHING UNBELIEVER: Or be stoned to death!!

    And on and on for eternity. From my end, it's more a comment on why individual passages shouldn't be used to push a belief.

    Except for my response to cornifer. That was more of a logic thing.
    In which case the "crazed-believer" is equally guilty. Changes nothing.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    They all ask you to suspend reason and submit your life to the elite who write the religion.

    So... yes.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    yeah, but you're taking it to the extreme though. i'm sure there's people that stand out in public saying radical things like "gays are an abomonation" and "women are men's slaves" but the majority of people don't. i'm sure you're aware of it and i know you're just making a point.
    Oh, I see them. I used to see them almost every day. As I'm sure many know, prior to the storm New Orleans was a prime destination for crazed weirdos. Not all of them were crazed heathen weirdos, though.
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    but what i am saying is throwing these things as "back and forth" really holds no challenge to what we believe. if you read the bible as you say you do then you should understand that in the days of God's covenant with Abraham it was a completely different mindset. all the killings, and pillages were based on the choices the Israelites made. this is a very deep discussion... so i'm not going further... i'm just saying whhy these arguments don't mean a single cent to me, or to someone that really reads the bible. you could read it simply as a piece of literature and come up with the same thing. or maybe not... it depends. but other than that i completely understand where you're coming from.
    Well, see, now you're just endorsing moral relativism. ;)
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    cornnifer wrote:
    Same old tired rhetoric. *yawn*
    Allow me to ask, yet again. Maybe, although i really doubt it, you'll be the first to answer. Can you point to one passage, in any "religious" holy book, that condones killing?

    in the 619 commandments (you know the top 10); the true translation is
    "thou shat not murder". killing for a good reason is ok. just as you would kill a rabid dog; you must also kill men that cannot live among men. sure; you think it's better to lock them up in cages so small you'd be arrested for animal cruelty if you kept an animal in them. but killing them allows them to be born again.
    if an atheist was persecuted for his beliefs; he would strike back as so many have on this board. a reasonable person would fight for their freedom.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    cornnifer wrote:
    Well, not really. Sound bite references from the Old testament book of Leviticus aren't nearly enough to make a case that the the Bible or Bible based faith encourages and condones ruthless killing. i guess we're forgetting that "thou shalt not kill" part.
    Furthermore when placed in context of history and geography when and where folks were banging anything that moved, man, woman or beast, and when mixed in with the fact that the Bible also makes the claim that the wages of ALL sin is death, not just sexual debauchery, and we have a bit more context and perspective. Factor in the concept of Old and New covenant (i don't want to get to deep into theology) and what you end up with likens citing a couple of Leviticus verses to randomly, with eyes shut, putting a finger down on one sentence from chapter five of "War and Peace" and using it to summarize the entire works of Tolstoy.
    You're going to have to butress an argument with a little more than that to convince any rational person that the Bible encourages cold hearted killing.
    In summation... *yawn*.

    edit: i've not encountered one SERIOUS bible teaching church or synogogue that encourages members of congregation to go forth and stone an adultress.
    ..
    Let's recap:
    Cornnifer Asks the question:
    "Can you point to one passage, in any "religious" holy book, that condones killing?"
    Cosmo answers by giving one passage... no, two passages. and includes the full context of another.
    Cornnifer's panties roll up the butt.
    ...
    You asked... i answered... you back peddle.
    ...
    and IF... as you claim... those Old Testaments chapters are invalid in today's world... WHY even bother with them? You are basically saying the Old Testament is old laws that are still on the books.
    But... isn't Exodus and Leviticus where the Ten Commandments come from? How can the Old Testament be invalid, yet vital to Christianity? Or... do the Ten Commandments get tossed out, too?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    even flow? wrote:
    If they are removing them from a time, place, yawn, etc. Then why exactly are you telling me about a book from at least 2000 years ago that has no relevence or bearing on the modern world what so ever. Maybe your boy Jesus needs to come back and revamp it then if the teachings don't hold water when you are in the discussion.

    ...................
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    They all ask you to suspend reason and submit your life to the elite who write the religion.

    So... yes.

    what? religions were written by the impoverished. i don't recall Jesus driving a rolls royce.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    RainDog wrote:
    Oh, I see them. I used to see them almost every day. As I'm sure many know, prior to the storm New Orleans was a prime destination for crazed weirdos. Not all of them were crazed heathen weirdos, though.

    Well, see, now you're just endorsing moral relativism. ;)
    i don't know what i'm endorsing.... cause i don't shiiiit! :D
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    Cosmo wrote:
    ..
    ...
    and IF... as you claim... those Old Testaments chapters are invalid in today's world... WHY even bother with them? You are basically saying the Old Testament is old laws that are still on the books.
    But... isn't Exodus and Leviticus where the Ten Commandments come from? How can the Old Testament be invalid, yet vital to Christianity? Or... do the Ten Commandments get tossed out, too?


    cosmo this is a religious discussion....please don't bring logic into this.....thanx....;)
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Cosmo wrote:
    ..
    Let's recap:
    Cornnifer Asks the question:
    "Can you point to one passage, in any "religious" holy book, that condones killing?"
    Cosmo answers by giving one passage... no, two passages. and includes the full context of another.
    Cornnifer's panties roll up the butt.
    ...
    You asked... i answered... you back peddle.
    ...
    and IF... as you claim... those Old Testaments chapters are invalid in today's world... WHY even bother with them? You are basically saying the Old Testament is old laws that are still on the books.
    But... isn't Exodus and Leviticus where the Ten Commandments come from? How can the Old Testament be invalid, yet vital to Christianity? Or... do the Ten Commandments get tossed out, too?
    no... see the ten commandments were fulfilled in us who have believed in Jesus Christ. therefore, we don't need to follow the old laws because they were already accomplished and it's all due to Jesus.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    onelongsong wrote:
    what? religions were written by the impoverished. i don't recall Jesus driving a rolls royce.

    All you know of Jesus comes from the Bible, and all you know about its authors from the Bible as well. So you really don't know if you are being had.

    If you take other evidence into consideration then you are definitely being had.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    cornnifer wrote:
    In which case the "crazed-believer" is equally guilty. Changes nothing.
    You're right, it doesn't.

    However, you asked for one passage. By the very nature of the request, you're asking for something to be provided out of context. You can't then turn around and say "that doesn't count. It's out of context."
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    onelongsong wrote:
    in the 619 commandments (you know the top 10); the true translation is
    "thou shat not murder". killing for a good reason is ok. just as you would kill a rabid dog; you must also kill men that cannot live among men. sure; you think it's better to lock them up in cages so small you'd be arrested for animal cruelty if you kept an animal in them. but killing them allows them to be born again.
    if an atheist was persecuted for his beliefs; he would strike back as so many have on this board. a reasonable person would fight for their freedom.
    I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak religious argument in favor of the death penalty.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    RainDog wrote:
    I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak religious argument in favor of the death penalty.
    yeah, it is... but if someone killed a beloved of mine i wouldn't know how i'd react... i might change my mind about the death penalty. God forbid.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    no... see the ten commandments were fulfilled in us who have believed in Jesus Christ. therefore, we don't need to follow the old laws because they were already accomplished and it's all due to Jesus.
    ...
    The Ten Commandments fulfilled by Jesus... That's another thing i will never understand... Jesus takes the rap for everyone that believes in Him... and nullifies the basics set into play by the Old Testament.
    Does this mean Thou CAN Kill? Thou CAN steal? And Jesus takes the blame?
    NO. But, the laws in the Old Testament are still in the books. They are still laws that modern societies 'CHOOSE' to ignore.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    onelongsong wrote:
    what? religions were written by the impoverished. i don't recall Jesus driving a rolls royce.
    You're right. If I remember my hymns correctly, it was a Ford.


    I have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
    He was driving down the highway in a green and yellow Ford.
    One hand on the bottle and the other on the throttle,
    His Truth is marching on.......

Categories