DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 18, 2015, 08:14:14 PM
-
Afghanistan: Suicide bomber strikes in Jalalabad
*GRAPHIC*
Up to 33 people were killed and over 100 injured in multiple explosions in Jalalabad,
eastern Afghanistan on Saturday. The attacker reportedly rode a motorbike into a queue
of government workers who were waiting in line to receive their salaries from a local bank.
The attacker then self-detonated.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f5f_1429347615
-
clearly, the only solution is to declatre war on Muslims and convert them all to Jeezus.
-
Clearly, someone has no fricken clue of the point Cu4 is making, so instead has to yet again argue a hyperbolic point, no one is making, or even implying. xo sop
-
clearly, the only solution is to declatre war on Muslims and convert them all to Jeezus.
Works for me.
Might require a constitutional amendment tho.
-
lol....you're not helping by agreeing with his hyperbole, Plane 8)
-
CU4 seems to have the idea that any acts of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim is the work of all Muslims, because somehow, they should have stopped it. I think CU4 is a Catholic of some sort, because he seems to think that there is a Muslim Pope or leader of some type ordering acts of terrorism.
I think everyone here
understands, or at least should understand, that the Muslim world is going through a crisis at the moment, first because its traditional male-dominated prudish culture is clearly threatened by Western culture, now unavoidable because of satellite TV, and second because there is a very high percentage of young men between 16 and 25 in the Muslim world, and that is the age at which unemployed young men tend to rebel in any culture.
This latest atrocity is no more the fault of every Muslim on the planet than Timothy McVeigh's bombing in OK City was the fault of Christendom. Perhaps some Muslims want to call their rather fundamentalist, primitive beliefs "the religion of peace", but I do not and will not. Catholicism does not bomb people or assassinate them any longer, but it has had its share of repression over the years, especially of women. The RC Church was in such a difficult state that for the first time in centuries Pope Benedict resigned rather than deal with the corruption, the scandals and the atrocities that the Church could no longer suppress.
No matter how many times CU4 and other critics of the Muslims rant and rave about how Islam is not the "religion of Peace", none of their rantings will change a thing.
Just as accusing every Christian for McVeigh's crimes will not change the minds of any Christians.
My point is that whether we like it or not, Islam is what it is, and will continue to be what it is. Outsiders will not change it by calling names. Obviously, the US cannot declare war on Islam.
-
.................. Obviously, the US cannot declare war on Islam.
That is true.
But if that is what declares war on us, does it matter that we cannot declare the war on them?
-
Islam will not declare war on the US. There is no leader that has ever declared war on anyone. Perhaps some Ayatollah might issue a fatwa, but normally these are against specific individuals, not entire nations.
And of course, the US cannot declare war on Islam, since it is not a country.
Most of those killed by Islamic extremists are other Muslims.
Islam is a rather silly religion, but then again so is Christianity. I do not expect either will ever cease to be both popular and silly.
Muhammad got on his horse and flew to heaven and then to Jerusalem and back to Mecca in a single night.
God used an angel to impregnate Mary so he could be his own son or a third of himself.
Jesus said that he came to reimpose the Law. Then along comes Paul and says, forget all that stuff, it is now obsolete. Why? because, see there was an earthquake and darkness in the daytime and a curtain in the temple was torn. Like, how can you not understand that?
Mohammad's five prayers a day are an excellent brainwashing technique. So are Catholic confessions.
-
Jesus said that he came to reimpose the Law. .............
Oh?
-
CU4 seems to have the idea that any acts of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim is the work of all Muslims, because somehow, they should have stopped it.
Or more likely, they were too afraid to stop it, for fear of retaliation to themselves and family. Best ask him vs jumping to hyperbolic conclusions like he wants to kill all Muslims
-
Matthew 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Now consider what Paul did: he said that circumcision, the dietary laws, the Kosher laws were no longer necessary.
Paul destroyed what Jesus said he came to fulfill.
Jesus said in one place not to judge others, but he did rather a lot of judging himself. He seems top have judges the moneychangers in the Temple rather harshly, to give one example.
Of course Biblical "scholars" will naturally explain this all away with various types of illogic and mumbo-jumbo, but the truth is that Jesus came as Jewish rabbi to minister to his fellow Jews and only upon occasion does he even acknowledge Gentiles as relevant. Paul, on the other hand, wanted to found a world religion, but could not accomplish this if the many Jewish laws and commandments were obeyed. Once Jesus brother James was dead and gone, Paul took over.
-
the truth is that Jesus came as Jewish rabbi to minister to his fellow Jews and only upon occasion does he even acknowledge Gentiles as relevant. Paul, on the other hand, wanted to found a world religion, but could not accomplish this if the many Jewish laws and commandments were obeyed. Once Jesus brother James was dead and gone, Paul took over.
::) Someone with an unfortunately serious level of ignorance as to what Jesus came as, and more importantly, what he came to do
-
Best ask him vs jumping to hyperbolic conclusions like he wants to kill all Muslims
Why is this "best"? I have called him on his silly tirades repeatedly, and he can explain all he wishes. I doubt that he needs your interpretive services.
What seems to happen is that some rightwing clown points out yet another outrageous act of Muslim terrorism and denounces it, along with the obligatory reference to the "religion of peace", and then CU4 parrots the article he heard or read. The fact is that some Muslims call it a religion of peace, and others call it a religion that must defend itself against heresy, obscenity, corruption and modernity. Few scream about Religion of Peace prior to blowing up people, Muslims or otherwise.
-
It is not as though you are capable of actually debating the issue, is it, sirs?
Do you deny that Jesus preached to Jews almost exclusively? Do you deny that Paul abolished the dietary and other ritualistic laws in order to convert pagans?
Because the Bible is pretty clear on both points.
-
Best ask him vs jumping to hyperbolic conclusions like he wants to kill all Muslims
Why is this "best"?
Because its far more logical than accusing Cu4 in wanting to exterminate all Muslims because they're supposedly "in on it". THAT's a tactic of yours, arguing a point no one is making. Instead, why not confirm the point, and argue that. You'll come across far less desperate
What seems to happen is that some rightwing clown points out yet another outrageous act of Muslim terrorism and denounces it[/b].....
EXACTLY....the ACT OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS.....NOT THE ENTIRE MUSLIM POPULATION (as that's your go to deflection effort)
-
I really do not care if you agree with me or not.
CU4 does this "Religion of Peace" crap about every three months. It has never made any sense and never will.
Of course, it would be impossible for this country or any other to win a war with Islam or convert all the Muslims to Littlebabyjeezus. It is just as preposterous as CU4's constant and repetitive blather about how Islam is not really "the Religion of Peace". Everyone knows that all Muslims are not peaceful and some of them are terrorists.
-
Makes perfect sense when you don't try to mutate what he's saying into something he's not
-
It is not as though you are capable of actually debating the issue, is it, sirs?
Do you deny that Jesus preached to Jews almost exclusively? Do you deny that Paul abolished the dietary and other ritualistic laws in order to convert pagans?
Because the Bible is pretty clear on both points.
This is taking a very narrow view.
Jesus did preach first to his own, but did not ignore Gentiles , even complimenting a Roman officer for his faith being better than the Jews he knew.
Then Jesus gave the great commission to his disciples and in no respect confined them to Israel.
Paul was under the orders of Jesus when he wrote, he didn't change the direction of Jesus teaching. If he had he would have probably been struck blind again.
Why do you think Paul abandoned his career as a Zionist persecuting Christians for the sake of Pharisee purity and accepted practically a bishops position in his former enemies ranks?
-
Plane....I marvel at how you can so easily articulate points, even a 3rd grader could understand. A near perfect response
-
Paul was under the orders of Jesus?
Come on, already, Jesus was gone when Paul decided to start preaching. There was ZERO communication between them.
Jesus was not a Christian. He was born, lived and died a Jew.
The fact is that not only did Paul not know Jesus, he also had not even read the Gospels, since not one of them had even been written. You and OI know more about Jesus than Paul did. Paul had some sort of heat stroke. Such events do not make people smarter or intelligent.
Paul was a very clever PR man. He saw an opportunity and he took it.
Jesus contradicted himself several times, or at least according to the Gospels he did. But the religion that Paul was peddling was a melange of Mythraism, several Egyptian cults that were in vogue at the time, and his own ambition.
James was Jesus' brother, and the obvious heir of the Jesus cult. Paul was an opportunist.
Jesus had zilch to do with trying to convert pagans. There is no indication whatever that he ever made the slightest attempt to convert any Gentile to Judaism or his particular version of it.
There is no proof that any of the Gospels was written by any of the apostles. They were written decades later. It was a bit like the Story of Jesse James, based on oral history written down in 1932. What the Gospels are is hearsay at best.
-
CU4 does this "Religion of Peace" crap about every three months.
It has never made any sense and never will.
What makes no sense is calling Islam the "Religion of Peace" when it's adherents
fill the world headlines on a daily basis of mass murder of innocents. Sure most
Muslims are not killing people, but most Germans didn't work at the gas chambers either.
Islam has an extremely large violence problem like no other religion today within it
that threatens world peace. Of course dumb-ass Obama would rather talk about
"Less Than Loving Christians" on Easter than talk about the much larger and deadly problem within Islam.
As if Obama would demean Muzzies on some Muzzy holiday.
-
Paul was under the orders of Jesus?
YES. There doesnt't require a physical hands-on directive. If you actually studied the bible, you might understand that. Including that Jesus was a speaker to EVERYONE, not just Jews. The goal was to bring anyone and everyone salvation, Jews & Gentiles alike
The fact is, as it relates to the Bible, Paul was given new orders by God/Jesus, in which he faithfully carried them out, to the best of his ability.
This is common knowledge for anyone that faithfully attends Sunday School
-
The fact is, as it relates to the Bible, Paul was given new orders by God/Jesus, in which he faithfully carried them out, to the best of his ability.
This is common knowledge for anyone that faithfully attends Sunday School
==========================================================
Yeah, sure. Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong, I am weak, and He is strong.
--Do I belong to Jesus, Mommy?
---Yes, sweetie, you do.
=============================
Please GROW UP!
This is like saying that we know that Stalin was a great Hero of the Glorious USSR because we heard all about it in the young Pioneers.
Go back and sit at the Children's table, sirs, you are not worthy of sitting with the grown-ups.
-
Spoken as a true non-believer. Is it no wonder you can't possibly understand how God works, how Jesus works, how faith works? I'll pray for you
-
God is deaf ever since the Big Bang. He is not listening, because he hears nothing. Prayers are like the ripples caused by stones thrown in the water, with the diffence that a stone thrown in the water remains on the bottom of the pond.
Jesus is a reheated assortment of myths from a variety of other religions and Christianity is a major misunderstanding of the Bible, which itself is a mishmash of history, myths, folktales and bigotry.
As a going business venture, Christianity is a success, as is Islam. As an actual philosophy, it is childish, irrational and unconvincing.
-
God is deaf ever since the Big Bang. He is not listening, because he hears nothing. Prayers are like the ripples caused by stones thrown in the water, with the diffence that a stone thrown in the water remains on the bottom of the pond.
Jesus is a reheated assortment of myths from a variety of other religions and Christianity is a major misunderstanding of the Bible, which itself is a mishmash of history, myths, folktales and bigotry.
Wash, Rinse, repeat ::) (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18840.msg165861#msg165861) So why does it bother you so much, that other people do have a relationship with Jesus? Is it that they're not following the correct God...that they should be praying at the alter of a massive Federal Government, where your God alternates to whatever (D) happens to reside in the white house?
-
It would not bother me any more than those who believe in the Tooth Fairy. If there is a God, he would not have devised anything as wacky as Judaism, Islam or Christianity. Government is a tool, it is not a religion, you dolt. And it is not a tool that Republicans are qualified to operate. I am all for a multiparty system, but no one needs the damned Republicans, the Teabaggers or the deluded evangelicals imposing their crapola on the rest of us.
You do not have a "relationship with Jesus" you are just brainwashed.
-
Your once again 99% eroneous opinion is again, duly noted. And for some, Government is absolutely a religion. If you criticize or condemn it, you should practically be excommunicated. At the very least, you should be made to shut up, so that no one listens to you. That has been an expressed desire of yours ever since you graced the saloon. If folks like you were in power, folks like me would be required to attend mandatory re-education. And of course your pithy comeback is that I supposedly couldn't be re-educated, in which case I guess I'd be shot in your religious form of goverment.
Multi-party, as you would define it, would be along the lines of a Liberal party, Socialist party, Progressive party, a Marxist party, and perhaps even a Green party.
-
Paul was under the orders of Jesus?
Come on, already, Jesus was gone when Paul decided to start preaching. There was ZERO communication between them.
Jesus was not a Christian. He was born, lived and died a Jew.
This is so delightfully backwards!
Paul you know had a regular job as a lynch mob leader for the Pharisees, Paul had to be a qualified Pharisee to hold this job.
But your argument is that Jesus was more for the law than the Pharisees were?
This opinion would have gotten you a lot of ire from the Pharisees .
You are also positing that Paul was ambitious and saw a business opportunity in switching sides while suffering from a heatstroke?
Paul was ambitious to die in prison?
Seems like he could have kept his previous career for better financial security.
-
I do not think that Paul actually could see into the future. Perhaps he was actually sincere about what he THOUGHT he saw in his visions. People have visions all the time. There are dozens of books of all sorts of apocalyptic visions in the Psychology section of any university library. I don't think Paul was motivated by money. There are all sorts of examples of people who start out with one set of beliefs and then make a total 180. Joseph Stalin was one: he trained to be a priest.
The fact remains that what Paul set as the standards and requirements for Christianity were very different from what Jesus preached. Of course, Paul had no access to the Gospels, because they had not been written at the time he decided to take over.
Financial security was not the big deal for Jews in the Roman Empire. Caste and ethnicity were singularly important in that time and place.
Prophesys and perhaps fame as a holy person in one's environment were the main goals in those times. Paul was an effective PR guy. But I do not see him as actually divinely inspired. He may have believed his own bullshit.
-
It's quite apparent what you "think". whatever the bible teaches, you've dismissed it....with prejudice even. It matters not that Paul was acting on orders given by God/Jesus, as you've made up your own mind that it just couldn't be. Which in all honesty, is fine. That's how its supposed to work, that God gave us free will to chose to either follow his teachings...or not. And you can even go that extra yard, to try and demean everyone else's relationship with God/Jesus. It just shows how petty and wayward you are, since a devoted Christian is simply going to feel sorry for you, with all this irrationalization. Like I said, I'l keep you in my prayers
-
All you have to do is to actually study the Bible with your brain turned on to realize that it is more chock full of nonsense than the SpongeBob Show.
-
I have studied the bible....copiously. Since its not meant to be a specific manual, its not necessary to try and microanalyze every verse, with the sole effort of trying to discredit it. I'll leave that to the non-believers, and just keep praying for them
-
I think you are about to back into Occams razor, don't get hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
-
The goal would not be to credit or discredit it, but to simply answer two questions:
What does this mean? and How does this make sense?
Occams Razor is the concept that when there and multiple explanations, the least complicated is normally the best one to choose.
In this case, it tells me that Paul was deluded and wanted to start his own religion with as many followers as possible.
The many Jewish commandments and laws made this pretty close to impossible for non Jews. So *poof!* he simply abolished them.
Ally ally oxen free!
-
The goal would not be to credit or discredit it, but to simply answer two questions:
What does this mean? and How does this make sense?
No, and no. Your goal, has been from the beginning to discredit it. It can't mean anything or make any sense, otherwise your premice is in error. You decide for yourself what you want it to mean. If you want it to mean its no more logical than sponge bob, then that's what your "answers" will come to.
To a person of faith, the bible is a blueprint of how & why. To those who study it, as a faithful Christian, it provides answers galore to so many questions.
To a person who's already made up their mind that the Bible is hogwash, and that Jesus was nothing more than some carpenter with a spiritual fetish, than your 'answers" will simply reinforce that already made-up mind
-
The Bible is a pretty crappy blueprint.
Job's God is sure as poo not a god of Love.
The Bible has both good advice and bad advice, but it is clearly not consistent or logical. It is deliberately hard to understand.
There is no question that there are a lot of baffling statements in the Bible.
There is no sane reason why a Perfect Being would deliberately confuse people he understands perfectly.
I have read the whole thing through a couple of times, some parts more than others, together with concordances of various types, and you are right, I have concluded that it is not any sort of divine word, but a compendium of perhaps forty authors, some of them sincere but none of them divine or really divinely inspired.
It;s like you discover an element. First you have to determine whether it is a gas, liquid or a solid, then you do tests to determine the properties. Of course, sometimes what you have is not an element at all, but just something that others in the past have mistaken for an element like the ether or phogiston.
There is a learning process involved. If you simply believe like a little child, you can never get at the truth, you will believe in tooth faeries and unicorns all your life, only because Mommy and Daddy did.
-
The Bible is a pretty crappy blueprint......
Yea......to a person who's already made up their mind that the Bible is hogwash, and that Jesus was nothing more than some carpenter with a spiritual fetish. We've aready addressed that. Then your 'answers" will simply reinforce that already made-up mind
To a person who actually has a personal relationship with Jesus, its a fantastic blueprint. To each their own. I'll keep you in my prayers
-
i pray for you XO
-
The goal would not be to credit or discredit it, but to simply answer two questions:
What does this mean? and How does this make sense?
Occams Razor is the concept that when there and multiple explanations, the least complicated is normally the best one to choose.
In this case, it tells me that Paul was deluded and wanted to start his own religion with as many followers as possible.
The many Jewish commandments and laws made this pretty close to impossible for non Jews. So *poof!* he simply abolished them.
Ally ally oxen free!
This is an alright explanation for Charlemagne or Constantine, to whom the choice of Christianity was a political advantage.
Paul gained a harder life and a dire fate , none of the apostles made a fortune or high office, and none of them ignored gentiles.
The churches of Paul's ministry were important , but not less Christian or important than the churches founded by the other apostles.
Most of what we know of disagreements between such churches we know from Paul's POV, but his interest was in resolving the problems, not in being bossy.
You think it simpler to think he both went mad and switched sides while remaining cogent and convincing he developed high ambition to create a big church and get imprisoned for most of the rest of his life.
That really doesn't really look simpler, or more likely, to me.
The one thing it does is get around the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and directed the establishment of his church.
Rejecting this idea , but explaining all events, requires some curly reasoning.
For one thing Jesus called himself the fulfillment of the law didn't he?
And wasn't it Jesus that posed the question , to those too eager to enforce the fine points of the law, "Is the law made for man , or is man made for the law?."
-
You assume that Paul could see into the future, that he could foresee that he would die in his attempts. I did not say he want mad. His previous attitude was as crazy as his converted attitude. All you have to do is know something about history to see that religion has caused vast numbers of people to act irrationally to win converts or to resist conversion. Religion, at least in the West (as opposed to the East), has been s catalyst for mayhem and destruction. This continues to this day with goofy organizations like Boko Haram and Christian sects in Africa who also have acted in similar ways.
Paul was no more able to see into the future than you or I. Even the Hebrew prophets blew it on their silly prophesies many times. Joseph Smith couldn't see into the future either, and he got himself killed at Nauvoo. Bigamy Young could not see into the future, but he died of old age, surrounded by his 56 wives and multitudinous children.
Good advice: whenever you find someone who claims to see into the future, ignore him, he is exeperincing some sort of self-delusion.
In the West, there is the idea that there is One True Religion, and one must follow Mythra, Cesar Augustus, God, Allah LittlebabyJeezus ( actually his designated leader) and destroy those who refuse to See the Light.
In the East, religion has taken a more personal form, that there are better and worse ways to live one's life, that some pursuits are more fortuitous than others. A truth is a truth because it is true, not because Lao Tze, Confucius or the Buddha revealed it.
In the West, people pray, which is a form of self-brainwashing. In the East, people meditate, with fewer ill effects, ie they never hear voices telling them to kill others or punish heretics, or pass laws that violate the freedom of others to use contraceptives, have abortions, pray in school and erect monoliths from movies in their courthouses.
-
I have never said that Jesus was a carpenter. There is no evidence whatever that he ever made a single stick of furniture or remodeled a single bathroom.
He was a guy with a weird way of speaking and charisma. Such people pop up in human history all the time. Most of what people associate with Jesus was added on after he was gone. He said he's be back before the last of a group of people died, but he did not come back, and he is not coming back. Not next Tuesday, not soon, not ever. Still, in 3015, there will surely be people waiting for him. That is what religion is all about: it is like waiting for a stop sign, thinking it is a stop light. It will not change.
-
I have never said that Jesus was a carpenter. There is no evidence whatever that he ever made a single stick of furniture or remodeled a single bathroom.
It was rhetorical, Dr. Deflection......it could have been dentist, or roofer. In the bible, he happened to be a carpenter when he was young. The point was that to you, he was a nobody, some man, who walked around "preaching" and only caring about the Jews. He came back after 3 days, as he promised, and he'll be back one more time, as he pledged. And here's the kicker, you don't have to believe that, nor is anyone trying to "force that down your throat". You're perfectly free to be left behind. I'll still pray for you however
-
You brought up the carpentry stuff, not me. Therefore you are the one doing this diversion.
It does not say in the Bible that he was a carpenter. It says that his father (stepfather?) Joseph was a carpenter. Actually, Joseph probably belonged to a itinerant carpenters who traveled about doing jobs in a fairly large area. It does not actually make a difference, since his carpentry skills if he had any, were unrelated to his wandering ministry, except perhaps, for the wandering about part.
It was when he appeared at Emmaus that he promised to return ere the last person in the group had died. Read your bible, it is all in the book.
Like most Christians, you know about that the Bible says from hearsay, what they told you, than from actually reading the thing for itself.
The Bible is not so much the "Greatest Story ever Told" as it is "The Greatest Assemblage of Folktales, Customs, Taboos, Poetry, Prophesy and Nonsense Passed off as Divine and Rarely Read or Comprehended".
Of course, the big draw for Paul was the Eternal Life bit. Jews do not traditionally believe in life after death. There were a few famous Jews, Moses, for example, that were so holy they were sucked right up into the cloud by the Divine Celestrial Electrolux, and of course, the Egyptians were firm believers in life after death, hence the great attention they paid to embalming and fancy tombs. But for Jews, you did what Elohim said, because if you did not, Elohim would get pissed and fuck up your children for generations to come. Jews were believers because of the stick of punishment of the descendents rather than the carrot of eternal life. Christians promised a place in the Choir Celestial to everyone, though the description is beyond vague.
You got a better place in Heaven if you died a martyr, so Paul was like, "Oooh! Where do I sign up?"
Christianity did not invent martyrdom. It has a very long history with many a Sand Person.
Prayer is probably good for some people, if they do it right. But so is meditation, and for the same reason.
With meditation, you are not left with the problem of waiting for your prayers to come true, though.
I suppose that Christianity is a boon for those people who feel that they need LittlebabyJeezus to keep them in line and not go ape and do wicked things. Of Jeezus keeps sirs from taking his arsenal out and drilling holes in the kiddies at Hometown Elementary, then religion is clearly a good thing, despite its inherent disconnection from reality.
-
You brought up the carpentry stuff, not me. Therefore you are the one doing this diversion.
As I explained, it wasn't a diversion, since it could have been ANY occupation, and the point I made would have still been valid. It matters NOT what his prior occupation was, since that's irrelvent to the point being made. It only matters to someone trying to focus in on that, in order to avoid the point being made. Bravo, Dr Deflection
And as I've also referenced before, if your goal is to try and discredit it, than anything you read and microanalyze is going to supposedy support that already made up mind. For those who are Christian, and have also read the bible, like myself, have our answers to questions, copiously addressed. Even when we inquire about folks like yourself, the answers are many. The more you try to demean and degrade my faith, the more I feel sorry for you
-
You may be destined to fee sorry as someone who accidentally flicked a booger at the Pope.
-
You may be destined to fee sorry as someone who accidentally flicked a booger at the Pope.
lol.....whatever that's supposed to mean
-
Do you lack the imagination to interpret this?
An explanation of this would be like explaining a knock knock joke.
You will have to try harder.
-
Do you lack the imagination to interpret this?
I see....so I'm supposed to imagine what you were thinking. There's not a medication on the planet that could accomplish that. The only thing lacking in the last response of yours was some asemblence of sense. Pretty much anything I'd come up with that wasn't some demeaning reference to myself, would be immediately cast off as wrong. So, why would I want to play that deflection game
Suffice to say, the deeper you dig your attempts at degrading my faith, the more sorry I feel for you. Which brings up quite the hypocrtical irony once again, as you accuse me of trying to ram my faith down your throat, here you are trying to ram your non-faith down mine. Quite the double standard badge you live under
-
You assume that Paul could see into the future, that he could foresee that he would die in his attempts. ,,,,,,
This is not an assumption on my part, he wrote of the fate he expected.
Your argument includes the much less likely assumption, that Paul left the established party in power, and joined the upstarts hoping to succeed thereby,
Paul was a very rational and logical sort, a fact hidden from anyone that feels it necessary to reject the rationality of anything Godly.
-
AS I said, Paul thought he would be rewarded in the afterlife.
And no matter what you say about what he expected, he was not clairvoyant.
Soldiers write about dying in battle all the time. Then they live to be 90. What one expects is just that. Martyrdom has always been a big deal in Middle Eastern religions, so contemplating martyrdom is a plus, as it puts foreth the thought, "I am willing to DIE for my religion."
Paul was quite rational: he was willing to throw all the old Jewish dietary laws into the garbage in order to win more converts among the pagans.
When the Church proclaimed that the wine and the communion cookie actually turned into the physical blood and flesh of the human Jesus, then that made Christianity extremely trayf (ie, non kosher), since humans are not kosher, cannibalism is an unspeakable sin, and consuming blood is also unclean.
-
AS I said, Paul thought he would be rewarded in the afterlife.
Certainly, but that is the expectation of every Christian. This expectation does not explain any motivation to change the rules. Aftrelife rewards depend on God, not churches. And no matter what you say about what he expected, he was not clairvoyant.
Whether he was a prophet or just a good prognosticator, he was accurate.
His motive could not have been self aggrandizement.
-
No of course his motives were not aggrandizement.
And yet he has hundreds of churches named after him, doesn't he?
Paul's objective was clearly to convert as many people as possible. Hence he ditched the old Jewish commandments, kosher laws and all that so that he could recruit pagans to Christianity.
Note this: Jesus said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Of course, Paul may never have heard this quote, as most of what he knew about Jesus was passed down orally as what can only be called hearsay.
Paul abolished the laws, there is no denying that.
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the laws, there is no denying that, either.
How can you fulfill a law by abolishing it?
Suppose, for example that the Supreme Court ruled that your beloved Second Amendment was invalid, and the court ruled that by abolishing it, they were fulfilling it?
Would you not find fault with that?
-
I do quibble with your very very narrow interpretation of a pair of carefully chosen quotes.
Jesus did not abolish the Law and neither did Paul.
When Jesus's disciples were upbraided for harvesting food on Sabbath, Jesus talked the problem out . When Jesus was asked to participate in an enforcement action against an adulterous woman, he not only did not , he talked a whole mob out of it.
So you pick one of his statements out of context to make a Pharisee of him?
Paul did not change the definition of a Jew nor change the law for Jews, he did settle the controversy of whether a Person must become a Jew first to become a Christian.
There were churches in which converts were being circumcised and taught the dietary law etc, on their way to being Christians, Paul called this off, after having a vision about it. So this was not even his own idea.
The upshot being that a person can become a Christian without becoming also a Jew.
Jesus and Paul speak reams of the law, isolating a few comments out of context is just a means of misquoting, the law is what it always was , a way to point to perfection.
Jesus plainly does state in several ways that there is not salvation in Law, the debt of sin is unavoidable without divine forgiveness.
I do not see Paul in disagreement .
-
Suppose, for example that the Supreme Court ruled that your beloved Second Amendment was invalid, and the court ruled that by abolishing it, they were fulfilling it?
Would you not find fault with that?
People do this all the time .
What they want is nothing like what the second amendment provides, so they concentrate on the preposition " A well regulated milita..." and try to say that the phrase "the right of the people shall not be abridged " therefore means nothing.
As if the second amendment was written to ensure that the Army would not be disarmed.
-
Yeah right. After having a "vision". Oh, please. Homey don't do "visions".
This "vision" stuff does not fly any more. The last major American leader that had visions was Elijah Muhammad. He had visions of space aliens piloting a giant wheel (like the one Ezekiel saw in a "vision") coming to spirit all the True believers away and wreaking havoc on all the White devils.
I think Louis Farrakhan said he had a minor vision in which he spoke with Elijah, but I don't think even a phony like Farrakhan would dare to have a major"vision". He'd get laughed out of the Peanut Gallery.
As Church Lady would say, "How Con VEEEN ient."
The fact remains Jesus said one thing, Paul said another that entirely contradicted him. Jesus at no point in the Bible said that he had come to minister to anyone except Jews. In the context of the times, all this occurred after the conquest by Alexander a couple of centuries before Jesus appeared, and many Jews had given up the prudish habits of the Jews and had become Hellenized. This was particularly true of the upper classes. There was Messiah after Messiah running about, John the Baptist and Jesus were two traditionalists who wanted to return to the old ways among many. After Jesus there were also Messiahs, the most successful being Shimon bar Kockhba, who actually rallied the Jews so well they drove the Romans out of the country.
The Messiah, by the way, like the Muslim Makhdi, is not described in the Bible (or the Koran) as a divine being, just a super special prophetic leader and perhaps a second King David type. The Jews (well, some of them) are waiting for a Messiah, but not a one of them thinks the Messiah is going to be divine.
-
The federal government of the US at the time that the Second Amendment was written was an extremely weak entity, and could not have disarmed the population even if it wanted to. Of course, most of the population was rural and they were very spread out, and there were brigands, highwaymen ESCAPED SLAVES and Indians against whom neither the federal government nor the state governments could defend them. And the militias (which were concentrated in places where there were slaves and malcontent Indians) were the defense or the community.
-
The federal government of the US at the time that the Second Amendment was written was an extremely weak entity, and could not have disarmed the population even if it wanted to.
This should not change.
-
Yeah right. After having a "vision". Oh, please. Homey don't do "visions".
I know you are not accepting any supernatural explanations , but Jesus and Paul explained themselves in supernatural terms quite a bit .
I think your attitude twards the supernatural explains your acceptance of very unlikely sounding theory's of events that are pretty simple to people that accept the involvement of God.
The fact remains Jesus said one thing, Paul said another that entirely contradicted him. Jesus at no point in the Bible said that he had come to minister to anyone except Jews.
I think this is two errors. In the context of the times, all this occurred after the conquest by Alexander a couple of centuries before Jesus appeared, and many Jews had given up the prudish habits of the Jews and had become Hellenized. This was particularly true of the upper classes. There was Messiah after Messiah running about, John the Baptist and Jesus were two traditionalists who wanted to return to the old ways among many.
That does not sound like either of them.. After Jesus there were also Messiahs, the most successful being Shimon bar Kockhba, who actually rallied the Jews so well they drove the Romans out of the country.
The Messiah, by the way, like the Muslim Makhdi, is not described in the Bible (or the Koran) as a divine being, just a super special prophetic leader and perhaps a second King David type. The Jews (well, some of them) are waiting for a Messiah, but not a one of them thinks the Messiah is going to be divine.
Surprised were they?
-
Jesus urges respect for the law.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Jesus urges that the Law not be respected more than doing the right thing .
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012&version=NIV
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Jesus reads the riot act to teachers of the law.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=NIV
Seven Woes on the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
-
Jesus and a Roman Centurion make nice, and Jesus tells his disciples that a lot of Gentiles will see heaven, some Jews won't.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208&version=NIV
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
-
Jews first!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010&version=NIV
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
[][][][][][][][]
Everybody eventually.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=NIV
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028&version=NIV
-
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/islamic-state-beheads-shoots-15-yemeni-soldiers.php
-
I think we can all agree that Islamic State is a bunch of barbarous fanatics.From Harper's Index, May 2015:
Estimated number of deaths caused by Islamic State since January 2014: 4000
Estimated number of deaths caused by Boko Haram since January 2014: 7200.
Can we conclude that assumed Black people (Nigerians) murdered unjustly are as much an outrage as those assumed to be White, or at least sort of White (Syrians and Iraqis)?
Boko Haram deserves 1.8 times as much outrage if Nigerian lives are as significant as Syrian/Iraqi ones.
-
Ok I am 1.8 times more hurt with Boko Haram.
Does this require that we use almost twice as many drone strikes?
-
I imagine that the number of victims is only one factor in deciding when a drone strike might be useful.
I was simply pointing out the statistics. I am not an expert in drones or their effectiveness.