RE: christian terrorism?

RE: christian terrorism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 5:44:23 PM)
By that logic, we're all supposedly "legally insane" since that's a part of the whole "born again" belief...that we're no longer who we were before saved.

philosophy -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 5:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness By that logic, we're all supposedly "legally insane" since that's a part of the whole "born again" belief...that we're no longer who we were before saved. ...yup, after all, if you had a $40,000 overdraft at the bank, then you became 'born again', i doubt the bank would say, "Hang on, this is not the same man!".

Kirata -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 6:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness By that logic, we're all supposedly "legally insane" since that's a part of the whole "born again" belief...that we're no longer who we were before saved. Hold that thought. K.

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 6:31:48 PM)
quote: Maybe this will help... That was great, thanks [:D]

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 6:55:10 PM)
OK, so the laws remain in place, just the method of forgiveness has changed. I will go so far as to say that you extend "the method of forgiveness" to include the prescribed punishments have been superceded as well, though I would like to see the gospel evidence for that. Oh and by the way, I do not accept Acts or any of the Epistles as evidence of anything, the first is pure propaganda and the second are political tracts and interpretations by a somewhat doubtful source, so quoting either of those as evidence of what christ taught won't work, they were written long after the fact by people who never heard Jesus speak. (As an aside I don't believe the Gospels were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed either, but in the absence of anything better am willing to accept them as evidence of Jesus' teachings). So we have kept the laws, so I assume you do not wear clothing of mixed fabrics (no cotton-polyester blends for you), and you keep the sabbath on Saturday (that's right, Saturday, not Sunday) by engaging in no work, lighting no fires, and so on. If not, then I assume you are deliberatly sinning for your own convenience, and wonder how sincere your repentence is when you continue to sin for ease and convenience. I wonder if you enjoy a ham sandwich now and then, or if you you "round the corners of your head", or any of the miriad other things that are forbidden, or do you only accept some of the laws? Please explain to me why only some laws are still valid, and why others are not. Find me somewhere in the gospels where this is set out, otherwise you cannot be a follower of christ unless you follow all his teachings (this is why the Phelpsians and possibly-christian terrorists are not true christians after all, because they do not follow all the teachings of christ, only those that suit them) then you are not a true christian either, and neither is anybody. You cannot have it both ways, where you get to pick and choose what parts of the OT laws you will accept and do not allow that same freedom to others. The passages in the Gospels quoted regarding the laws are unclear at best, though they do state that the laws are not abolished, so they are presumably still in force (at least in as much as they define what is and what is not prohibited). By what authority do you disregard some of them, and can you really claim, without hypocracy, to follow Jesus' teachings when you only accept some of the things he specified. This is not aimed soley at you, but rather at christians in general, this is one of the aspects of christianity which has bothered me for some time. I appreciate the points you have made, but still hope to hear just where the scriptural basis for deciding which of the OT laws are still in force and which are not.

sweetgirlserves -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 7:53:07 PM)
Hello Arpig, Think of the laws and regulations of the Old Testament as a mirror... the purpose is to show people their sinful condition. Also, the numerous and strict rules are there to serve a purpose... to show people that no matter how hard they tried, it would be impossible for anyone to keep all of the laws. Therefore, people were constantly in need of forgiveness, people were in a perpetual state of having to make blood sacrifices, for forgiveness and cleansing to make them 'right' with God. Then, Jesus came. In the New Testament, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. Meaning, no more need for constant sacrifices, no more need for men to live in a condition of sin. Jesus's death fulfilled the need for sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. The point to realize is that Christianity is about accepting Christ's sacrifice for your sins. No matter how hard you might try to 'be good, obey the laws, and be pure'... you are never going to be able to be 'good enough' of your own volition. This point, by the way, is why being a christian is not necessarily someone who is trying their hardest to follow the teachings of Christ. Until a person comes to realize, that no matter how hard he tries, he can never make himself pure. A person must come to realize, that they must accept Jesus's gift of salvation through what he did... dying on the cross and taking the punishment for his sin. Until a person stops trying to gain salvation through their own effort, and accepts through salvation through what Jesus did, they are still in a state of sin. Until a person realizes they are broken, (try to keep all the laws of God, eventually you will realize you can't do it), and that they cannot 'fix' themself, no matter how good their intentions or how hard they try... they remain in a state of sin. Salvation comes only through Christ.... and that is how the OT and the NT come together... John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, except through me." (Jesus's words) ~sgs

DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 9:03:07 PM)
Funny how christians say the OT rules still apply but then ignore most of them. Funny how it is clear that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels would disagree with that. Consider just for a moment the Last Supper, actually a Passover seder. Celebrating Passover is required in the OT but only a few christian sects do so today, even though the bible clearly portrays Jesus as considering it to be important. I can go on and show how a bizarre dream related by Paul is claimed to free christians from the dietary rules of Leviticus. And I still can't find any even reasonable attempt to deal with ignoring the rules against planting different crops side by side or the wearing of clothes of blended materials or requiring men to wear beards or any of the rest of the OT laws.

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 9:40:45 PM)
The whole point of the OT laws was for them to be impossible to follow?? The point was to insure that people would fail?? What sort of psychopath do you worship? What about all the jews who died in all those centuries prior to Jesus, they were set up to fail on purpose, with no hope of salvation?? Where is God's mercy in that? Why did he condemn those countless generations to damnation? Why didn't he offer salvation to them, were the people of Jesus' time somehow suddenly worthy of the chance of salvation while those who came before were not? I didn't think it was possible to give the god of the OT a worse face than that presented in the OT, but you have done it. Not only was he jealous, fickle, and cruel, he was deliberatly (sp?) condemning his followers to failure in their attempt to be worthy in his eyes. What exactly is the point of trying to please an asshole like that, if a sub on here came and complained that her dom constantly set her tasks and expectations that were impossible to meet, he would be excoriated as some sort of asshole, and no master at all, yet this is exactly the behaviour you attribute to the deity you claim loves all people. Yours is the most twisted and evil version of the deity I have ever heard of. How can you respect, let alone worship something like that? Something with such vile and hateful motives, to punish countless generations out of spite, to condemn them with no possibility of them ever redeeming themselves? OK, rant over, back to the topic. Now since it has been shown that people do not in fact "follow christ's teachings", only some of them, we now have a new definition of what it means to be a christian: "Christianity is about accepting Christ's sacrifice for your sins". In that case, the guy who shot Tiller only had to accept christ's sacrifice to be a true christian, therefore his act was a terrorist action taken by a christian in order to further what he concieved to be a christian purpose....therefore we are right back where we began: Christain Terrorism. I swear, I sometimes wonder if the christian appologists on here actually read what they post.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 12:10:35 PM)
Hello Arpig. It does read that way to me as well. Seriously, who would follow someone who sets them up to fail? Mind, we are on a bdsm discussion forum...[;)] There is also a big difference between the laws of god and the laws of men. God doesn't set people up to fail. Man did. It's also worth remembering that a form of racism was rife back then. Sects stuck with sects. Look at the whole cannanite deal, which the whole homosexuality thing comes from. Keeping a group 'clean' was a huge thing back then - clean being the whole linage thang and not participating in acts that others would do. It's a way of singling out a difference. People were in no more of a need for forgiveness before Jesus than after him. The rules of engagement just altered. No amount of sacrifice is going to help someone if their heart isn't in it. And if their heart is in it - be they murderer or virginal soul, as long as they dig with Jesus, salvation waits. Which includes this man who killed Tiller, if he really ends up regretting what he did in front of Jesus(from a christian viewpoint), no matter what people want to happen. the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 12:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig The passages in the Gospels quoted regarding the laws are unclear at best, though they do state that the laws are not abolished, so they are presumably still in force (at least in as much as they define what is and what is not prohibited). By what authority do you disregard some of them, and can you really claim, without hypocracy, to follow Jesus' teachings when you only accept some of the things he specified. I totally dig this. Earlier I ask Truthiness a question. It's not really aimed just at him - if any other poster who identifies as christian and insists that Tillers killer isn't a 'true' christian wants to answer - that would rock. quote: Then you do not murder, steal, never give false testimony(lie), honour your parents, love your neighbour, and have no possessions? The point being - people claim that Tillers killer is not a truth christian because he broke a command - he is not to kill. But surely, that means, if people claim to be true christians and break any one of those commands that Jesus spoke in the New T (even just ignoring the old t for now) - then that would make them not a true christian. This is how it breaks down. Choosing not to answer my question doesn't alter that fact, that by their own analagy - many christians are not 'true'. the.dark.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 2:25:40 PM)
More or less I wanted to avoid a semantics discussion on "sell your goods and give alms to the poor" that apparently you're spinning as a commandment to own no possessions (despite Jesus being wealthy enough to need a accountant.)

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 2:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Funny how christians say the OT rules still apply but then ignore most of them. Funny how people make generalizations about Christians out of ignorance.

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 3:10:23 PM)
quote: Funny how people make generalizations about Christians out of ignorance. OK Truthi, enlighten us. I have asked you to clarify if the OT rules still apply, and have been given evasive answers about the "Law being fulfilled", but no clear answer on if the various rules laid out in the OT still apply. What I want to know is the following... 1) Do the OT rules still apply, is what was forbidden still forbidden? 2) If the rules still apply, do the prescribed punishments still apply? 3) If the OT rules do not apply, then is bestiality still a sin, if so, on what scriptural grounds? That will do for now. Can give clear unambigouous answers to these 3 questions?

DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 3:59:54 PM)
I've got an even simpler question if something else described as on the same level as homosexuality is now ok why isn't homosexuality.

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/6/2009 4:06:26 PM)
I have deliberatly avoided using homosexuality or adultry as an example because there are passages in the NT that are used to justify it as a sin still. That is why I have chosen bestiality, because it was forbidden in the OT, and is still considered sinful, yet as far as I know there is no reference to it whatsoever in the NT.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/7/2009 5:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness More or less I wanted to avoid a semantics discussion on "sell your goods and give alms to the poor" that apparently you're spinning as a commandment to own no possessions (despite Jesus being wealthy enough to need a accountant.) So Jesus was wealthy as in possessions and monetary wealth? How did you work that one out? You are the one who started with semantics. You are the one claiming that because this man killed someone, that doesn't make him a christian - at least not a 'true' one in your eyes. I am simply asking how many of the commands you have broken? You can ignore the no possessions thing if you like (although I am sure thats more a what would jesus do thang) - so then focus on the others. So I will ask you AGAIN (which you can avoid if you like). Have you ever lied, cheated or dishonoured your parents in any way? Because if you did - by your standards then that would make you not a true christian. Murder isn't considered more a sin than stealing a pen or moaning about your parents making you come home early - in such terms. A white lie isn't a lesser deal in gods eyes if you make one to killing someone. You are the one who brought up this list - or rather one portion of it so you could try and justify why this man is not a christian. I am NOT getting into semantics on what makes a true christian - you did. I am merely pointing out your hypocrasy. the.dark.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/7/2009 7:54:02 AM)
Actually, what I said is that it raises doubt as to if he's a true Christian, because it's hard to imagine followers of Jesus being so willing to murder in cold blood; with Jesus's life being about love, peace, and forgiveness. That's an entirely different level than what you're arguing. It's not the same at all. That said, yes I can honestly say I haven't broken any of those commandments, as irrelevant as the question is.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/7/2009 7:57:54 AM)
And of course, once again, if you're saying we can't call into doubt that he may not be a Christian, then it is equally inaccurate for you to claim he is one...therefore proving my point with your argument that you shouldn't be calling him a Christian Terrorist.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/7/2009 8:04:51 AM)
And now one more post with another analogy. :p An American living in Asia decides he's fed up with China, and goes and blows up as many buildings/people in China as he can before he gets caught. The American government outright denies any knowledge or desire for that to happen, condemns his actions, and says "He wasn't acting on our behalf at all" Would China be in the right to go to war in response to "American Aggression" on their soil? Even though he might be provably American, that doesn't make his actions American. So even if the guy who did murder Tiller was an extremely misguided Christian, who is now seeking repentance; (Which none of you can actually prove), his action is in no way Christian, and thus is not Christian terrorism.

DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/7/2009 8:17:49 AM)
Sophistry. Your example is poorly and unclearly written. Strictly speaking if an american starts blowing up buildings and killing people in china then it is clearly a case where an american is being a terrorist. Our government could deny he was acting on behalf of the american government but could not reasonably deny that he was an american. The man in question would still be an american and he might believe his actions were in support of the USA. Roeder took action he felt justified by his interpretation of the Bible, a fairly easy justification to make actually, and is therefore a christian and since his actions where clearly terrorist acts then that makes him a christian terrorist. This is virtually identical to the original example of the no true scotsman fallacy.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875