Churches fighting back!!!!!!!

by **Bernie Sanders** on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:48 pm

ConfederateSS wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Wow, look at those Christians and their hate. A government which had any sense would bulldoze all their churches and promote atheism as often as it could (e.g. by making atheism a condition of holding public office).

----We already do... The Only President to go to Church every week...Was Kennedy. Look what happened to him... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
Nymeria Stark wrote:
ConfederateSS wrote: A crazy person went into the church.

Now that's something you don't see every day.

----You're right...I should have said,"AN AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PERSON"...

Who's really doing the most attacks on what churches in America?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/thugs-and-terrorists-have-plagued-black-churches-for-generations/396212/

Church burnings

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/02/us-church-burnings-race-south-carolina

by **tzor** on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:54 pm

ConfederateSS wrote:----We already do... The Only President to go to Church every week...Was Kennedy. Look what happened to him...

Yes, but quite a number of presidents managed to have sex in the White House with people not technically their wives. :twisted:

by **PLAYER57832** on Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:23 am

mrswdk wrote:It's pretty well established that you can quote the Bible to make it say whatever you feel like. There are plenty of quotes in there about executing people and destroying sinners and the enemies of God too.

New Testament quotes, please?

by **mrswdk** on Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:24 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:It's pretty well established that you can quote the Bible to make it say whatever you feel like. There are plenty of quotes in there about executing people and destroying sinners and the enemies of God too.

New Testament quotes, please?

Is this the part where you come up with a reason for ignoring all the Bible quotes which you don't like?

by **PLAYER57832** on Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:10 am

You must be thinking of someone else. Its just you referred to "many passages" and so I thought you might actually have a few in mind.

Actually, I was not even going to dispute you. The main issue is whether there is a difference between killing those within the church (essentially--going back to Judaism) and without. The Jewish translation of the Ten Commandments, for example is generally said to be "thou shalt not murder" as opposed to thou shalt not kill Also, killing as punishment can be said to differ from killing in self defense, though debatably.

Another argument is whether it is OK to kill one to save many. However, these are all old arguments.

by **mrswdk** on Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:07 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:You must be thinking of someone else. Its just you referred to "many passages" and so I thought you might actually have a few in mind.

I was just wondering why I was required to present passages from the New Testament.

by **PLAYER57832** on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:43 am

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:You must be thinking of someone else. Its just you referred to "many passages" and so I thought you might actually have a few in mind.

I was just wondering why I was required to present passages from the New Testament.

Because the New Testament is the important part when it comes to Christian law. The old Testament is valid, but some of the rules basically only made sense when taken in historical context. Christ told us to fulfill the intent of the law, not necessarily the letter of the law.

by **mrswdk** on Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:05 am

Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

by **tzor** on Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:21 pm

mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

The Old Testament points to the New Testament. They are a guide, just not in the way you are looking at them.

by **Bernie Sanders** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:54 am

tzor wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

The Old Testament points to the New Testament. They are a guide, just not in the way you are looking at them.

Sorry, two different GODs. Check the personality of each GOD in the old and new Bibles.

by **PLAYER57832** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:19 pm

mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

I did not say that. I said that some of the laws need context.

And... still waiting for the quotes. Go old Testament if you like. But its sounding pretty much like you just want to lob groundless attacks on the pretense of knowledge, rather than any real issue.

by **waauw** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:34 pm

Bernie Sanders wrote:
tzor wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

The Old Testament points to the New Testament. They are a guide, just not in the way you are looking at them.

Sorry, two different GODs. Check the personality of each GOD in the old and new Bibles.

And yet one's story is based on the other.

by **mrswdk** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:57 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

I did not say that. I said that some of the laws need context.

And... still waiting for the quotes. Go old Testament if you like. But its sounding pretty much like you just want to lob groundless attacks on the pretense of knowledge, rather than any real issue.

by **PLAYER57832** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:22 pm

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Why is the Old Testament even included in the Bible if it is basically just a bunch of stories that are not meant to be taken literally or as any kind of guide?

I did not say that. I said that some of the laws need context.

And... still waiting for the quotes. Go old Testament if you like. But its sounding pretty much like you just want to lob groundless attacks on the pretense of knowledge, rather than any real issue.

Yep, like I said.... you have nothing.

by **mrswdk** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:32 pm

Duk posted some Bible quotes about pacifism, so I pointed out there are just as many quotes in the Bible about wrath and vengeance. Then you came along going 'quotes in the Old Testament are not rules because of historical context, you are just making groundless attacks and pretending to know things when you don't'.

Maybe you can't understand why I don't see it worth my time talking about this further, but whatever.

by **mrswdk** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:33 pm

It's funny because literally yesterday I was talking to waauw about the way in which the US picks and chooses which part of UNCLOS it wants to adhere to, and here you are today picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to adhere too. Maybe we should start an OT Pic 'n' Mix Club.

by **PLAYER57832** on Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:35 pm

mrswdk wrote:Duk posted some Bible quotes about pacifism, so I pointed out there are just as many quotes in the Bible about wrath and vengeance. Then you came along going 'quotes in the Old Testament are not rules because of historical context, you are just making groundless attacks and pretending to know things when you don't'.

Not close. I asked you for references and you declined, deciding in advance that whatever I said was wrong and an attack.
and no... I don't consider such childishness worth more time.

by **mrswdk** on Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:56 am

PLAYER57832 wrote: I asked you for references

With a massive catchpa attached.

Please provide me proof of that, using nothing but quotes from jimboston's Star Wars vs Christmas thread.

by **PLAYER57832** on Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:20 am

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I asked you for references

With a massive catchpa attached.

Please provide me proof of that, using nothing but quotes from jimboston's Star Wars vs Christmas thread.

I asked you for New Testament references. The only reason to call that a "catchpa" is if you are intentionally misunderstanding our faith. As Tzor indicated... we do not ignore the Old Testament, but we don't view it as you wish to claim is necessary.

I later said that you could point to Old Testament sections if you wish, but that they need to be taken in the context in which they were written, not just pulled out of context and time.

Unless you wish to truly engage, I am done. Your continual claims of error without any willingness to provide evidence is tiresome and childish.

by **2dimes** on Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:50 am

The Old Testament was written specifically, for a specific group of Hebrews, to draw nearer to a specific God, at a specific time, as he allowed a specific man to lead them out of Egypt.

It is not that the laws have changed. More as Saxi sort of alludes to, the Hebrews have.

Instead of using the laws to separate themselves and prepare for worship at the temple, they started using them to accuse others of not following the laws. Now there is no temple, it is impossible to follow many of the laws. But go ahead and explain how you think Playa is choosing which laws she prefers.

Is there any particular one you think she should try harder to follow?