Printable View
So.... Every christian who doesn't support the death penalty for gays, are not christians...?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Also, there are more than just one version of Islam, just like there are more than one version of christianity. Face it Rory, Islam isn't set in stone. There is interpretation and discussion.
Romans 1.32Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die - yet they not only do them but even aplaud others who practice them.2.1
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.Where are the Gays and where is the call to kill them? Try again, prefferable from the Gospel.
Where does it say in the Gospel that God is going to go around massacring people. What is the principle of the New Testemant?Quote:
But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return ~;)
Murder?
If Jesus was such a blood-thirsty man why did he go bumbing around the desert for three years holding picnics?
My favourite problem, who decides Dogma? The Pope? The Caliph?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Actually, Paul says don't kill the gays. As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out a couple of years ago, he just doesn't like them, but he's talking about Jewish law for Jewish people.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh come on. Don't tell me you haven't read what happens to the unbelievers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Jesus wasn't a blood-thirsty man, Jesus was a powerless and beaten man - that's why he was in no position to be blood-thirsty.
Mark 4:11-12: Jesus is kind enough to speak in parables, so that people won't understand him and therefore go to hell.
Mark 6:11: Any city that doesn't welcome jesus' followers will be destroyed(by god).
But hey, how can you even begin to call a concept such as hell anything but evil?
If this is how you want to see the figure of Jesus, I can't stop you. Answer this though:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If Jesus was so helpless and constrained by circumstances why did he incite the authorities, and give himself up to those authorities for execution?
He didn't have to go to Jerusalem.
Though I am confused:
If you hate Christianity so much, why don't you hate Isalm more?
It says all that and commands believers to wage war.
Because my beef with religion isn't about war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Everyone loves war, religious or not.
I don't love war.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't either, but we're by far the minority in this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, my primary reasons to not like christianity is 1; I don't consider it to be true, and 2; I can't love a religion who has Gandhi burning in hell for all eternity.
I am a 17 year old boy with a military background, training with guns, a love of ancient history, my heor is Genghis Khan, and i am conservative.......Hmmmm, i don't love war. That sounds dumb, no one loves war, they may like the adrenaline from fighting, but so does everyone, adrenaline is your friend :laugh4:
Judging by the number of wars in the world, then yes, people do love war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Try finding a country who isn't at war with anyone.
Wow, ummmmm how about switzerland...... yeah im pretty sure they aren't currently in armed conflict
Sweden and Iceland too. So that's 3. Anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Edit: Oops, both of them are involved in Afghanistan. So it's still just Switzerland....
People romanticise warriors, big difference. A willingness to go to war does not have to indicate a love thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
However, war should always be a last resort.
Which neatly brings us back to terrorism and it's pointlessness, as it is a short a bloody route to trying to change people's minds vs a rational arguement.
I believe spain is not. Neither is singapore. Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, (you want me to keep going, ive barely left southeast asia.)
Spain: in Afghanistan, as well as the basque separatist movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Singapore: Also in Afghanistan.
Vietnam: Occupies the Spratly Islands.
Bhutan: No current wars, the last one 5 years ago.
Nepal: supplies the UK with soldiers for afghanistan.
With their great history of persecuting non-Christians (and all religious people now), they don't need to be suggested.Quote:
Vietnam,
And somehow the fact that some countries have 5 or more soldiers in Afghanistan proves that all their citizens love war? :inquisitive:
The point trying to make here is the fact that fighting is typical for all humans.
No sir the point he is trying to make is that people LOOOOVE war. And people may fight but that doesn't mean we love it.
Spain- Spain sent no troops to iraq, sorry they are in afghanistanQuote:
Spain: in Afghanistan, as well as the basque separatist movement.
Singapore: Also in Afghanistan.
Vietnam: Occupies the Spratly Islands.
Bhutan: No current wars, the last one 5 years ago.
Nepal: supplies the UK with soldiers for afghanistan.
Singapore- sorry
Vietnam- OCCUPIES, they aren't technically at war
Bhutan- So they are at peace
Nepal- Burkhas don't count, they are now mercenaries no longer regulars in British army and there are currently no burkhas in afghanistan, buddy
If you want to play this game i will go down a list of countries and tell you who is ACTIVELY at war and who is not
Moldova
Andorra
Vatican City
San Marino
Puerto rico
Barbados
Grenada
St. lucia
Bahamas
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Madagascar
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Armenia
Thailand
Papau New Guinea
Palau
Solomon islands
Micronesia
Marshall islands
(i got bored but heres a preliminary list feel free to edit this off the top of my head)
Oh and anyone who talks about the tribalism of Afghanistan (i do often) and how it is impossible to have a centralized government should look up Mongolia, stable country with a very tribal history. They even have troops in Afghanistan.
Nepal was never part of the British Empire, and her men who serve in Ghurka regiments are not mercenaries, they are regular soldiers.
The average person doesn't like war. Before the big total wars started, war was pretty romanticised, but then that's not been the case since the 'war to end all wars'.
sorry i spelled it wrong. and i know that they once served as regular british troops. however, i meant at the present they do not serve as regulars. They are a strange force description. half-independent (mercenaries) but they are still considered members of the crowns royal forces.Quote:
Nepal was never part of the British Empire, and her men who serve in Ghurka regiments are not mercenaries, they are regular soldiers.
It's just as typical for animals, so what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Unlike them we actually try to limit ourselves, most of us anyway.
They serve as regulars, the same as the Irish. The recent court cases hinged on exactly the issue, that they serve in the same way, and should therefore have the same terms of service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Sorry, i am not going to argue with you about something that im not sure about. i will just take your word on it:2thumbsup:.
Rhy is right that all animals (including ourselves) fight, but at least we try not to.
It's rare that people agree with me and when they do, they might just attribute it to someone else. :help:
All your arguments are belong to me
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/4104..._imam_aan.html
Alright, I'll play your game, even though it's got nothing to do with my point, which you still haven't figured out, even though others have repeated it multiple times now:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Moldova: Civil conflict, separatist movement.
Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Puerto Rica, Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia, Bahamas, St. Vincent, Palau, Solomon Islands, Micronesia and Marshall Islands: none of these are real countries(and I believe several of them were part of Bush' "coalition of the willing").
Madagascar: Civil conflict, military coup.
Morocco: (Semi)Civil conflict/violent occupation, separatist movement(west sahara).
Qatar and Bahrain: None since the Gulf war.
Armenia: Withdrew from iraq in octobre 2008, still in Kosovo.
Thailand: You've got to be kidding me, they've been at war with insurgents for the last 5 years. Now they've also managed to fight with Cambodia over some temple.
I'm taking all the rep here. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yup. Ask any historian.Quote:
Rhy is right that all animals (including ourselves) fight, but at least we try not to.