Muslims did it again

[Renzokuken]

Just because they say they have Jesus, doesn't mean they do.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Same can be applied to anyone.

 

[B~E]

Antisemitism in the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the whole part on the New Testament having anti-Semetic verses. There is a reason why a favorite past time for all the good Christians a couple of hundred years back (or a 100 in some places) was to drown a Jew in a well. What about then the good Christians did all that slaughtering in the New World and established slavery as an industry in Africa? All were good Christians, the only thing that separates modern Christians from them is a more evolved civilization that we all enjoy.

Look, this is extremly simple. If you want to prove that Christianity can justify violence, quote a passage from the new testament that justify violence. Preferably a quotation from the Christ. Can you do that?

Dont just post a link to a wikipedia article and expect me to read it all, do your own goddamn reasearch, dont be a lazy slob. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Look, this is extremly simple. If you want to prove that Christianity can justify violence, quote a passage from the new testament that justify violence. Preferably a quotation from the Christ. Can you do that?

Dont just post a link to a wikipedia article and expect me to read it all, do your own goddamn reasearch, dont be a lazy slob. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

You can't scroll down and read the two passages? Your point is mute anyways, Christianity HAS justified violence, no way of walking around that.

But since you asked:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

Matthew

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

And there are a lot more in there. These are summaries, but there are links to the actual passages besides each line on that website.

Matthew 10: 34-36
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

and one's enemies will be those of his household."

Seems like he wants us to kill each other.

 

[B~E]

Your link direct me at the bottom of the page.

I think you meant to say, my point is "moot", not "mute". But I may be wrong.

Listen, my point is important if you want to understand why christianity evolved in a peacefull way while islam never did. My point is that you cant open up the new testament, quote a verse, and say, "see, this justify violence!", while with the Coran, I think you can do just that. A few millions of people are convinced of it anyway, on all continents, from all walks of life.

Thats one of the reason why one religion was able to evolve peacefully, while the other didnt. More importantly, thats why both religions arent moraly equivalent.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

I just gave you numerous quotes from the new testament that condone violence, check my last post again, I edited it. Christianity evolved because the societies that practice it evolved, while Islam didn't evolve for the same reason. Both religions preach violence if taken word for word, the difference is that the civilized societies dropped the violent aspects of their religions because they have religion neutral laws, religious institutions don't run our societies and thats why we don't kill infidels, anymore.

 

[please help me :(]

at least muslims didn't kill more than 150 million people in a century

 

[Jenny]

B~E is so smart. He is my role model!

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

But I just proved him wrong and its the second consecutive time...nvm.

How the hell did I go from Islam bashing to defending Islam?

 

[torrid mind]

Yeah, well.. You can't really argue with crazy people, now can you?

Renzo you are a very nice person and everyone has different beliefs, as we can see. I'm sorry
But DAMN that made my night.
Thanks jenny, you don't know how bad I needed a laugh.
Wait... It's morning now.. Where did this insomnia come from?

 

[B~E]

You can't scroll down and read the two passages? Your point is mute anyways, Christianity HAS justified violence, no way of walking around that.

But since you asked:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

Matthew

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

And there are a lot more in there. These are summaries, but there are links to the actual passages besides each line on that website.

Matthew 10: 34-36
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

and one's enemies will be those of his household."

Seems like he wants us to kill each other.

This is piss easy. You obviously picked up the content of the first random website that came up after you googled "christianity violence", except that you havent read or understood the crap you copied and past.

Look, Matthew 3:10, 7:13 and 7;19 are about sending bad people and sinners into Hell. All the talk about cutting shit down is in paraboles about trees.

In 5:29, he says that it'd be better to cut your own hand than to sin. This isnt explicitly violent, as it doesnt give anyone the authority to cut somebody's hand in order to prevent sin.

In 8:12, he tell us that people regardless of ethnicity (in this case Jews) can be cast out of heaven.

In Matthew 10:14, he tells us that during Armagedon, cities that havent heard the Word will be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah.

And Goddamnit, why is Matthew 8 in this? Why are you quoting the part about the exorcism? Have you even read the shit you copied and past? I could go on, but its clear that none of this shit would seriously jusitfy any sort of violence against anybody in the name of Christianity. You're full of it.

And when was the other time you supposedly proved me wrong? Was it the discussion where I didnt replied because you called me a neocon for merely pointing out that Russia failed to maintain her nuclear arsenal? I didnt replied because you completly missed my point and immediatly opted to call me a pro-american suck up.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

This is piss easy. You obviously picked up the content of the first random website that came up after you googled "christianity violence", except that you havent read or understood the crap you copied and past.

Look, Matthew 3:10, 7:13 and 7;19 are about sending bad people and sinners into Hell. All the talk about cutting shit down is in paraboles about trees.

In 5:29, he says that it'd be better to cut your own hand than to sin. This isnt explicitly violent, as it doesnt give anyone the authority to cut somebody's hand in order to prevent sin.

In 8:12, he tell us that people regardless of ethnicity (in this case Jews) can be cast out of heaven.

In Matthew 10:14, he tells us that during Armagedon, cities that havent heard the Word will be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah.

And Goddamnit, why is Matthew 8 in this? Why are you quoting the part about the exorcism? Have you even read the shit you copied and past? I could go on, but its clear that none of this shit would seriously jusitfy any sort of violence against anybody in the name of Christianity. You're full of it.

And when was the other time you supposedly proved me wrong? Was it the discussion where I didnt replied because you called me a neocon for merely pointing out that Russia failed to maintain her nuclear arsenal? I didnt replied because you completly missed my point and immediatly opted to call me a pro-american suck up.

I just copied the first part from that link, there is more in there. It is obvious that the Bible can be used to justify violence since it HAS been used to justify violence, the crusades, the inquisition, etc. Just like any religious text the Bible is open to interpretation and is effective as a tool to manipulate people, in the olden days of church and state being one thats what happened, thats also whats happening in the middle east today cause their societies are still at that level.

I missed your point? You gave me an article stating that MAD doesn't work, I gave you several articles describing in detail why MAD still works, one of them directly addressing your article point by point. Hell yes I proved you wrong, your source and your argument was completely discredited beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here is that article btw: “Nuclear Primacy" is a Fallacy

 

[B~E]

The crusades were about geopolitics, about territorial control. The Churche was central in uniting Europeans, because it was the only political entity capable of uniting the multitude of fiefdoms and city-states, cutting through boundaries such as language.

Just like with the Inquisition, the people were illiterate back then and could be easily manipulated by the political powers of the time. They didnt justified their aims with passages of the Bible, they didnt have to and they couldnt have done it even if they tried. These religious institutions did what they did because of their hold on society, not because their aims was concordant with christian dogma.

You cant even produce a single bible verse that would support your claim. All you've got are historical events where the role of christian institutions is explainable through power politics. Its got nothing to do with christian doctrine, and its precisely because of that that christianity canot be used to justify violence anymore.

Another proof that your argument is bunk is that perfectly educated muslims, born and raised in Europe, can be grommed to become suicide bombers. You're argument can't explain that.

~ About the second argument, I'll take you by the hand and explain to you why you missed my point. My point was that since Russia wasnt able to maintain a nuclear arsenal that could continue match America's, as proven by my article about MAD, then it certainly didnt manage to maintan a half-decent conventional military, thus invalidating your boasting of russian prowess in that thread.

The thesis of my article, that there is such a thing as an american nuclear primacy, didnt needed to be true for my argument to hold. I only neededyou to accept that since the quality of Russia's arsenal degraded over the past 2 decades, then its conventional capabilities must have degraded, too.

But all you did was link me to an article that never attacked my article's claim about the state of Russia's nuclear capabilities. Read its arguments again, if you ever did.

 

[ChrisH36]

This clearly means Islam as a religion is bad and everyone associated with it is also bad.

Not every Islam person is a evil-doer. There are just some that are extremely radical with thier beliefs, and are willing to do insane shit like die.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

The crusades were about geopolitics, about territorial control. The Churche was central in uniting Europeans, because it was the only political entity capable of uniting the multitude of fiefdoms and city-states, cutting through boundaries such as language.

For the higher ups it was about geopolitics, but they used religion to convince people to go slaughter the Muslims, your common soldier at the time couldn't read, all he cared about was saving his "eternal soul" and the only way to do that was to do what the Church told you. Crusades are a great example of how Christianity was used to start violence.

Just like with the Inquisition, the people were illiterate back then and could be easily manipulated by the political powers of the time. They didnt justified their aims with passages of the Bible, they didnt have to and they couldnt have done it even if they tried. These religious institutions did what they did because of their hold on society, not because their aims was concordant with christian dogma.

Of course they justified with the passages of the Bible, the Bible can be interpreted and reinterpreted, you can spin it which ever way you want. And thats my point exactly, because of the lack of education and the primitiveness of the society Christians were acting in the same way during those times that the Muslims act today. Btw, look again at the passage that states clearly that Jesus acknowledges everything said in the Old Testament as the will of god.

You cant even produce a single bible verse that would support your claim. All you've got are historical events where the role of christian institutions is explainable through power politics. Its got nothing to do with christian doctrine, and its precisely because of that that christianity canot be used to justify violence anymore.

The way Christian institutions act IS their doctrine, everything else means nothing. I've produced numerous passages that prove my point of view, its your choice to ignore sources, check that link again.

Another proof that your argument is bunk is that perfectly educated muslims, born and raised in Europe, can be grommed to become suicide bombers. You're argument can't explain that.

Sure it can, they simply choose to become part of the primitive culture that exists today in the middle east.

~ About the second argument, I'll take you by the hand and explain to you why you missed my point. My point was that since Russia wasnt able to maintain a nuclear arsenal that could continue match America's, as proven by my article about MAD, then it certainly didnt manage to maintan a half-decent conventional military, thus invalidating your boasting of russian prowess in that thread.

Okay, now let me take you by the hand and walk you through how you are wrong. My article proves that yours is incorrect on every single point concerning US nuclear primacy, thats one. More so, your source because of its numerous fallacies looses all of its credibility. There is no correlation between nuclear and conventional forces, thats two. We reduced the number of our warheads according to mutual treaties signed with US, we still have enough to ensure that US does not have nuclear supremacy and MAD still works. We are improving our nuclear arsenal with purchase of Topol-M, building of new SSBNs and a new breed of ICBMs for them and all of that is not the drawing board, its already happening. I think since my article proves that US nuclear primacy is a myth, that already discredits any statements about poor capability of Russian nuclear force since its still a viable deterrent and mutual destruction is assured.

Let me point out some other fallacies in your article:

1. Russia's bomber force now does regular training flights as well as actual patrols with nuclear weapons on board: World Politics Review | Russian Bombers Rehearse Nuclear Attacks Against the United States.
2. Topol-M, which is not mentioned in your article is a brand new ICBM system that can penetrate any modern anti-ballistic system, Russia currently has 65 deployed: Topol-M deployment plans - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces and plans to purchase 69 more by 2015: Russia set to buy 69 Topol-M missile systems by 2015
Topol-M system specifications: RT-2UTTH Topol M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. As to the rest of the claims about deterioration of our older systems, your article provides no proof, they make wild guesses through out the whole thing.

The thesis of my article, that there is such a thing as an american nuclear primacy, didnt needed to be true for my argument to hold. I only needed you to accept that since the quality of Russia's arsenal degraded over the past 2 decades, then its conventional capabilities must have degraded, too.

It has degraded but it has been modernized since then, most every piece of kit that US army uses was also developed in the 80s, even F-22s as a concept emerged back then. Throughout the 90s you were mostly upgrading your equipment, we not so much, but since then we have started upgrading our equipment and our military prowess is a plain old fact. Our technology has never stopped advancing, there were simply no orders from the government for it. Thats why we came out with our own AESA radar, thats why we are releasing a new model of MBT and a 5th generation fighter this year, we didn't come up with all that technological advance overnight. We are a regional power and are able to knock anyone on the head in our near abroad and neither US, nor anyone else can do anything about it (see Georgia). Our military power is not superior to that of US, we lack same degree of power projection, but on our turf we simply can't be rivaled with, we do have one of the world's most powerful militaries.

But all you did was link me to an article that never attacked my article's claim about the state of Russia's nuclear capabilities. Read its arguments again, if you ever did.

I read it through and through, it points out clearly that US nuclear primacy doesn't exist. In either case your line of thought is just silly even if your article was true.

I know its pointless, but why the hell not?

"John 3:36 : He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him"

Should I explain to you how that line can be interpreted to motivate violence?

What about this one?

"Acts 3:23 : And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

No difference between this and "kill the infidels". I got tons more there that they came from.

 

[Theroy]

Dont just post a link to a wikipedia article and expect me to read it all, do your own goddamn reasearch, dont be a lazy slob. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

ROFL

An unnecessary comment by me but I have to point out damn that's awesome.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

The guy chooses to ignore sources, thats awesome?

 

[Theroy]

I hate that in an argument when some one give me like 5 links to 700 pages of shit to try to prove something I'm not going to read that.. Give me the paragraph and the source and tell me where in the source it is.

 

[Gimmi]

For the higher ups it was about geopolitics, but they used religion to convince people to go slaughter the Muslims, your common soldier at the time couldn't read, all he cared about was saving his "eternal soul" and the only way to do that was to do what the Church told you. Crusades are a great example of how Christianity was used to start violence.



Of course they justified with the passages of the Bible, the Bible can be interpreted and reinterpreted, you can spin it which ever way you want. And thats my point exactly, because of the lack of education and the primitiveness of the society Christians were acting in the same way during those times that the Muslims act today. Btw, look again at the passage that states clearly that Jesus acknowledges everything said in the Old Testament as the will of god.



The way Christian institutions act IS their doctrine, everything else means nothing. I've produced numerous passages that prove my point of view, its your choice to ignore sources, check that link again.



Sure it can, they simply choose to become part of the primitive culture that exists today in the middle east.



Okay, now let me take you by the hand and walk you through how you are wrong. My article proves that yours is incorrect on every single point concerning US nuclear primacy, thats one. More so, your source because of its numerous fallacies looses all of its credibility. There is no correlation between nuclear and conventional forces, thats two. We reduced the number of our warheads according to mutual treaties signed with US, we still have enough to ensure that US does not have nuclear supremacy and MAD still works. We are improving our nuclear arsenal with purchase of Topol-M, building of new SSBNs and a new breed of ICBMs for them and all of that is not the drawing board, its already happening. I think since my article proves that US nuclear primacy is a myth, that already discredits any statements about poor capability of Russian nuclear force since its still a viable deterrent and mutual destruction is assured.

Let me point out some other fallacies in your article:

1. Russia's bomber force now does regular training flights as well as actual patrols with nuclear weapons on board: World Politics Review | Russian Bombers Rehearse Nuclear Attacks Against the United States.
2. Topol-M, which is not mentioned in your article is a brand new ICBM system that can penetrate any modern anti-ballistic system, Russia currently has 65 deployed: Topol-M deployment plans - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces and plans to purchase 69 more by 2015: Russia set to buy 69 Topol-M missile systems by 2015
Topol-M system specifications: RT-2UTTH Topol M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. As to the rest of the claims about deterioration of our older systems, your article provides no proof, they make wild guesses through out the whole thing.




It has degraded but it has been modernized since then, most every piece of kit that US army uses was also developed in the 80s, even F-22s as a concept emerged back then. Throughout the 90s you were mostly upgrading your equipment, we not so much, but since then we have started upgrading our equipment and our military prowess is a plain old fact. Our technology has never stopped advancing, there were simply no orders from the government for it. Thats why we came out with our own AESA radar, thats why we are releasing a new model of MBT and a 5th generation fighter this year, we didn't come up with all that technological advance overnight. We are a regional power and are able to knock anyone on the head in our near abroad and neither US, nor anyone else can do anything about it (see Georgia). Our military power is not superior to that of US, we lack same degree of power projection, but on our turf we simply can't be rivaled with, we do have one of the world's most powerful militaries.



I read it through and through, it points out clearly that US nuclear primacy doesn't exist. In either case your line of thought is just silly even if your article was true.

I know its pointless, but why the hell not?

"John 3:36 : He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him"

Should I explain to you how that line can be interpreted to motivate violence?

What about this one?

"Acts 3:23 : And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

No difference between this and "kill the infidels". I got tons more there that they came from.

You would lololol