Religion of Peace...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

No, Catholicism is far more dangerous than Islam, like I pointed out earlier we are responsible for every just and unjust war and every just and unjust death since ever since our G-d is the only G-d.[/quote]

No, you really aren’t responsible for every war and every death because no, your god is not the only god. In fact he doesn’t exist. He was made up by people thousands of years ago, and all of these fantastical tales about him have survived the centuries through luck (and the, always useful to religion, ubiquity of stupid people).

But you’re not going to accept that, so we’ll just agree to disagree.

42

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Edit: Plus Martyrs have a special place in every Catholic’s heart, [/quote]Yeah mine too. Like all my brothers you killed for believing what I believe, but you refuse to kill ME. What’s up with that crap man!!! I’m not good enough to die for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?

Good to see ya here again Chris. Been thinkin about ya as you know.
[/quote]

You’d be a heretic, and not a martyr. And, the faith wasn’t once and for delivered. And even if it was, you’re still in the wrong Church. I can’t help that, only you can by renouncing your heresy and reconciling yourself to your Catholic baptism.[/quote]I know you’re not this easy Chris so you must have something up your sleeve, but:
Jude 1:3 New American Bible

[quote]Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. (saints in the D.R.) [/quote] Oh yeah, I am in THE church universal founded upon the rock of the Christ, the Son of the living God. I am not getting into an exegetical jousting match with you over a speculated non existent Aramaic text when the Greek is right here in front of us.

43

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

No, Catholicism is far more dangerous than Islam, like I pointed out earlier we are responsible for every just and unjust war and every just and unjust death since ever since our G-d is the only G-d.[/quote]

No, you really aren’t responsible for every war and every death because no, your god is not the only god. In fact he doesn’t exist. He was made up by people thousands of years ago, and all of these fantastical tales about him have survived the centuries through luck (and the, always useful to religion, ubiquity of stupid people).

But you’re not going to accept that, so we’ll just agree to disagree.[/quote]

I don’t agree to disagree. That’s like agreeing to disagree that blue is actually yellow. Either I am right and you are wrong or the other way around.

Now, I ask do you believe that they hypothesis of primeval atom is true?

44

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Edit: Plus Martyrs have a special place in every Catholic’s heart, [/quote]Yeah mine too. Like all my brothers you killed for believing what I believe, but you refuse to kill ME. What’s up with that crap man!!! I’m not good enough to die for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?

Good to see ya here again Chris. Been thinkin about ya as you know.
[/quote]

You’d be a heretic, and not a martyr. And, the faith wasn’t once and for delivered. And even if it was, you’re still in the wrong Church. I can’t help that, only you can by renouncing your heresy and reconciling yourself to your Catholic baptism.[/quote]I know you’re not this easy Chris so you must have something up your sleeve, but:
Jude 1:3 New American Bible

[quote]Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. (saints in the D.R.) [/quote] Oh yeah, I am in THE church universal founded upon the rock of the Christ, the Son of the living God. I am not getting into an exegetical jousting match with you over a speculated non existent Aramaic text when the Greek is right here in front of us.
[/quote]

Although I have no problem with the verse and agree with it one hundred percent I disagree with how you privately interpret the verse. It was once delivered to the saints, but it was not completely revealed as Protestants say as to dismiss the Magisterium. Just as the Trinity wasn’t once for all delivered when Jude was written. It is a much later revelation.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Now, I ask do you believe that they hypothesis of primeval atom is true?[/quote]

Sure. Though, I don’t know and neither do you. The Big Bang seems to make sense, and scientists–who are smarter than both of us–accept it at the moment, which, for now, is good enough for me.

Though, it has nothing to do with your God.

46

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Though, it has nothing to do with your God.[/quote]

So, we agree that the universe began to exist…according to science and the Big Bang Theory. And, whatever begins to exist must have an adequate cause for its existence. Thus, the universe must have an adequate cause for its existence. Now if the universe does have a cause, we can know a few things about this mysterious ‘first cause.’ This cause:

  1. Immaterial
  2. Eternal
  3. Powerful and Intelligent, and
  4. Personal

And, as Aquinas said, this is what we call G-d. No other being has these properties except the Catholic G-d.

47

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Though, it has nothing to do with your God.[/quote]

So, we agree that the universe began to exist…according to science and the Big Bang Theory. And, whatever begins to exist must have an adequate cause for its existence. Thus, the universe must have an adequate cause for its existence. Now if the universe does have a cause, we can know a few things about this mysterious ‘first cause.’ This cause:

  1. Immaterial
  2. Eternal
  3. Powerful and Intelligent, and
  4. Personal

And, as Aquinas said, this is what we call G-d. No other being has these properties except the Catholic G-d.[/quote]

I too believe in a creator, or at least admit that the existence of a creator is a possible and perhaps even likely explanation for the existence of matter. But an argument for a first cause is not (necessarily) an argument for the God of the Bible.

48

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I already explained on this very page that I believe Islam to be more violent and more dangerous than Christianity.[/quote]

What a profound observation. Deep insight you have indeed comrade.
[/quote]

  1. I say something.
  2. Either willfully or, more likely, in earnest stupidity, you misinterpret what I’ve said.
  3. I simplify my original point.
  4. You note the simplicity of my point.

Well done.[/quote]

  1. You say something so obvious a fucking labrador would know it. It’s like saying Mother Teresa was a better person than Adolf Hitler.

  2. No misinterpretation. I sarcastically pointed out that, for some reason, you feel the need to bring up OT violence on a thread about the religion of peace. It’s like continuously bringing up British atrocities in a discussion about Nazism in 1940. It makes right thinking people wonder what your fucking motivation is.

  3. No need.

  4. No. See 2. again.

49

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

Really? I’ve sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I’ve never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.[/quote]

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?[/quote]

A. I hope you’d agree there is a difference between war and terrorism. Primarily the tagets.
B. I’ve never heard it in my church, but maybe that’s unique to Catholics.
[/quote]

A) Of course there is a difference, war is expensive and kills more people, terrorism not so much.

B) Well, our catholic and protestant priests were awfully busy blessing the Wehrmachts weapons.

[/quote]

Yeah that the same as encouraging the slaughter of civilians. Brilliant. [/quote]

No, encouring tha slaughter of civilians does infinitely less damage.

So there is no moral equivalent, war is much, much worse.

50

[quote]orion wrote:

No, encouring tha slaughter of civilians does infinitely less damage.

So there is no moral equivalent, war is much, much worse.[/quote]

You’re an idiot. The two things can’t even be compared. You’d have to define ‘terrorism’ and ‘war’ and the circumstances of each to even attempt a meaningful comparison.

Terrorism: The IRA blowing up a British paratrooper squad after Bloody Sunday or some raving fucking stoneage Islamist sending his 12-year-old son off to blow himself up in a crowd of civilians because they’re from a different raving sect or just to destabilise the Islamist government that isn’t fucking insane enough for him? What’s terrorism?

War: Some fucking fruitcake with a toothbrush moustache organising the murders of Poles at a radio station and sending out a fake broadcast as a casus belli to invade the country and exterminate the ethnic groups therein? Or some British statesman who wants to save Western Europe from invasion and genocidal dictatorship? What’s war?

51

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

No, encouring tha slaughter of civilians does infinitely less damage.

So there is no moral equivalent, war is much, much worse.[/quote]

You’re an idiot. The two things can’t even be compared. You’d have to define ‘terrorism’ and ‘war’ and the circumstances of each to even attempt a meaningful comparison.

Terrorism: The IRA blowing up a British paratrooper squad after Bloody Sunday or some raving fucking stoneage Islamist sending his 12-year-old son off to blow himself up in a crowd of civilians because they’re from a different raving sect or just to destabilise the Islamist government that isn’t fucking insane enough for him? What’s terrorism?

War: Some fucking fruitcake with a toothbrush moustache organising the murders of Poles at a radio station and sending out a fake broadcast as a casus belli to invade the country and exterminate the ethnic groups therein? Or some British statesman who wants to save Western Europe from invasion and genocidal dictatorship? What’s war?[/quote]

That is not what terrorism is about.

Suicide bombings from the late 19th centuries up until now are practically always a reaction to an occuption of “their” territory against an occupying democracy.

Not only is it dirt cheap both in lifes taken and financially, it also has the added benefit that it actually, unlike nationbuilding, works.

So, if we look at this in a utiliarian manner, we have strategy a) that almost never works and kills a shitload of people and strategy b) almost always works, kills relatively few people and lets the economic and cultual fabric of a country intact.

If you want to approach it from a deontological perspective, if killing is bad, mmkay?, killing less people could be argued to be preferrable to killing infinitely more.

But of course you can bullshit yourself into believing that wading through rivers of blood is a-ok if you really, really, did not mean to do that and its for their dismembered good anyway.

52

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

No, encouring tha slaughter of civilians does infinitely less damage.

So there is no moral equivalent, war is much, much worse.[/quote]

You’re an idiot. The two things can’t even be compared. You’d have to define ‘terrorism’ and ‘war’ and the circumstances of each to even attempt a meaningful comparison.

Terrorism: The IRA blowing up a British paratrooper squad after Bloody Sunday or some raving fucking stoneage Islamist sending his 12-year-old son off to blow himself up in a crowd of civilians because they’re from a different raving sect or just to destabilise the Islamist government that isn’t fucking insane enough for him? What’s terrorism?

War: Some fucking fruitcake with a toothbrush moustache organising the murders of Poles at a radio station and sending out a fake broadcast as a casus belli to invade the country and exterminate the ethnic groups therein? Or some British statesman who wants to save Western Europe from invasion and genocidal dictatorship? What’s war?[/quote]

That is not what terrorism is about.

Suicide bombings from the late 19th centuries up until now are practically always a reaction to an occuption of “their” territory against an occupying democracy.

Not only is it dirt cheap both in lifes taken and financially, it also has the added benefit that it actually, unlike nationbuilding, works.

So, if we look at this in a utiliarian manner, we have strategy a) that almost never works and kills a shitload of people and strategy b) almost always works, kills relatively few people and lets the economic and cultual fabric of a country intact.

If you want to approach it from a deontological perspective, if killing is bad, mmkay?, killing less people could be argued to be preferrable to killing infinitely more.

But of course you can bullshit yourself into believing that wading through rivers of blood is a-ok if you really, really, did not mean to do that and its for their dismembered good anyway.
[/quote]

You’re defending and advocating suicide bombing? My God, you fucking sociopath. GTFO!

53

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

Really? I’ve sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I’ve never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.[/quote]

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.[/quote]

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?

54

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:<<< Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]No, the Old Testament DOES NOT in any way encourage violence. GOD HIMSELF commanded exterminating conquest by force in circumstances where He saw fit to do so. There is no general advocacy for or encouragement of violence in even the Old Testament. In the now New Testament church age ANY and ALL violence alleged to be in the name of the God of the bible is a flat out lie as that theocratic earthly divine economy has been fulfilled into the heavenly kingdom of Christ Jesus by His own declaration and the universal teaching of the apostles. I guess I can hope that helps, but certainly doubt it does for some people.

55

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

No, encouring tha slaughter of civilians does infinitely less damage.

So there is no moral equivalent, war is much, much worse.[/quote]

You’re an idiot. The two things can’t even be compared. You’d have to define ‘terrorism’ and ‘war’ and the circumstances of each to even attempt a meaningful comparison.

Terrorism: The IRA blowing up a British paratrooper squad after Bloody Sunday or some raving fucking stoneage Islamist sending his 12-year-old son off to blow himself up in a crowd of civilians because they’re from a different raving sect or just to destabilise the Islamist government that isn’t fucking insane enough for him? What’s terrorism?

War: Some fucking fruitcake with a toothbrush moustache organising the murders of Poles at a radio station and sending out a fake broadcast as a casus belli to invade the country and exterminate the ethnic groups therein? Or some British statesman who wants to save Western Europe from invasion and genocidal dictatorship? What’s war?[/quote]

That is not what terrorism is about.

Suicide bombings from the late 19th centuries up until now are practically always a reaction to an occuption of “their” territory against an occupying democracy.

Not only is it dirt cheap both in lifes taken and financially, it also has the added benefit that it actually, unlike nationbuilding, works.

So, if we look at this in a utiliarian manner, we have strategy a) that almost never works and kills a shitload of people and strategy b) almost always works, kills relatively few people and lets the economic and cultual fabric of a country intact.

If you want to approach it from a deontological perspective, if killing is bad, mmkay?, killing less people could be argued to be preferrable to killing infinitely more.

But of course you can bullshit yourself into believing that wading through rivers of blood is a-ok if you really, really, did not mean to do that and its for their dismembered good anyway.
[/quote]

You’re defending and advocating suicide bombing? My God, you fucking sociopath. GTFO![/quote]

You are defending and advocating mass slaughter and probably praise those who actually do it as “heroes”.

Btw, sound reasoning on your part.

Anyone else who wants to take a shot?

56

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:<<< Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]No, the Old Testament DOES NOT in any way encourage violence. GOD HIMSELF commanded exterminating conquest by force in circumstances where He saw fit to do so. There is no general advocacy for or encouragement of violence in even the Old Testament. In the now New Testament church age ANY and ALL violence alleged to be in the name of the God of the bible is a flat out lie as that theocratic earthly divine economy has been fulfilled into the heavenly kingdom of Christ Jesus by His own declaration and the universal teaching of the apostles. I guess I can hope that helps, but certainly doubt it does for some people.
[/quote]

And the violence in the quran is commanded by whom?

57

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:<<< Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]No, the Old Testament DOES NOT in any way encourage violence. GOD HIMSELF commanded exterminating conquest by force in circumstances where He saw fit to do so. There is no general advocacy for or encouragement of violence in even the Old Testament. In the now New Testament church age ANY and ALL violence alleged to be in the name of the God of the bible is a flat out lie as that theocratic earthly divine economy has been fulfilled into the heavenly kingdom of Christ Jesus by His own declaration and the universal teaching of the apostles. I guess I can hope that helps, but certainly doubt it does for some people.
[/quote]

God himself commanded exterminating conquest by force = God commanded violence in His name. True or false?

If it’s true, then Old Testament says that there are cases when slaughter and bloodshed appease God and violence is in accordance with his will.

Then, not resorting to violence when God says you should resort to it - is wrong. Sinful even.

Is my reasoning sound to you?

58

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

Really? I’ve sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I’ve never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.[/quote]

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.[/quote]

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]

Show me a verse that says, “Go and slaughter everyone including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so.”

59

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:<<< Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]No, the Old Testament DOES NOT in any way encourage violence. GOD HIMSELF commanded exterminating conquest by force in circumstances where He saw fit to do so. There is no general advocacy for or encouragement of violence in even the Old Testament. In the now New Testament church age ANY and ALL violence alleged to be in the name of the God of the bible is a flat out lie as that theocratic earthly divine economy has been fulfilled into the heavenly kingdom of Christ Jesus by His own declaration and the universal teaching of the apostles. I guess I can hope that helps, but certainly doubt it does for some people.
[/quote]

And the violence in the quran is commanded by whom?

[/quote]

Either, the Devil (or his minions) or Prophet Mo himself.

60

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:<<< Dude, are you seriously saying that the Old Testament doesn’t encourage violence and bloodshed?

Like when God says: Go and slaughter everybody including babies in cradles, and feel no remorse, cause I said so?

That’s not encouraging violence to you?[/quote]No, the Old Testament DOES NOT in any way encourage violence. GOD HIMSELF commanded exterminating conquest by force in circumstances where He saw fit to do so. There is no general advocacy for or encouragement of violence in even the Old Testament. In the now New Testament church age ANY and ALL violence alleged to be in the name of the God of the bible is a flat out lie as that theocratic earthly divine economy has been fulfilled into the heavenly kingdom of Christ Jesus by His own declaration and the universal teaching of the apostles. I guess I can hope that helps, but certainly doubt it does for some people.
[/quote]

God himself commanded exterminating conquest by force = God commanded violence in His name. True or false?

If it’s true, then Old Testament says that there are cases when slaughter and bloodshed appease God and violence is in accordance with his will.

Then, not resorting to violence when God says you should resort to it - is wrong. Sinful even.

Is my reasoning sound to you?

[/quote]

No, we’re talking about violence positive literature and in your case encouraging violence. OT doesn’t encourage teenage boys to go out and blow up their local market because it has infidels in it.