View Single Post
  #391    
Old May 2nd, 2012 (04:44 AM).
FrostPheonix's Avatar
FrostPheonix
Eternity.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bored-topia
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by SwiftSign:

Anyway I'm just going to add my two cents about the video - I would rip up a bible to make a point.

Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?
I would just like to point out, there is a drastic difference between Harry Potter and the Bible. Nobody (I hope) believes Harry Potter to be true. Millions (if not billions) believe the Bible to be true. I think destroying religions' text has much more significance in the face of its believers; its like a slap in the face for them. So yeah, I'd say it's insensitive.

Quote originally posted by SwiftSign:

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?

Actions speak louder than words. He was just making a point.
Not all Christians follow the Pope. Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox Christians all don't recognize the Pope. And I don't think any Roman Catholics would either if he suddenly dictated something against the Bible.


Quote originally posted by Toujours:


I think you're changing Theology a bit to suit what you think must be right based on what you know of this world in relation to who gets into Heaven. Question: Why do you believe that those particular laws are no longer followed? Do you have reason beyond "I don't like them"? What about verses such as this:
My answer:
Quote:
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
-John 14:21
In fact, 'believe' in many verses comes from the word pisteuo; which means "commit unto, commit to (one's) trust, be committed unto, be put in trust with, be committed to one's trust", which is taking up Jesus' teachings and no just saying 'Yeah, I believe he existed' but to also make the commitment to follow him.

Quote originally posted by Toujours:


You can't say "it's not pick and choose" and then...pick and choose from the Old Testament with no justification, lol. In addition, the old covenant has not been lifted. The New Testament fulfills the covenant from the Old Testament. It doesn't replace it. Another question: Exodus is part of the Pentateuch, therefore the 10 Commandments. Do they no longer apply as well?
Jesus fulfills the old covenant for us, and so we are no longer bound by it. Its not lifted but fulfilled through Jesus. And, the two commandments I talked about before (Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself) kind of sum up the 10 commandments. And many things Jesus wanted us to do are also there in the new testament, which for me sum up everything Christians now do.
Also, the old testament is also not to be ignored; we are to learn from them. So these laws and the story of Israel are supposed to help you develop spiritually as a Christian.


Quote originally posted by Shining Raichu:
The gun analogy CWP and QK were talking about further up the page got me thinking about an exchange from 7th Heaven, which I used to watch many years ago before I was quite so jaded against religion

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE!"

For the sake of the analogy, lets replace the word 'gun' with 'religion'.

"Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH RELIGION KILL PEOPLE!"

Now, going forward, I know that religion is not the only reason people kill each other. There are a multitude of them: jealousy, rage, insanity, personal gain... the possibilities are endless in a system as complex as the human brain. But consider this scenario:

A Christian and a Satanist walk into a bar. They do not know each other personally, but they are aware of each other's religions because in this world each person is required to advertise on their person what faith they follow. Therefore the Christian is wearing a white T-shirt with a powder blue C, while the Satanist is wearing a maroon shirt emblazoned with an orange S. They enter from opposite ends of the room and on sight pull their guns out of their belts and shoot each other in the head, spraying scarlet blood over the plain grey shirts of the bar's other patrons, who are all without religion.

Do you think, had these two men been wearing the same shirts as the other people in the bar, they would have hated each other on sight and been galvanised into murderous action? Had religion not been involved, would they have sorted through the Rolodex of possible reasons to hate a person and killed each other anyway? No, and it's a serious underestimation of the human race to think that they would.

That's because the analogy is flawed from the beginning; it implies that people kill each other not because they have an actual reason to motivate them, but simply because they happen to have a gun in their hand. More troubling is the implication that if they didn't, they'd pick up a sword. Religion is not the gun, it's the reason that people pick up the gun. One of many possible reasons, yes, but the reasons are not interchangeable. If religion had never existed, it would not mean that the deaths that would have been caused by religion would be evenly distributed among the other potential reasons for murder. It would mean that one of the reasons would be removed and less people would be dead.
First point I'd like to make:
Christian would not shoot Satanist on sight. That goes completely against Jesus' teachings.
Secondly, any murders made by Christians based on the Bible are few, compared to how many Christians there are. They are a sadly mislead minority. So there may be less people dead, but not many. you can't really help the fact that these people don't read the Bible properly. The Bible, or religion for that matter, wouldn't have been the direct cause, rather the person who taught them this or their own misinterpretation.


I have exams soon, so I won't be replying much until they are over ; like talking to you guys though. Its really thought provoking.
Reply With Quote