Does Christianity teach tolerance, love, caring, peace, etc? Yes. That is what I follow. You should try it.
America is a Christian Nation
- Thread starter Debray
- Start date
Does Christianity teach tolerance, love, caring, peace, etc? Yes. That is what I follow. You should try it.
If it bitches and moans about everything religion, feels wronged and has an insatiable need to flog believers... it's an atheist. Neither you or Nogods can win this argument.
So you do, or you don't, believe that you or others are getting messages from your sky buddy? Was Abraham a liar? How about any of the modern era parents who have killed their children believing they were instructed to do so by their imaginary supernatural being?
If you heard a voice saying "this is Jesus, go kill your neighbor because he is an agent of Satan preparing the way for the anti-Christ" would you obey?
Or do you (along with everyone else who claims to hear the "Lord") have a personal filter you use to decide for yourself which messages are from your sky buddy and which are just the manifestation of insanity creeping up on you?
The Christian version of love, caring, and peace for the first 1960 years of its existence didn't work out all that well for humanity did it. We have no reason to believe anything has change.
People who depict rational questions and rational arguments as "hatred" are already of questionable character.
[h=1] Woman thought God told her to kill sons[/h]
Farmhood
New member
That was not God...you goofball!
Quit spreading your lies. Everyone knows that's people aborting their children.
627,321 so far this year. I know you have seen this on the news (Plannedsex&sellthepartsHood)
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
A women's right to choose to murder her children is the number one cause of death in America. Fifty Eight (58) MILLION and counting. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, you name the monster, they don't hold a candle to equal the body count racked up by America's mothers. Still the most dangerous place to live in America is in the Mothers womb.
XD40scinNC
New member
But the mothers murdered their babies because your sick demented muther effin god told them to, or at least that is the delusion of their story.
Farmhood
New member
It is always the same with the God haters... Glad to be born before...
What is the difference with us and the other side of the world?
Their religion says off with their heads!
Our secular liberal social religion (Gov) says off with their limbs!
XD40scinNC
New member
WTF are you going on about?
Uh...how do YOU know it wasn't your god? Have you been appointed your god's editor on earth?
Did your god tell Abraham top kill his son? If Abraham had told you "God told me to kill my son" would you have said "That was not God...you goofball!?
NotTwoShure
Well-known member
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Things are going to get very ugly, very soon...(Matthew 24:21) "For at that time there will be great suffering, the kind that hasn't happened from the beginning of the world until now and certainly won't ever happen again". Thank the Lord that we (born again Christians) won't be here to suffer the worst horror the world will ever experience. MARANATHA! :victory:
I'm a Christian. I'm not a nut. I don't feel a need to insult or demean atheists. You're refering a Christian to the Jewish Bible which I find somewhat questionable. Although I've read the old testament I believe it to be more so an account of history told through scores of generations; and subject to the problems of such "handing down" of stories. Now you're mixing old and new testament. The other thing I see is that whenever someone does something insane in the name of religion it isn't the fault of the entire Christian population. What you're doing is blaming the gun for the crime. No difference in tactic.
So you are a pick-and-choose believer of the old testament - a have-it-Yahweh believer.
I'm not blaming the religion - My contempt is focused on the dealers (promoters) of the drugs (religion) with an attempt to educated and reform the addicts (the believers). Get your analogies straight, then let us know which parts of the ?Old Testament you think are true.
Farmhood
New member
Apply that same thinking to your love of liberalism...you have blood on your hands concerning the genocide in America today.
#goofball #selltheparts
Oldgrunt
Well-known member
TroutKing: You are wasting your time arguing with nogods. He says he is not a believer in the New Testament and that it is "Satan's Book" written by satan inspired minions. Then he will quote the Old Testament; then he will quote the NT. He claimed he follows one religion from one book of the Bible, then he will be off to something else. He is obviously not a believer in God but that is OK, he soon will, like everyone else who denies God. It is impossible to keep up with all of his off-the-wall rants about religion, something which he doesn't seem to know much about. As much as I hate to give him credit, XD gives the more coherent arguments so, if you want to argue, choose XD. He is consistent in his non-belief and doesn't ramble like nogods. Bless his little heart, he just can't seem to get his arguments straight.
Depends on what you consider a believer. The old testament is in part a history book that hands-down stories from ancient times. Some of those stories have factual objective proof while others not so. Genesis, for example, discusses the big bang theory and the splitting of the first single-cell protozoa into two organisms by asexual reproduction. Science is pretty sure that our universe had a beginning, and it occurred based on some unknown catalyst. We know God didn't actually take a rib from a man to make a woman. But we do know that protozoa did split and become two organisms. Consider Exodus, Kings and some other books. The Bible discusses UFO's at length in these books, written 2,000 years ago. Can you tell me what the hell is flying around our skies today and how it matches directly what a people wrote about 2,000 years ago? How about those religious paintings from over 1,000 years ago showing a religious scene with a perfect UFO in the sky? No.
The bible is interpretive in nature. And it's strange that science has come close to proving some of what is written in Genesis. The bible isn't an "all or nothing" belief. Understanding that certain meanings may be lost in the many translations and the interpretive nature of writings made by a primitive people, one may believe some but not all. The Bible is also provides the basics of accounting, fairness, penal law, civil law and even medicine. Requiring someone with a large boil to remain outside of the city until it heals was a very smart thing for a population without medical care, antibiotics or knowledge. To have an all or none approach is pure ignorance.
In any event, you're talking about the Jewish Bible, not Christianity.
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
What "church" do you attend that believes God to be a liar?
Genesis has two entirely different chronologies for the creation of earth. They can both be false. The first could be true but then the second would then have to be false. the second could be true, but then the first would have to be false.
What can't be is that both can't be true. simply logically impossible,
Apologists will try to claim that one is "specific" and the other is "general" but that doesn't explain away the specific order of creation each specifies, and each specifies a different order, making it impossible for each to be true.
The two contradictory creation accounts.
Once a person admits, as you have, that the Old Testament is more story than truth (which is exactly what the people who wrote it, the Jews, believe) then the basis for Jesus Christ being the messiah and savior falls flat.
The new testament is also full of contradictory claims, the most glaring of which is the genealogy of Jesus. Again, the apologists will try to claim one is for Joseph and the other for Mary, but as in their other attempts to "footnote" and edit the bible, that claim falls flat as a matter of Jewish tradition, plain reading of the bible, and logic.
Farmhood
New member
In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, are animals created after people?
Contradictions...
The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.
This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.
Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.
The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.
The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past.
Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears
Paul Taylor
Answers in Genesis
Contradictions...
The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.
This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.
Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.
The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.
The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past.
Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears
Paul Taylor
Answers in Genesis
