Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Magicpole, 24 May 2017.
I am so glad I`m an atheist.
Islam does not "build on Christianity". It cherry picks bits and ignores the most important facets of the religion. The two faiths may be waiting for Jesus to return but their concepts of Jesus are totally different.
You're right of course. We're sick.
The Catholic Church on the other hand has nothing to answer for. They were as Christian as they come the last time I studied religion.
Keep cherry picking the bits of the medieval book/doctrine you like, and ignore the ones you don't. I think that's the 'enlightenment' referred to earlier.
They use the main stories mate, maybe they don't "build" on whats there but they used it as a base starting point. As Christianity did with Judaism, and I wouldn't be surprised if Judaism did it with earlier religion.
Not attacking the main concepts within these religions but just that I feel confident this is how these texts evolved. Within each book they differentiate between groups, "attack this people or that people because they don't believe this." Why did God create those peoples in the same way as you then? Why does this god through your book preach love and care for others despite their wrongdoings because they will be judged in death whilst telling you to attack them in another chapter? The teachings contradict from one section to the next, indicating different writers at different times (think this is accepted anyway).
We know with each revision of the bible, different people translated things with different meanings too. Further manipulation once the new religion has been long established. I can't remember the example but did you know some of the new bible editions (particularly American ones) completely changed the message of a passage to include "New World Order." From a word/phrase that did not fit that (revised from an English edition). It explicitly states that. I don't know what we're to take from that (definitely not the conspiracy route) but you've got to acknowledge that's odd.
Then why does Christianity oppose homosexuality if that is the case?
It is there a sub clause that I missed?
You are doing what is the default pisition, edit and ignore. It's either all truly the word of God, that infallible being. Are you saying he had a reboot? Or it's all made up.
It's all man made. The differences show the different perspectives of men over the centuries, not God. He cannot make mistakes if he existed, which I don't believe he ever has.
Jesus also said I am the only way. If you don't accept me you are going to hell to burn forever.
How does that square will love on any level?
That would depend on the definition of terrorist but there is no doubt that the UK has backed regimes around the world that have been responsible for acts of terror. My point was that there is plenty of blood on plenty of hands from various conflicts around the globe where the good guy is difficult to differentiate from the bad one.
So that's a 'no' then.
The UK Government hasn't willingly financially backed a regime causing 'terrorist atrocities' out of a mutual benefit, has it.
I hadn't heard that, thought it was Libya.
What were the Hamas/Hezbollah motives for that?
I wouldn't dispute that.
They attacked the US in Lebanon, 300 marines and took hostages. I think your right that the majority of attacks are from a Sunni source which escalated after the Afghan wars and the first Iraq war were we were seen as crusaders in Muslim lands.