14 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999I just said ... Muslim barbarism is dead.
Is that the best you have?
You write about Christian atrocities 500 to 2000 years old.
I am telling you about Islamic atrocities in the last 20 years and you call them both current. Thats the sign of a total dunce.
You are an embarrasment if your goal is the defence of Islam.
You should be executed just like how they execute apostates.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Are you a Christian or not? Sometimes I think you are and then you type something like this and I think that you must not be.
Is that the best you have?
You write about Christian atrocities 500 to 2000 years old.
I am telling you about Islamic atrocities in the last 20 years and you call them both current. Thats the sign of a total dunce.
You are an embarrasment if your goal is the defence of Islam.
You should be executed just like how they execute apostates.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by chappy1While not nearly all Christians want all non-Christians dead, the fact that Rajk wants all non-Christians dead is a sign that he's pretty Christian. And a conservative one too. Most Christians now don't take stories like Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Flood literally now. When someone's gay, not many Christians will destroy them with fire and brimstone. But some devoted Christians are intolerant of non-Christians, and he's one of them.
If that's what you think then you don't have a grasp of what true Christianity is.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by scherzoanyone who is intolerant of others is not a christian, he has effectively abandoned the teachings of Christ and is something else, how can one tell ?, 'wisdom is proved righteous by its works', 'by their works you will recognize those men'.
While not nearly all Christians want all non-Christians dead, the fact that Rajk wants all non-Christians dead is a sign that he's pretty Christian. And a conservative one too. Most Christians now don't take stories like Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Flood literally now. When someone's gay, not many Christians will destroy them with fire and brimstone. But some devoted Christians are intolerant of non-Christians, and he's one of them.
18 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you mind quoting the part of the Bible where Christ or Paul preaches tolerance? ... tolerance of the kind of which I am guilty. I am intolerant of muslims killing apostates and for executing women for comitting adultery and other minor crimes ... among other things.
anyone who is intolerant of others is not a christian, he has effectively abandoned the teachings of Christ and is something else, how can one tell ?, 'wisdom is proved righteous by its works', 'by their works you will recognize those men'.
18 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesthe ten commandments are no longer binding on Christians in the sense that they form part of the mosaic law which is now obsolete on the basis of Christs sacrifice, in fact it was only instituted as a reference to their own sinfulness (the hebrews) in that they could never keep its tenets perfectly, so for example we do not offer animal sacrifices, nor is circumcision an issue nor the keeping of a sabbath etc etc these practises are obsolete, however the principles that are expounded therein are still applicable, therefore we honour our parents, we do not work to the exclusion of neglecting worship etc etc.
Can anyone who breaks any of the Ten Commandments be a Christian?
Can any of the priests who molest children be Christians?
Colossians 2:14 states 'Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (the mosaic law), which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross', amplified bible.
It should be noted here that this is not an exact transaltion, the rendering of the word cross for example is dubious, however it gives the flavour of the original text.
and no, anyone who abuses children or anyone, whether they are a priest or anything else is not a christian.
18 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999No i don't mind, infact for you it would be a pleasure, for ultimately God himself is the epitome of tolerance, as exemplified by Christ, Paul and others; consider these verses my friend.
Do you mind quoting the part of the Bible where Christ or Paul preaches tolerance? ... tolerance of the kind of which I am guilty. I am intolerant of muslims killing apostates and for executing women for comitting adultery and other minor crimes ... among other things.
Acts 10:34 ' Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality'.
Job 34:19, 'Who shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they all are the work of His hands', - i thought you would like this one especially given our other recent conversation
Mathew 5:43 'you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. However, I say to you continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you that you may prove yourselves sons of your father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? and if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? you must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect '
this is only the tip of a very large iceberg of tolerance, however, and i must say this, that although God is tolerant of individuals as persons he does not condone their acts nor turn a blind eye to wrongdoing and eventually, like any parent he must act as he has evidently done in the past. thus Christians are under duress to love people, but nowhere is it stated that they must love the actions of those individuals, especially when it is contrary to gods perceived will.
And to those who would arbitrarily see the destruction of others, i give a reference to the self righteousness of Jonah, how he wanted to see the Ninevites (spelling?) destroyed, but god would have none of it, because of his patience and tolerance, thus they eventually repented, this precedent is also found in the christian greek scriptures, 2 peter 3:9, ' God is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance'. hopefully this illustrates at least in part the tolerance of ultimately god, but also of Christ and others so what can i say but dig ya'all, voodoo chile baby , lord knows them atheists know i is a voodoo chile.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what principles were expounded in:
the ten commandments are no longer binding on Christians in the sense that they form part of the mosaic law which is now obsolete on the basis of Christs sacrifice, in fact it was only instituted as a reference to their own sinfulness (the hebrews) in that they could never keep its tenets perfectly, so for example we do not offer animal sacrifices, n ...[text shortened]... therefore we honour our parents, we do not work to the exclusion of neglecting worship etc etc.
1. Animal sacrifices.
2. circumcision.
And why are those practices obsolete?
Which of the ten commandments are obsolete, or do not reflect principles that are still relevant? Are there any that can now be violated without committing sin?
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou didn't read the question carefully.
Mathew 5:43 'you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. However, I say to you continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you that you may prove yourselves sons of your father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people an ...[text shortened]... doing the same thing? you must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect '
He asked for quotes from Jesus or Paul, and you start with Peter and Job.
He asked for examples of tolerance of the kind that he is guilty of, and you did not give any.
Loving your enemy is not equivalent to tolerating his behavior. The very fact that he is your enemy is an indication that you do not tolerate his behavior.
Jesus and Paul were quite intolerant of certain practices, even thought they may have loved the perpetrators.
18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi gave two examples above, re read the text, and it may be beneficial to have a bible at hand, Colossians 2:14 ringing any bells?
So what principles were expounded in:
1. Animal sacrifices.
2. circumcision.
And why are those practices obsolete?
Which of the ten commandments are obsolete, or do not reflect principles that are still relevant? Are there any that can now be violated without committing sin?
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadnot only did i read the text properly but i demonstrated with references that god himself is the epitome of tolerance as exemplified by Christ and others, as to what constitutes an enemy, this cannot be the case as it is based on the assumption that the christian is at odds with someone, when in fact he may have no control over whether someone is his enemy or not, the other party having been the instigator of hostility. and if you re read the text, you may notice that i give credence to your last statement.
You didn't read the question carefully.
He asked for quotes from Jesus or Paul, and you start with Peter and Job.
He asked for examples of tolerance of the kind that he is guilty of, and you did not give any.
Loving your enemy is not equivalent to tolerating his behavior. The very fact that he is your enemy is an indication that you do not tolerate his ...[text shortened]... were quite intolerant of certain practices, even thought they may have loved the perpetrators.