First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply The Holy Quran Experiment
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.

My claim was that most Christians do not read the bible, of course this takes from my experience of skimming when I was a Christian, whereas Ejanss states something or another about only religious bashers and atheist only quoting the old testament due to its nature.




Valid point. I guess I should rescind my statement. "I don't think a lot of Christians have read the old testament and would agree with it." Is that better?



Listen I have no actual idea if you're right or wrong regarding how many Christians read their holy text as I'm only going off my personal experiences with them in chat rooms and such. I'm not saying you're wrong about that so no need to retract your statement. I believe your claims before about how the OT was not applicable or how the OT god was hypocritical were wrong. That is all.

I never said the OT was not applicable. I was asking. I might have said something about hypocrisy, but I believe it had something to with something else, let me check.

Oh well, thanks again, I learned lots. :)
Posted 12/8/15

Ejanss wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
Or, that only atheists and religion-bashers read the Old Testament:

"Like it says in the Bible, 'An eye for an eye'!"
"Oh, it does not, where does it say that?"
"Leviticus!"
"Oh, that, the Jewish part.... "


So what, God just changed his mind and said "Well, I made a mistake, time to begin anew" ? Basically invalidating his first book as BS or inaccurate? Is God that fickle?


No, somebody else wrote the politically-skewed unauthorized biography and gave God the credit...Unfortunately, lawyers didn't exist back then, so He had to send His own representative down to deal with the Pharisees directly, and tell them to cut back on the "Floods and earthquakes and personally destroying the cities of bad people" scare-tactic crap.
They weren't happy about called on the carpet about it, as I recall, but by that point there was some SERIOUS need for damage control, as the old regime had pretty much thrown the basic message down the toilet just for some rightwing over-nationalized propaganda during the Occupation.


So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )


What are they like in context? Are we talking about time period or stuff? You know I don't cut breaks for people based on time period.
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

shinblade wrote:

Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face


I mean there's no need not to be even though I see PV as one of the major antagonists in my quest as a Chrunchyroll forumer.

Edit: You know what shinblade, you're the real mvp.
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


shinblade wrote:

Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face


I mean there's no need not to be even though I see PV as one of the major antagonists in my quest as a Chrunchyroll forumer.

Edit: You know what shinblade, you're the real mvp.


What, why am I an antagonist? Are you secretly planning to usurp the mod's position?
5563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Mexico
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


shinblade wrote:

Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face


I mean there's no need not to be even though I see PV as one of the major antagonists in my quest as a Chrunchyroll forumer.

Edit: You know what shinblade, you're the real mvp.


Mvp? Congrats, you have just made a guy in his 30's blush

And the plot thickens with PeripheralVisionary's insight on mod usurpation
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


shinblade wrote:

Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face


I mean there's no need not to be even though I see PV as one of the major antagonists in my quest as a Chrunchyroll forumer.

Edit: You know what shinblade, you're the real mvp.


What, why am I an antagonist? Are you secretly planning to usurp the mod's position?


No that would be your job since you're the antagonist in my head, play your role geez. Though, perhaps I am the antagonist in my own story and it's just a twisted morality that drives me to see you as the antagonist.
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

Ejanss wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote: I believe the majority of "Christians" would of read parts of the bible but not all of it. It's quite a large read. I can almost guarantee you that not even 1% of the Christian population has read Leviticus fully, one of my most boring reads to date.


"Leviticus" means "That which was written by the Levites". Meaning, the laws that Hebrews followed in the B.C. (And what does BC stand for?...)
They were written down because the OT was an archive of everything the Hebrews wanted to preserve--from laws, obviously, to origin legends to proverbs to poems to songs to census statistics to the popular pronouncements of the various Prophets--before some Babylonian or Philistine came along and tried to wipe their people out again...Hence the emphasis on stories about being conquered, and about people who had horrible bad things happened to them when they married shiksas. But that doesn't make it literary, nor does it make it connected as one solid entity.

To quote a Bible verse telling you that your wife deserves a public stoning if she has an affair is, how shall we put this?.....somewhat DATED a reference, rather predating most of the 1st-century events in the NT that get most of the press.
And to say or believe that's what the entire book is about is laughably gullible at one end or the other.

Bashers use it because it says what they want it to say, or hope it will say, they just never quite get around to quoting the bits of it that don't.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
Or, that only atheists and religion-bashers read the Old Testament:

"Like it says in the Bible, 'An eye for an eye'!"
"Oh, it does not, where does it say that?"
"Leviticus!"
"Oh, that, the Jewish part.... "


So what, God just changed his mind and said "Well, I made a mistake, time to begin anew" ? Basically invalidating his first book as BS or inaccurate? Is God that fickle?


No, somebody else wrote the politically-skewed unauthorized biography and gave God the credit...Unfortunately, lawyers didn't exist back then, so He had to send His own representative down to deal with the Pharisees directly, and send them a personally delivered cease-and-desist message to cut back on the character-assassinating "Floods and earthquakes and personally destroying the cities of bad people" scare-tactic/xenophobia crap.
They weren't happy about called on the carpet about it, as I recall, but by that point there was some SERIOUS need for damage control, as the old regime had pretty much thrown the basic message down the toilet just for some rightwing over-nationalized propaganda during the Occupation.


So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )


+1
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

shinblade wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


shinblade wrote:

Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face


I mean there's no need not to be even though I see PV as one of the major antagonists in my quest as a Chrunchyroll forumer.

Edit: You know what shinblade, you're the real mvp.


Mvp? Congrats, you have just made a guy in his 30's blush

And the plot thickens with PeripheralVisionary's insight on mod usurpation


I live for all my fans living in mexico, glad I could make you blush. Now if only I could work that charm on women.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

*farts loudly*



Let's just drop this into the thread:

Netherlands Religions: Roman Catholic 28%, Protestant 19% (includes Dutch Reformed 9%, Protestant Church of The Netherlands, 7%, Calvinist 3%), other 11% (includes about 5% Muslim and lesser numbers of Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, and Orthodox), none 42% (2009 est.)

You have at best 47% of the population that might maybe have a clue, depending maybe if you are lucky which book they use.
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )


What are they like in context? Are we talking about time period or stuff? You know I don't cut breaks for people based on time period.


Well, you should, since that Time Period 'N Stuff suggests a sequence of one following or growing out of the other. (Ie. Isaiah being pretty much the only OT that ever gets quoted in churches nowadays, since it's basically NT foreshadowing.)

Which brings up the old argument of "Uh, so refresh my memory, according to Webster's, what do 'Old' and 'New' mean, again? "
Posted 12/8/15

Ejanss wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote: I believe the majority of "Christians" would of read parts of the bible but not all of it. It's quite a large read. I can almost guarantee you that not even 1% of the Christian population has read Leviticus fully, one of my most boring reads to date.


"Leviticus" means "That which was written by the Levites". Meaning, the laws that Hebrews followed in the B.C. (And what does BC stand for?...)
They were written down because the OT was an archive of everything the Hebrews wanted to preserve--from laws, obviously, to origin legends to proverbs to poems to songs to tribal census statistics to the popular pronouncements of the various Prophets--before some Babylonian or Philistine came along and tried to wipe their people out again...Hence the emphasis on stories about being conquered, and about people who had horrible bad things happen to them when they associated with icky evil foreigners and married filthy sinful shiksas. But that doesn't make it literary, nor does it make it connected as one solid entity.

To quote a Bible verse telling you that your wife deserves a public stoning if she has an affair is, how shall we put this?.....somewhat DATED a reference, rather predating most of the 1st-century events in the NT that get most of the press.
And to say or believe that's what the entire book is about is laughably gullible at one end or the other.

Bashers use it because it says what they want it to say, or hope it will say, they just never quite get around to quoting the bits of it that don't.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
Or, that only atheists and religion-bashers read the Old Testament:

"Like it says in the Bible, 'An eye for an eye'!"
"Oh, it does not, where does it say that?"
"Leviticus!"
"Oh, that, the Jewish part.... "


So what, God just changed his mind and said "Well, I made a mistake, time to begin anew" ? Basically invalidating his first book as BS or inaccurate? Is God that fickle?


No, somebody else wrote the politically-skewed unauthorized version of history and gave God the credit...Unfortunately, lawyers didn't exist back then, so He had to send His own representative down to deal with the Pharisees directly, and send them a personally delivered cease-and-desist message to cut back on the character-assassinating "Floods and earthquakes and personally destroying the cities of bad people" scare-tactic/xenophobia crap.
They weren't happy about called on the carpet about it, as I recall, and the negotiations went none too smoothly, but by that point there was some SERIOUS need for damage control, as the old regime had pretty much thrown the basic message down the toilet just for some rightwing over-nationalized propaganda during the Occupation.


So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )


So what you're saying is it is a testament to their somewhat barbaric laws that they're not asking us to believe in? I don't see where they say that the bible is purely bad stuff. The fact that there is even "bad" stuff I think is the root of their problems.
Posted 12/8/15

Ejanss wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )


What are they like in context? Are we talking about time period or stuff? You know I don't cut breaks for people based on time period.


Well, you should, since that Time Period 'N Stuff suggests a sequence of one following or growing out of the other. (Ie. Isaiah being pretty much the only OT that ever gets quoted in churches nowadays, since it's basically NT foreshadowing.)

Which brings up the old argument of "Uh, so refresh my memory, according to Webster's, what do 'Old' and 'New' mean, again? "


So basically, it is a dated reference. Interesting. I'll take your word for it. So Christian morality is an evolving state of laws and whatsit to accommodate the times? I'd say its time for another bible.
23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

megahobbit wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

No anti-Semitism, just giving documented quotes. I guess its ok to criticize Christianity and Islam on Crunchyroll but not Judaism.


Well im not saying the bigotry thrown at Islam is okay either. Christianity I could care less about they haven't been persecuted in the west since Rome.


Not in the West, but millions and millions of Eastern Orthodox Christians (like myself) were murdered in Russia and Eastern Europe during the Soviet Era. The number killed in total is somewhere between 12 and 20 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://martyredintheussr.com/about.htmlnion
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
I don't get the point of this video. Another 'we're all equal' fantasy? The difference is Christianity has evolved and as a civilized people, we know not to take everything their literal (whether your religious or not).

Islam on the other hand, has never been evolved, translated / updated, and nor have most of the people that follow it. Which is why every country that's predominantly Islam, is a shit hole that still stones women, burn gays, and everything in-between.
Posted 12/8/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

I don't get the point of this video. Another 'we're all equal' fantasy? The difference is Christianity has evolved and as a civilized people, we know not to take everything their literal (whether your religious or not).

Islam on the other hand, has never been evolved, translated / updated, and nor have most of the people that follow it. Which is why every country that's predominantly Islam, is a shit hole that still stones women, burn gays, and everything in-between.


I don't know, Indonesia was pretty nice, but again, anecdotal.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.