Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 04:41 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(18-10-2015 04:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 12:30 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  It has nothing to do with weapons, you just want it to.



For the 5,000th time, not true. I'm not going to argue though because this is not the place.

See this guy in the air?That's me. You really wanna tell a fully qualified martial arts master than hands and feet are NOT weapons?

By the way, I was originally answering Biker.

[Image: Jumping_Side_Kick1.jpg]

Did I say they weren't? No I did not. I said this thread is not about weapons. The whole idea of the kid being killed has nothing to do with what was used to kill him or how he was killed, it is the fact that they thought it was ok to use physical force to make the kids confess.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:37 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(18-10-2015 04:41 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  The whole idea of the kid being killed has nothing to do with what was used to kill him or how he was killed, it is the fact that they thought it was ok to use physical force to make the kids confess.

In some ways we agree.W e are coming at the same conclusion from different directions.

In my view the human desire for violence and anger were the result in the manner he was killed. Through the weapons available at the time. Hands and feet. He was punched beaten and kicked. Human limbs used as weapons.

When Biker mentioned guns I said it was not the guns but the weapons as such. Ultimately it was human irrationality. Also there was no point blaming guns alone because it has always been the most advanced weapons that kill the most people.

Automatic weapons kill in larger numbers than less advanced weapons. Hence my mentioning bronze age to iron age to WMD. How many F18's have killed people this year?

The real problem is people. This kid's death was not an isolated event. People get blown up in mosques all year round.

If you interpreted me, a former professional hunter, as an anti gun nut, you were mistaken. Guns have their uses. But guns were not used in this crime. Hands and feet were. The result remains the same. Although it is likely less people died due to there being no guns there.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:49 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(17-10-2015 09:20 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  ...
Second of all, the woman-taken-in-adultery story is apocryphal. It was added in the middle ages by scribes.
...

Earlier than that, I think, is the consensus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_an...n_adultery

But it's as good as certain that it was not put in the mouth of the Jesus character in the original version.

Original? Oh yeah, sorry. I forgot that's there is no original.

Anyway, I'd loved to know who wrote it.

It's my favourite ethical statement in the whole damn book and someone should get the credit for it.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
Okay. Time to up this to medium difficulty. Two sets of questions for Jason, if I may:

(1) From your statements, you seem to regard your interpretation of the Bible as largely the correct one, emphasizing the correct verses as overriding less correct ones (eg, old testament). You ascribe Christians acting in a bad manner based on Biblical verses to their not having read the right verses, or them having forgotten them or failed to correctly reconcile them with other verses. Do you think that they might say much the same thing about you, that you are misinterpreting the Bible, that you are neglecting the important verses that confirm their position and that their way of reconciling these verses is superior? Might they say it with just as much confidence as you do, or with greater confidence? What are the grounds for distinguishing between all these different positions, and does that method have a good track record for success?

(2) You've said that a great many, even most, Christians misinterpret and do not understand the Bible. (At least, that's the gist I got from reading through this conversation once, apologies if I am misrepresenting you.) You also said that much of the evil done in the name of Christianity arises from this sort of misinterpretation. I'll grant this for the sake of argument. In this particular case -- beating a minor until he is hospitalized and his older brother until he is dead simply for wanting to leave the church -- it appears to have caused significant harm... and done so not simply because the Bible as a whole was ignored, but because at least part of it was believed. I wouldn't have to look hard to find more cases where extensive harm was done by Christians, not because they ignored the Bible entirely, but because they ignored PARTS of the Bible and followed others. Indeed I'd have a hard time dipping into any part of Western history for the past, oh, thousand years and NOT finding that. With this in mind, at what point is the presence of the Bible and belief in it doing more harm than good? If we have a book that is at least in part intended to be an instruction manual to morality, and half the people who read it come away doing immoral things BECAUSE of what they read, is that a sign that it's not a good instruction manual? What if it's nine in ten? At what point can someone outside of Christianity who hasn't yet read the Bible look at these results, consider reading the Bible, and say, "man, that thing messes people up more than it sets them aright, I want nothing to do with that," and be justified in saying it? When does it become a cure for immorality that, due to the obvious difficulties most people have in adopting it correctly and the severe harm it can cause when adopted incorrectly, is worse than the disease?

By the way, I must say that you have come across with far greater integrity than most of the other theists who come onto these boards, many of whom are here simply to evangelize and flame with every sleazy, dishonest tactic imaginable. In contrast you have been honest, open, patient, and accepting. Please accept my belated welcome to the forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
18-10-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(17-10-2015 05:52 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(17-10-2015 02:53 PM)jennybee Wrote:  The Holy Spirit is a part of God. If you reject the Holy Spirit--you are in essence rejecting God. At least that is what we were taught in my church.
Mark 3:29 "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."

Yeah, well bitch can bring it. Thinking she's the shit and whatnot. Just another sanctimonius arrogant asshole.

[Image: jesussumo.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(17-10-2015 05:52 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(17-10-2015 02:53 PM)jennybee Wrote:  The Holy Spirit is a part of God. If you reject the Holy Spirit--you are in essence rejecting God. At least that is what we were taught in my church.
Mark 3:29 "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."
We had that discussion with Q once. Apparently nothing we said or did qualified but he was (if I recall) a bit cagey about what it actually entailed. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
18-10-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(18-10-2015 01:51 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Okay. Time to up this to medium difficulty. Two sets of questions for Jason, if I may:

(1) From your statements, you seem to regard your interpretation of the Bible as largely the correct one, emphasizing the correct verses as overriding less correct ones (eg, old testament). You ascribe Christians acting in a bad manner based on Biblical verses to their not having read the right verses, or them having forgotten them or failed to correctly reconcile them with other verses. Do you think that they might say much the same thing about you, that you are misinterpreting the Bible, that you are neglecting the important verses that confirm their position and that their way of reconciling these verses is superior? Might they say it with just as much confidence as you do, or with greater confidence? What are the grounds for distinguishing between all these different positions, and does that method have a good track record for success?

(2) You've said that a great many, even most, Christians misinterpret and do not understand the Bible. (At least, that's the gist I got from reading through this conversation once, apologies if I am misrepresenting you.) You also said that much of the evil done in the name of Christianity arises from this sort of misinterpretation. I'll grant this for the sake of argument. In this particular case -- beating a minor until he is hospitalized and his older brother until he is dead simply for wanting to leave the church -- it appears to have caused significant harm... and done so not simply because the Bible as a whole was ignored, but because at least part of it was believed. I wouldn't have to look hard to find more cases where extensive harm was done by Christians, not because they ignored the Bible entirely, but because they ignored PARTS of the Bible and followed others. Indeed I'd have a hard time dipping into any part of Western history for the past, oh, thousand years and NOT finding that. With this in mind, at what point is the presence of the Bible and belief in it doing more harm than good? If we have a book that is at least in part intended to be an instruction manual to morality, and half the people who read it come away doing immoral things BECAUSE of what they read, is that a sign that it's not a good instruction manual? What if it's nine in ten? At what point can someone outside of Christianity who hasn't yet read the Bible look at these results, consider reading the Bible, and say, "man, that thing messes people up more than it sets them aright, I want nothing to do with that," and be justified in saying it? When does it become a cure for immorality that, due to the obvious difficulties most people have in adopting it correctly and the severe harm it can cause when adopted incorrectly, is worse than the disease?

By the way, I must say that you have come across with far greater integrity than most of the other theists who come onto these boards, many of whom are here simply to evangelize and flame with every sleazy, dishonest tactic imaginable. In contrast you have been honest, open, patient, and accepting. Please accept my belated welcome to the forum.
Thank you. To answer your first question. Absolutely yes! Other people would in fact say that I am misinterpreting the bible the very same way I say they are and people have. But I am sure everyone here has had a debate of sorts with theist and I know that some of the most memorable ones were with "christians" who knew very little about the bible and what Jesus teaches. But the biggest thing they fail to understand is "YOU CAN NOT CONVERT AN ATHEIST BY USING THE BIBLE AS YOUR ONLY SOURCE!" as you know atheist don't care. I might as well be quoting nursery rhymes to prove that cows can jump over the moon.
On the other hand, within minutes of joining this forum I have come to realize that there are a lot of atheist who know very little about Christians or the bible. Who's to blame them? Why would they care? Why would they waste their time researching a fairy tail? So I decided to join this forum simply to answer questions, clear up confusion and try my best to explain why christians believe the things they do. I try very hard not to use my own personal opinion but rather use the scripture found in the bible. I will be absolutely cleay....I am not going to defend someone if they are wrong. There are a lot of really bad people who wave the banner of Christianity. I completely understand the hypocrisy in the church. You should thank the churches and Christians, I believe the Christians and churches do a better job getting people to turn away from God than atheist do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
I am sorry but I did not get to the second question. When does following the bible do more harm than good? I do not know how to best answer that question. Now, this is just my personal opinion but it seems to be logical. Jesus Christ said when asked what the greatest commandment was. He said first to love God with all your heart, all your spirit, and all your soul then to love your neighbors because love covers a multitude of sins. If a christian was to do anything that would violate these two commandments then they are wrong. Beating kids to death is not loving your neighbor. It is not what a christian should be doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(18-10-2015 05:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  But the biggest thing they fail to understand is "YOU CAN NOT CONVERT AN ATHEIST BY USING THE BIBLE AS YOUR ONLY SOURCE!" as you know atheist don't care. I might as well be quoting nursery rhymes to prove that cows can jump over the moon.

Quote:I try very hard not to use my own personal opinion but rather use the scripture found in the bible.

You seem to not be taking your own advice. Your personal opinions and, more importantly, WHY you hold the beliefs you do would be much more interesting.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
18-10-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(18-10-2015 04:22 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(17-10-2015 05:52 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Mark 3:29 "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."
We had that discussion with Q once. Apparently nothing we said or did qualified but he was (if I recall) a bit cagey about what it actually entailed. Smile

I think there are many differences of opinion about this among Christians, at least that's been my experience. Back when I was still a Christian, one of my pastors taught that the unforgivable sin is just that--unforgivable. But then in another church I was a member of, I had another pastor say it was a forgivable sin--if you repent. So I guess it depends on what the beliefs are regarding your particular church and how they are interpreting the passage.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: