Daesh [ISIS] Murders Crowd of People in France

[VGamingJunkie]

Doomkid said:

I mean I guess some people need a complex code (that is really really antiquated by the way) to find their morality, or maybe they need to fear a God or whatever, but for me personally, none of that shit applies.

Since you're insulting the bible, I should point out that this idea of treating others how you'd like to be treated actually originated in the bible. During Israel's time, the nations around them weren't exactly friendly. They weren't above sacrificing children in fire to their "gods". Jesus was actually one of the first in history to give this crazy suggestion of treating others with kindness and love.

Doomkid said:

To say "religion causes people to be crazy" is false association, it's more that crazy people find a religion to attach themselves to. The problem arises with the fact that, when you actually read the texts, there are plenty of abhorrent things condoned alongside the good things condoned, and subsequently you get people pointing out that "Hey, if you read this part of their religious text, what he did is actually technically correct according to the book!"

This is not an opinion, it is an observation.

As I mentioned previously, a religion can be best defined by its founder. Jesus never condoned physical violence of any kind, he even scolded Peter for cutting off a guard's ear in defense of him. Therefore, anyone who uses Christianity to justify physical violence as a form of control is contradicting the very core of their own stated belief.

[june gloom]

MetroidJunkie said:

I hope you realize you just destroyed your own argument because Christianity was one of the first to say that we're all equal under God. Behaviors may not be equal (Nobody in their right mind would say otherwise) but the faith holds that we're all flawed and fall short and need a savior, it doesn't place one above the other.

I'm sure you believe that.

Matthew 5:32 said:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 Corinthians 11:3-9 said:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 said:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Ephesians 5:22-24 said:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18 said:

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Colossians 3:22 said:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 said:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 5:9-13 said:

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord's people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to.

1 Peter 2:18 said:

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

1 Peter 3:1-7 said:

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

(These are all NIV btw)

That's just some of the sexism. If you want I can bring up the racism and homophobia too. The Bible is a litany of horrors. As you can see, I kept to the New Testament because I know how much some of y'all apologists like to pretend the Old Testament "doesn't count" when backed into a corner.

Point is, on paper Christianity claims to be for everyone. In practice, if you read the fine print (aka verses in the actual Bible): some restrictions apply, void where prohibited, avoid contact with skin, not recommended for children.

[Doomkid]

I never once insulted the bible, unless you consider discussing facts about it to somehow be an insult.

Jesus was not the first person to be kind nor do we need him to be kind. If he was the first one to put it so eloquently, I credit him to making a huge moral leap, but his other not-so-nice teachings are not required just because he said some wise things as well.

[VGamingJunkie]

dethtoll, it's clear that you don't want an actual discussion because you're trying to flood me with so much all at once. That's a very dirty move, sir.


Doomkid, what unkind things did Jesus say? He wasn't exactly harsh on non-believers, he was his harshest against teachers of the law who spoke hypocritically and spoke for their own gain rather than out of love. If anything, Jesus was far more upset at people abusing the religion than he was at people who simply didn't believe.

[Doomkid]

If literally quoting the Bible counts as a "dirty tactic"... Well, I'll let you make your own judgement, I'm not here to push some agenda.

[VGamingJunkie]

Flooding me with multiple verses all at once prevents me from addressing them one by one, it would take far more time than I have. Clearly, he went on some site that agreed with him and copied and pasted the entire damn thing. How are you supposed to respond to that? Take all flipping day to address them? If he wanted to be fair, he should have done it one at a time.

[Doomkid]

MetroidJunkie said:

Doomkid, what unkind things did Jesus say? He wasn't exactly harsh on non-believers, he was his harshest against teachers of the law who spoke hypocritically and spoke for their own gain rather than out of love. If anything, Jesus was far more upset at people abusing the religion than he was at people who simply didn't believe.

Alright, that's fine - I will accept that Jesus himself was a swell guy. That's fine and if someone follows his teachings, so long as they aren't hurting anyone, I'm A-OK with that. Just don't try to legislate one particular religion/moral code even when the majority of the country's residents are against it and we have literally no qualm with one another.

MetroidJunkie said:

Flooding me with multiple verses all at once prevents me from addressing them one by one, it would take far more time than I have. Clearly, he went on some site that agreed with him and copied and pasted the entire damn thing. How are you supposed to respond to that? Take all flipping day to address them? If he wanted to be fair, he should have done it one at a time.

Fair enough!

EDIT: If you wanted to respond to just one or two of them, that would be super interesting. I don't mean this in a negative way or as an insult or whatever, I'd genuinely like to see the opposing view on these points.

[june gloom]

MetroidJunkie said:

Flooding me with multiple verses all at once prevents me from addressing them one by one, it would take far more time than I have. Clearly, he went on some site that agreed with him and copied and pasted the entire damn thing. How are you supposed to respond to that? Take all flipping day to address them? If he wanted to be fair, he should have done it one at a time.

I found the passages on Biblehub and manually pasted them verse-by-verse, you disingenuous little cockbot. Took me nearly an hour. You're just looking for an excuse not to actually debate me, which is fine, I'll accept your concession to being crushed under a mess of righteous dick.

It's okay, anyway, I don't really care about your line-by-line responses to the verses, it'd just be a waste of time and missing the point. I posted them to prove your statement wrong. And I have done that.

[VGamingJunkie]

Very well, Doomkid, how's about the one that blatantly ignores what comes after it, Colossians 3:18?

"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" is what he used, ignoring the part that comes immediately after it:

"19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged"

It was a condition for all involved, not just the women.

As for 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" requires context because, in the culture at the time, women weren't educated. The women would often ask a ton of questions and bog down the sermon. Instead of asking questions in church, she should ask questions to her husband later so that he can inform her on a more personal level.

dethtoll said:

I found the passages on Biblehub and manually pasted them verse-by-verse, you disingenuous little cockbot. Took me nearly an hour. You're just looking for an excuse not to actually debate me, which is fine, I'll accept your concession to being crushed under a mess of righteous dick.

All you proved is that you have more time to kill than I do, that doesn't make your position superior.

[Zed]

MetroidJunkie said:

As for 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" requires context because, in the culture at the time, women weren't educated. The women would often ask a ton of questions and bog down the sermon. Instead of asking questions in church, she should ask questions to her husband later so that he can inform her on a more personal level.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. It is still sexist.

[june gloom]

MetroidJunkie said:

All you proved is that you have more time to kill than I do, that doesn't make your position superior.

You made a statement, that Christianity preached equality. I provided a number of verses that proved the lie of that claim. You don't get to weasel out of that. You ceded the debate, that means the debate is over, the last apologist is in captivity, the forum is at peace.

[VGamingJunkie]

Zed said:

Well, thanks for clearing that up. It is still sexist.

The culture, maybe, but not Christianity itself. Jesus never said women were inferior, quite the opposite.

dethtoll said:

You made a statement, that Christianity preached equality. I provided a number of verses that proved the lie of that claim. You don't get to weasel out of that. You ceded the debate, that means the debate is over, the last apologist is in captivity, the forum is at peace.

You flooded me with verses, knowing I don't have enough time to address every single one of them. If you're proud of that, then I actually feel sorry for you.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

Jesus never said women were inferior, quite the opposite.

I don't think "submission" is quite the same as "love," nor does it have the same amount of freedom.

Not to mention the verse flat-out talks about that being for God, not the law. But even it was, the message there is pretty dang terrible, telling women to be akin to their lover's "favorite slave" no matter the context while condemning any attempts to rise above it.

[VGamingJunkie]

Only if you don't think love is a kind of submission. Love means putting their needs above your own. What did you think love meant, sexual gratification?

[Doomkid]

Really, the only point I wanted to get across is that you objectively do not need religion to have morality since I saw that topic being discussed, that's all - I hopefully have sufficiently demonstrated that.

[VGamingJunkie]

I never argued against it. In fact, according to the Christian faith, the moral law is written on all of our hearts so we should instinctively know what's right and wrong, even if people often suppress it through self-justification.

[Cupboard]

It's a minor miracle the NRA-types haven't arrived to complain about the thread title: "Trucks don't kill people. People kill people. Only a good person with a truck can kill a bad person with a truck. Mentally ill people do not speak for the rights of responsible truck owners."

[VGamingJunkie]

People have actually taken that joke the opposite way and say this is proof we need to ban Assault Trucks.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

Only if you don't think love is a kind of submission. Love means putting their needs above your own. What did you think love meant, sexual gratification?

I think only abusive relationships demand you lose yourself to your partner. In a healthy one, you shouldn't lose your own initiative to be warped by your partner, but you and your partner's initiative should sync up most of the time so you both do what you want together.

It's sort of the deal where if you're dating someone and you don't enjoy spending time with them ... why are you dating them? Frankly, I'd imagine a relationship where one individual submits to the other would be far more carnal - based purely around attraction or sex - than one where the two are equal, but have good chemistry and just flat-out enjoy the same activities.

Sure, you might end up doing stuff that you might not otherwise, but that just comes with the ground of wanting to do stuff with other people and share interests. But you shouldn't be forced to do something you're absolutely opposed to, just because you're fond of someone. And if that's a breaking point for them, then so be it - chances are you two would oppose each other in a major enough way that it was going to break or become abusive sooner or later.

[VGamingJunkie]

Arctangent said:

I think only abusive relationships demand you lose yourself to your partner. In a healthy one, you shouldn't lose your own initiative to be warped by your partner, but you and your partner's initiative should sync up most of the time so you both do what you want together.

Did you just imply that wanting what's best for your spouse is abuse....? Holy crap, dude, I feel sorry for you.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

Did you just imply that wanting what's best for your spouse is abuse....? Holy crap, dude, I feel sorry for you.

You can do that and still be your own person, y'know.

In fact, you should normally want the best for ... well, anyone you like. I don't see people advocating submitting to the guy you're kind of friends with or the singer of your favorite band, though.

[VGamingJunkie]

I'm saying that, if you love someone, you should want to place them ahead of yourself, especially if they're your spouse. Why do you think marriage is seen as two becoming one flesh? If you act selfishly, it's not going to last. Both sides have to be committed to one another.

[Cupboard]

He might think the "two become one flesh" thing because it says that exact phrase in the Book of Mark, and that's pretty big-league as far as the New Testament goes. I'm not saying it to contradict you, I'm saying it because all major religions are idiosyncratic when it comes down to social politics

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

I'm saying that, if you love someone, you should want to place them ahead of yourself, especially if they're your spouse. Why do you think marriage is seen as two becoming one flesh? If you act selfishly, it's not going to last. Both sides have to be committed to one another.

... Which should be done through mutual interest and respect.

You should take care of them because you want to, out of love. A selfish relationship won't last, but a controlling one will either not as well or will damage the people involved, or both.

You don't have to force yourself to change who you are to fit a relationship. If you feel the need to do so constantly, then it's probably not a good relationship to be in. Frankly, a healthy relationship shouldn't be expected to be a perfect match, as that's such an incredibly unlikely occurrence; instead, a couple should be expected to push for some space when it's needed, as everyone needs their privacy and time to do stuff alone or with others.

... Which makes the thought of marriage being two becoming one kind of terrifying and makes marriage pretty undesirable. Love isn't about becoming essentially a single being with someone else, it's about caring for each other out of your own wills and bringing the other joy. And that means letting your partner do their own things and follow their own initiative - because if the love is truly there, it should always bring them back to you.

TheCupboard said:

He might think the "two become one flesh" thing because it says that exact phrase in the Book of Mark, and that's pretty big-league as far as the New Testament goes. I'm not saying it to contradict you, I'm saying it because all major religions are idiosyncratic when it comes down to social politics

Probably obvious, but I didn't take what he said as anything that I thought, but rather what others thought - basically "why would people as a whole think such and such if not for" etc..

[VGamingJunkie]

Who the hell said anything about controlling? It didn't say "Wives, your husbands are going to crack the whip at you so just sit down and accept it", I can think of a certain religion that condones that but Christianity isn't it. You love someone because you chose to, not because they forced you to. Why do you think God gave us free will in the first place? Because being forced to love God wouldn't really be love, he gave us free will so that we could love him by choice.

[duh]

dethtoll said:

Okay, I poorly phrased that, but my point is that we're not just shaved apes. We're better than that, and we should aspire to even more. It's why excuses like "it's just human nature" just ring as bullshit to me

"And we should aspire to even more" screams "we are bad but we should not be". Have you considered for a moment that you don't actually believe that humans are essentially good and that a dictactorship under your standards would be perfectly fine to you?

[VGamingJunkie]

If you notice, babies are instinctively selfish. That's because selfish survival is the very first thing humans learn and it doesn't have to be taught, it just comes naturally to them. This belief that humans are just instinctively good is the same as saying "Don't teach women to take cautious actions, just teach women to not rape" which is a very dangerous proposition because, outside of dictating everyone's actions, you can't make people be good. No amount of education can fix that, either, especially since our schools don't even teach morals anymore because they were deemed "too religious" so how do you expect to teach people to be good? Do you believe that only poor uneducated people commit crimes? As I mentioned, there are people with PhD's who still commit horrific autocracies, even teachers.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

Who the hell said anything about controlling?

do you not know what "submit" means

[VGamingJunkie]

Willing submission, not being submitted, you're thinking of another ideology that isn't Christianity. When you willingly submit yourself to someone else, that's love. Who the hell said anything about being forced to submit? Why do you think it's asking wives to submit? It isn't saying "Your husband will force you to submit", you submit out of love for the betterment of your spouse. If you can't understand that, you will never have a successful partnership.

[Fonze]

Arctangent said:

do you not know what "submit" means

Do you not know that the bible wasn't written in English? Also, are you unaware that most of it is metaphorical in its meaning?

People who take the Text literally, on either side, make me laugh, and I'm a Christian.