(February 10, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(February 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Drich Wrote: .. you are still insistent that Christians are bound by Jewish Law.

I didn't make this claim. I said it is the exact same god. It was jesus' father that said these words. The same unchanging god. Whether or not christians can make an out for themselves to avoid the chore of burning witches is not the point. The point is that it is jesus' dad that said to do this horrific thing. Jesus himself was born into this OT jewish religion and walked among the jewish throng that believed that this is the right thing to do. Did jesus correct them by saying that daddy was wrong about that? Did jesus say "forget all those old rules, my dad was just being an ass?" Do you think that in all the 33 years of his life down here he never once heard of anyone talk about killing witches? When jesus went into the temples, did he say to the rabbis that they had it a little bit wrong, or everything wrong to the point of calling them a completely different religion?

First off, there is no contemporary evidence of the alleged Jesus character's time of his existence. All the Gospels were written after the alleged time period.

Secondly, OT vs NT, kinda misses the point that the OT god is a bloodthirsty selfish narcissist.

So ignoring the OT is kinda like if a spouse beats the shit out of his wife, says he wont do it again, does that excuse his abuse? Oh and when you get to the end of the book in any case, god goes right back to abuse and torture.

So I really don't care about OT vs NT argument crap because they will simply move the goal posts. The book is full of violence, and the head character God either condones it, or partakes in it, and at the end of the book he sticks us in a death cage match and says "The loyal ones who kill for me get to hang out with me" all others will be tortured for eternity.

Really nice guy huh?

(February 11, 2013 at 10:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: First off, there is no contemporary evidence of the alleged Jesus character's time of his existence.

If their was a painic stop botton in a Jesus conversation, this would be it. If you not willing to entertain the Idea that Christ existed (whatever the reason) then their is no need to go any further.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm)Drich Wrote: If their was a painic stop botton in a Jesus conversation, this would be it. If you not willing to entertain the Idea that Christ existed (whatever the reason) then their is no need to go any further.

Holy crap, you and I actually agree on something?!

Seriously though, that's a debate stopper. Just like I hate it when christians tell me I'm just angry at god, or that he moves in mysterious ways, I also hate the "he's not real anyway" argument. Just take it as an exercise in imagination and continue the debate.

(February 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:If I call myself a Fireman, does it make me one? What if i drive a red truck and own a fire extingusher? Am I an offical fireman then? No. I am not. Like wise if a person who calls himself Christian or commits acts in the name of God, can not support his actions biblically, then his acts whether be deemed good bad or indifferent they are not 'Christian' in orgin despire what he may believe.

How are you not getting this? You don't get to decide who is christian and who isn't! Your personal beliefs don't matter to anyone but you. Do you not understand that people can disagree with what you think, and their opinions and beliefs aren't somehow inferior just because they aren't yours? Do you not understand that your entire position here is the No True Scotsman fallacy? Do you not understand that you aren't the adjudicator of other people's beliefs? Or maybe you don't, maybe that's the problem. Maybe you're so unbelievably arrogant that you actually think your opinion matters more than anything else, at all times.

I've shown you where these people can justify their actions biblically, and you dismiss it out of hand based on nothing more than your own opinions, despite what's literally written down in your holy book. Being that you're not the king of religion, I feel like you lack a certain credibility there.

Quote:No matter where we live all 'christians' answer to the same bible. It is this bible that we can use to inspect the spiritual 'Fruit' of another.

Everyone except you, apparently, given how much you twist the bible to suit your purposes.

Quote:Not only that you have used this one incodent to condemn a whole community

Do I condemn the hundred or so people who stood by as an innocent woman burned to death? Yeah, I do. Shouldn't you?

Quote:The Old Testament reflects the Expressed will of god without the benfit or the filter of attonement. Once attonement had been established 'righteousness' through the law was made impossiable.
Again, OT Jews Had to follow the Law to find Righteousness, Christians are found Righteous Apart from the law. That is what makes them two completely seperate religions.

So, god had to be an evil, spiteful monster, in order to become a good guy later? And you're perfectly okay with believing that? Seriously?

Quote:Neither do yours. that what the bible is for. Again if their deeds can not be found in the bible as a governing light Christians exhibit, then their deeds were not Christian in nature.

And let me guess, you're the one who gets to decide what actions are christian or not? You're just ignoring the parts of the bible that don't suit your purposes, and the problem with that is, the bible can be twisted to justify almost anything. Only those two quotes I gave you? Pretty explicit, can't be shifted to mean something else.

Neither can Malachi 3:6, by the way. Maybe look it up.

Quote:Here you go again with that bigotted thinking. You have painted the whole "96%" of that country in a negitive light just so you can attack Christianity.

Not at all. I merely mention it to show you that statistically speaking these people were more likely to be christian than not. But you need to stop calling me a bigot, you jacked up simpleton. Because I'm not condemning the entire community, nor the race. I condemn the people who committed the crime, as I should. But I'm also not going to give the religion that probably inspired it a pass, either. Religion isn't special or immune to criticism. When it does wrong, when people do evil in its name, I'm going to have harsh words for it, too. Unlike you, who simply labels those people not christian anymore based on the amazing cosmic power to alter people's beliefs that you don't have, and move on.

Quote: I have no idea where the people of Papua New Guinea get their beliefs. If they get them from the Nt of the bible then their deeds subsequently their actions can be labled as Christian in orgin. If not then they have created their own religion based off of Biblical Christianity..
The two are not the same thing.

Seriously, is your whole argument No True Scotsman? Weak.

I never judged anyone as being a Christian or not. (Which is the Red Herring 99% of your whole arguement is based on.)

I quite specifically said if their actions do not coinside with Christian "Law" then their deeds can not be considered Christian. whether they are saved or not is of no concern to me in this arguement. That is why I very specifically did not judge the state of their salvation.

Why isn't this a "No true scots man fallacy?" BECAUSE THERE ARE ESTABLISHED RULES TO BE AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN! The No True Scotsmen Fallacy hinges on modification of the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Pointing to the Christian Rule book, and then pointing to the fact that these people did not have any CHRISTIAN RULES to support their actions, Makes what they did by Defination, A non Christian Act!!

Which BTW is what makes you a Bigot (By literal defination)
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In your continual persuit of trying to frame their deeds as santified Christian act (even after shooting every single objection you had with a scriptural backing, AND providing you with a scriptural example of how the Apstole Peter dealt with a 'sorcerer.') You still insist By the way of your sheer desire that these men were following Christian rule. So you can persecute Christianity, and up hold your own morality as being superior. What you fail to realize (but appearently your peers on this web site do not) Is you had to sell your 'morality' to do it. You have become the same intolerant bigot that you claim witch burning "Christians" are. You sir are The king of the hypocrits.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Drich Wrote: I never judged anyone as being a Christian or not. (Which is the Red Herring 99% of your whole arguement is based on.)

Except you call us all bigoted for daring to blame their religion in this case. Given this, it's clear that you think their religion is a non-issue, and as you go on, you label their actions as non christian. How, exactly, can this be interpreted any other way?

Quote:I quite specifically said if their actions do not coinside with Christian "Law" then their deeds can not be considered Christian. whether they are saved or not is of no concern to me in this arguement. That is why I very specifically did not judge the state of their salvation.

And who are you to judge their actions? Your christian law includes the burning of witches, that's literally written down in the bible, but you ignore that because you don't like it.

Quote:Why isn't this a "No true scots man fallacy?" BECAUSE THERE ARE ESTABLISHED RULES TO BE AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN!

Yep. And you've chosen to discard the ones you find inconvenient and created a special subset of those rules just for you, and now you judge everyone else's actions based on those. And no true christian would ever go against those rules, right?

Quote: The No True Scotsmen Fallacy hinges on modification of the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Oh, you mean, like, saying the actions of these people weren't christian and therefore your religion is blameless, despite the fact that your religion calls for witches to be killed exactly like this, based on nothing but your bald assertion that those passages don't count? That kind of a modification?

Quote:Pointing to the Christian Rule book, and then pointing to the fact that these people did not have any CHRISTIAN RULES to support their actions, Makes what they did by Defination, A non Christian Act!!!

Oh, we're back to your opinion now are we? Once again, what makes your special mix of these rules the definitive version over what's written down? The christian rulebook is larger than the rules you choose to follow, so what makes your little edited version the right one?

Seriously, who the hell are you to decide which rules count and which don't?

(February 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Pointing to the Christian Rule book, and then pointing to the fact that these people did not have any CHRISTIAN RULES to support their actions, Makes what they did by Defination, A non Christian Act!!

---

Exodus 22:18

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

---

But the OT doesn't count...ever. At least not when it makes Christianity look bad.

And technicality alert: even if this isn't binding anymore, it still reflects the will of god just as much as "thou shalt not kill" (ironically) does.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Which BTW is what makes you a Bigot (By literal defination)
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In your continual persuit of trying to frame their deeds as santified Christian act (even after shooting every single objection you had with a scriptural backing, AND providing you with a scriptural example of how the Apstole Peter dealt with a 'sorcerer.') You still insist By the way of your sheer desire that these men were following Christian rule. So you can persecute Christianity, and up hold your own morality as being superior. What you fail to realize (but appearently your peers on this web site do not) Is you had to sell your 'morality' to do it. You have become the same intolerant bigot that you claim witch burning "Christians" are. You sir are The king of the hypocrits.

Oh my, you kept talking after I posted. Figures.

How, pray, am I persecuting christianity by noting that religious beliefs probably played a part in the death of this woman, and that's a bad thing? Because, see, I never stated a position here, beyond an acknowledgement that yes, there was probably some biblical juju at work in this case. How is my being intellectually honest a bigoted act?

Did I say all christians are at fault here? Did I say all Papuans are at fault here? Or even the specific community in question? No, I never did. What I did say, however, was that this crime probably had a religious origin. And that you are ridiculous for thinking witches were real, but that's a different issue.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: Except you call us all bigoted for daring to blame their religion in this case.

No, I did not. I called those who were involved in the dehumanizing of the people of this Island Nation Bigots for making like everyone who lived there to be 3rd world primitives, who burn and sometimes eat people in the name of God. When I suggested that, this was a indivisual's (Meaning one or more people not an entire race) Crime against another. I was bocked at, and told it was a "cultural issue" Meaning that whole race/nation of people have been corrupted by Christianity into burning witches.)
Which in of itself is a racist thing to say.

Quote:Given this, it's clear that you think their religion is a non-issue, and as you go on, you label their actions as non christian. How, exactly, can this be interpreted any other way?

Stop assuming, and ask a frigging question from time to time. Religion= The way we worship God. Is a non issue Because Santified (Authorized) Christian Worship is outlined in scripture. Now because what they did was not in the bible, it makes burning witches a NON Christian/ Non Santified/ NOt Authorized in any way shape or form way to worship God. Matter of fact what they did is considered a sin.

Quote:And who are you to judge their actions?

We are called to judge our brothers and keep them in check. We do this by keeping our "Offical Christian Practices" In line with what the bible teaches.

Quote: Your christian law includes the burning of witches, that's literally written down in the bible, but you ignore that because you don't like it.

Either Show me Book Chapter and Verse or admit you are lying or just plain stupid either or.

Because I have pointed out 15 times in this thread there are not ANY Christian verses that tell us to burn witches. I even went so far as to show you a passage in Acts where Peter encounters a Sorcerer, and simply demands that he repent of his sin. Nothing more.

I read the rest of you message, and There is no need to get into your arguement any further unless you can provide New Testamant Scripture that established a command that Christians are to burn witches as you have indicated.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 12:05 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Which BTW is what makes you a Bigot (By literal defination)
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In your continual persuit of trying to frame their deeds as santified Christian act (even after shooting every single objection you had with a scriptural backing, AND providing you with a scriptural example of how the Apstole Peter dealt with a 'sorcerer.') You still insist By the way of your sheer desire that these men were following Christian rule. So you can persecute Christianity, and up hold your own morality as being superior. What you fail to realize (but appearently your peers on this web site do not) Is you had to sell your 'morality' to do it. You have become the same intolerant bigot that you claim witch burning "Christians" are. You sir are The king of the hypocrits.

Oh my, you kept talking after I posted. Figures.

How, pray, am I persecuting christianity by noting that religious beliefs probably played a part in the death of this woman, and that's a bad thing? Because, see, I never stated a position here, beyond an acknowledgement that yes, there was probably some biblical juju at work in this case. How is my being intellectually honest a bigoted act?

Did I say all christians are at fault here? Did I say all Papuans are at fault here? Or even the specific community in question? No, I never did. What I did say, however, was that this crime probably had a religious origin. And that you are ridiculous for thinking witches were real, but that's a different issue.

Looks like someone finally pulled his head out of the sand, and is beginning to see what everyone else saw comming 4 pages ago.. (Did someone PM you or did you finally figure things out on your own?) nothing like some last minute back peddaling to confirm one's wrong doing.

Quote:I knew I liked Missy for a reason

You just like me because I quote Monty Python

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

(February 12, 2013 at 12:39 am)Drich Wrote: Either Show me Book Chapter and Verse or admit you are lying or just plain stupid either or.

Because I have pointed out 15 times in this thread there are not ANY Christian verses that tell us to burn witches.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:03 am)Darkstar Wrote:

---

Exodus 22:18

18 “Do not allow a sorceress [b]to live.

---

But the OT doesn't count...ever. At least not when it makes Christianity look bad.

And technicality alert: even if this isn't binding anymore, it still reflects the will of god just as much as "thou shalt not kill" (ironically) does.

Okay, it doesn't specifically say "burn", I'll give you that.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:39 am)Drich Wrote: I even went so far as to show you a passage in Acts where Peter encounters a Sorcerer, and simply demands that he repent of his sin. Nothing more.

But what about

---

Matthew 5:17-20
The Fulfillment of the Law

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 12:39 am)Drich Wrote: I read the rest of you message, and There is no need to get into your arguement any further unless you can provide New Testamant Scripture that established a command that Christians are to burn witches as you have indicated.

You want an NT law in particular? Jesus wanted people to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter, but as I said in my previous post (quoted here), regardless of whether or not the OT laws need to be followed to the letter to achieve salvation or not does not change the fact that they are still the will of god. Jesus didn't say anything specifically about witches just like he didn't say anything about homosexuality. Sooo...what's it going to be? (I'm not saying that you are homophobic, but some Christians use Leveticus as justification for it...not that you wouldn't already be aware of that fact).