Hate Speech In Religious Texts

[Hermit]

Wassamatta, don't like it when you are insulted

Insults as such don't affect me. They are water pearling off this duck's back. Aspersions cast upon my character by people I value and respect, and which I find unfair, are another matter. You are not among those people.

it's okay to insult billions of people of religion

Citation needed. I don't think pointing out the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so, counts as insulting them. These things are simply historical matters of fact.

I challenge you to quote a single post of mine in which I have implied that the billions of people of religion are generally mentally deficient, morally inferior, or in any other way sub-par in comparison to people who are not of religion.

[klr]

Firstly, hate speech in religious texts does not emanate from any god. Secondly, the harm depends on what people make of it. These days Christians ignore Luke 19:27 entirely, for instance. This was not always the case. The verse was used to justify and motivate people to participate in the crusades and countless internecine religious wars as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

In case you need reminding, Luke 19:27 reports Jesus as saying "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Don't forget Psalm 137. Boney M neatly avoided the last couple of verses. I wonder why?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Once again context is all and you don't have the intellectual integrity to even think about that. All you want to do is cherry-pick and quote-mine to support your mindless bigotry and hatred.

Nope, all I did was quote but one of the zillions of verses in the Bible that would be beyond the pale for most people nowadays - including the vast majority of Christians, who probably don't even know it's there.

But someone decided to put it there, various people decided to keep it there, and people down the ages have (quite literally) taken everything in the Bible as Gospel.

[Seth]

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

So, Seth, did your precious little Jesus say or not say these words?

I dunno. Why do YOU presume he did?

If you say yes, then whatever else he said, he is a murderous, vindictive arsehole.

Unless of course the meaning of the words in the parable are an analogy and not a literal command, which all the other evidence and a raft of biblical scholarship say they are.

If you say no, then anything else he is reputed to have said is to be taken with a shitload of salt...

Well, that's true in any case, given the lack of videotape of him saying such things.

So, either you believe that Jesus said those words and meant them literally, which makes you a believer in Jesus Christ, or you don't believe in Jesus Christ which makes your condemnation of those words nothing more than ill-mannered bigotry.

Which is it?

[Seth]

Wassamatta, don't like it when you are insulted

Insults as such don't affect me. They are water pearling off this duck's back. Aspersions cast upon my character by people I value and respect, and which I find unfair, are another matter. You are not among those people.

Yeah, I know. The feeling is entirely mutual. I suspect that people who believe in Jesus feel very much the same way, which makes your insults boorish bigotry and nothing more.

it's okay to insult billions of people of religion

Citation needed. I don't think pointing out the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so, counts as insulting them. These things are simply historical matters of fact.

There's the Wayback Machine Fallacy again. You have to go back centuries to find something to demean Christianity with and then try to apply it to contemporary society as a condemnation of all Christians.

The fault in your reasoning is inherent in your own statement "people calling themselves Christians." By making this particular statement in this particular way you are attempting to smear Christianity as a whole by implying that people who CLAIM to to be Christians who do horrible things represent all of Christianity, which they obviously don't, and never have, while knowing full well that this temporizing is your lame way of trying to escape the obvious consequences of your irrational hatred of all things Christian, which is nothing more than rank, mindless bigotry.

This is yet another example of the fallacy of composition wherein you infer that because parts A, B and C have characteristics X, therefore the whole must have characteristics X. A common fallacy of Atheists. Probably the most common logical failure of Atheists in fact.

This sort of specious rhetoric hardly qualifies you as being either rational or intellectually honest.

I challenge you to quote a single post of mine in which I have implied that the billions of people of religion are generally mentally deficient, morally inferior, or in any other way sub-par in comparison to people who are not of religion.

You just did. Again.

[Seth]

Firstly, hate speech in religious texts does not emanate from any god. Secondly, the harm depends on what people make of it. These days Christians ignore Luke 19:27 entirely, for instance. This was not always the case. The verse was used to justify and motivate people to participate in the crusades and countless internecine religious wars as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

In case you need reminding, Luke 19:27 reports Jesus as saying "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Don't forget Psalm 137. Boney M neatly avoided the last couple of verses. I wonder why?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Once again context is all and you don't have the intellectual integrity to even think about that. All you want to do is cherry-pick and quote-mine to support your mindless bigotry and hatred.

Nope, all I did was quote but one of the zillions of verses in the Bible that would be beyond the pale for most people nowadays - including the vast majority of Christians, who probably don't even know it's there.

But someone decided to put it there, various people decided to keep it there, and people down the ages have (quite literally) taken everything in the Bible as Gospel.

Wayback Machine fallacy and fallacy of composition, again.

Interestingly, one thing Atheists seem incapable of comprehending is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is (purportedly) a description of God's relationship with mankind BEFORE Jesus, whereas the New Testament is a major revision of that relationship created BY the existence and experiences of Jesus. If you knew anything about Christianity you'd know that the entire (alleged) purpose of sending Jesus to earth as a man was to offer redemption for all mankind, thereby changing the relationship between God and mankind from one of a "vengeful and jealous" God to a forgiving one who decided to take another course in that relationship entirely.

Therefore, resort to the Old Testament as a description of Christianity is completely wrong because the Old Testament, while allegedly the word of God, is merely a record of the time BEFORE Christ came to earth that helps believers to understand how things have changed and what went before, and therefore cannot be called Christian doctrine at all. Only the New Testament describes the relationship between God and man created by the existence and sacrifice of Jesus and everything that comes from that new relationship, and therefore in analyzing Christian doctrine, only the New Testament is pertinent and resort to the Old Testament is specious.

[Mark Dreher]

Interestingly, one thing Atheists seem incapable of comprehending is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is (purportedly) a description of God's relationship with mankind BEFORE Jesus, whereas the New Testament is a major revision of that relationship created BY the existence and experiences of Jesus.

Well Seth, very Good.

If I may paraphrase.

Jesus, is "the Key".

God, is a bitch.

"Always setting things, 'in opposition'".

Look, but don't touch.

Touch, but don't taste.

Taste, but don't feel.

It's the ultimate, goof.

God?

"Is a sadist".

Best, to know this.

Deal with it.

Then, proceed.

Is God perfect?

You are very naive, if you think so.

I tell you, "God, is like a 13 year old girl."

And those, are the scariest words, I could say.

What is, a 13 year old girl?

Who is a brat?

If she, actually, "run the earth"?

The personality, "of a 13 year old"?

God, in not a day older, in her mind.

Not one day older.

And a little, mad.

Did you disrespect her? could have sworn, I seen, something.

Is her mindset.

Nothing nothing nothing, at all.

What you would think, "God would be thinking, about".

God?

"Is thinking, about herself"

And that bastard, whom, "she could have sworn, disrespected, her"

That's all

That's all

That ever enters, God's mind.

Did you look at me funny?

Could have sworn, I seen, something.

[JimC]

Seth vs Mark D!

Cage fight!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth vs Mark D!

Cage fight!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

[Mark Dreher]

Seth vs Mark D!

Cage fight!

Mark D?

You mean

"The Lord G"?

I don't fight people.

The "Creator", barely looks

At the created.

Maybe, a sideways, glance.

At best, come on.

You all are "test tube fodder", that

I

Whipped up, in a lab.

Sorry, to say it.

I held this back, from you.

But, "I did make you Gods", too.

This is written.

"Little God's", y'all are.

But "I am", the big one.

Fight?

Come on, that is beneath me.

I smile.

That's about it.

If you, "can make me smile?"

That's it. You're done

You can retire.

Get off the treadmill.

You made me

Smile.

[Hermit]

it's okay to insult billions of people of religion

Citation needed. I don't think pointing out the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so, counts as insulting them. These things are simply historical matters of fact.

There's the Wayback Machine Fallacy again.

How is it "the Wayback Machine Fallacy" to mention that the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so are simply historical matters of fact?

The fault in your reasoning is inherent in your own statement "people calling themselves Christians." By making this particular statement in this particular way you are attempting to smear Christianity as a whole by implying that people who CLAIM to to be Christians

The reason I said they claim to be Christians is that Christians themselves have accused other Christians who also claimed to be Christians that they are not ever since at least as early as the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and they have killed each other over those claims for many centuries thereafter. In the absence of objective criteria for determining who actually is a Christian and who merely claims to be Christian it's not unreasonable to say they all claim to be Christians.

[Seth]

Interestingly, one thing Atheists seem incapable of comprehending is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is (purportedly) a description of God's relationship with mankind BEFORE Jesus, whereas the New Testament is a major revision of that relationship created BY the existence and experiences of Jesus.

Well Seth, very Good.

If I may paraphrase.

Jesus, is "the Key".

God, is a bitch.

"Always setting things, 'in opposition'".

Look, but don't touch.

Touch, but don't taste.

Taste, but don't feel.

It's the ultimate, goof.

God?

"Is a sadist".

Best, to know this.

Deal with it.

Then, proceed.

Is God perfect?

You are very naive, if you think so.

I tell you, "God, is like a 13 year old girl."

And those, are the scariest words, I could say.

What is, a 13 year old girl?

Who is a brat?

If she, actually, "run the earth"?

The personality, "of a 13 year old"?

God, in not a day older, in her mind.

Not one day older.

And a little, mad.

Did you disrespect her? could have sworn, I seen, something.

Is her mindset.

Nothing nothing nothing, at all.

What you would think, "God would be thinking, about".

God?

"Is thinking, about herself"

And that bastard, whom, "she could have sworn, disrespected, her"

That's all

That's all

That ever enters, God's mind.

Did you look at me funny?

Could have sworn, I seen, something.

I have no quibble with your suggestion that God is a bitch, or a right bastard, or whatever else you might think he/she/it is. I have no opinion on the matter in fact. Of course, if there is a God, and if God is a bastard/bitch/sadist all the more reason to be obedient. That seems to be the message of the Old testament anyway. The Jews certainly seem to feel that way.

But that's entirely beside the point. What I'm addressing here is not the internal logic and workings of God, but the internal logic and working of Atheists, who purport to be more "rational" than theists but who consistently fail utterly to demonstrate this intellectual and rational superiority. If I, a non-Christian, can decimate their so-called reasoning and logic as I have simply by pointing out their gross and abysmal ignorance and obvious bias and bigotry, then I'd love to see even one of them argue with a Jesuit. It would be an intellectual massacre.

But you'll note that Atheist cowards never step out and try to defend their positions in public, they hide behind secularism and refuse to have their own reasoning critically examined by anyone. Even here, the minute I approach their comfort zone, they inevitably resort to ad hominem and derails to avoid having to face the weaknesses in their arguments.

Pretty typical though, I've been doing this to them for more than two decades now and haven't found a single Atheist, except perhaps Thwoth, willing to mount a rational intellectual defense of their religious beliefs about theism.

[Seth]

it's okay to insult billions of people of religion

Citation needed. I don't think pointing out the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so, counts as insulting them. These things are simply historical matters of fact.

There's the Wayback Machine Fallacy again.

How is it "the Wayback Machine Fallacy" to mention that the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so are simply historical matters of fact?

Because you attempt to use those historical facts to belittle and condemn contemporary Christianity and Christians, that's why.

The fault in your reasoning is inherent in your own statement "people calling themselves Christians." By making this particular statement in this particular way you are attempting to smear Christianity as a whole by implying that people who CLAIM to to be Christians

The reason I said they claim to be Christians is that Christians themselves have accused other Christians who also claimed to be Christians that they are not ever since at least as early as the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and they have killed each other over those claims for many centuries thereafter. In the absence of objective criteria for determining who actually is a Christian and who merely claims to be Christian it's not unreasonable to say they all claim to be Christians.

There is objective criteria for determining who is a Christian. It's right there in the New Testament. Live as Jesus commands and you are a Christian. Use Jesus as an excuse to initiate force or fraud on others and you are not, no matter how much you may claim to be.

In the end, according to the New Testament, God will sort out the sheep from the goats and I rather suspect that a good many people who call themselves Christians won't make the cut.

But that's both God's problem and God's prerogative.

You, however, absolutely do NOT get to determine who is or is not a Christian, in large part because your motives are both self-serving, cruel, and evil. Christians are as Christians do, and the arbiter is neither you nor I nor any other human being.

You just want to be able to condemn all Christians for the evil acts of a few who claim Christ as their justification for evil, which intent is in and of itself dishonest and evil in its own right because it disparages billions of people who live as best they can within the requirements of the New Testament and who are far better people than you are because they are not such remarkable bigots and hypocrites.

[Mark Dreher]

I have no quibble with your suggestion that God is a bitch, or a right bastard, or whatever else you might think he/she/it is. I have no opinion on the matter in fact. Of course, if there is a God, and if God is a bastard/bitch/sadist all the more reason to be obedient. That seems to be the message of the Old testament anyway. The Jews certainly seem to feel that way.

But that's entirely beside the point. What I'm addressing here is not the internal logic and workings of God, but the internal logic and working of Atheists, who purport to be more "rational" than theists but who consistently fail utterly to demonstrate this intellectual and rational superiority. If I, a non-Christian, can decimate their so-called reasoning and logic as I have simply by pointing out their gross and abysmal ignorance and obvious bias and bigotry, then I'd love to see even one of them argue with a Jesuit. It would be an intellectual massacre.

But you'll note that Atheist cowards never step out and try to defend their positions in public, they hide behind secularism and refuse to have their own reasoning critically examined by anyone. Even here, the minute I approach their comfort zone, they inevitably resort to ad hominem and derails to avoid having to face the weaknesses in their arguments.

Pretty typical though, I've been doing this to them for more than two decades now and haven't found a single Atheist, except perhaps Thwoth, willing to mount a rational intellectual defense of their religious beliefs about theism.

Well Seth, "I can PROVE, that 'God is a Bitch'".

I can prove this.

What fukkin soap, am I, trying to sell?

It's very simple, "You, no matter what sin, WILL GO TO HEAVEN, if, the dreaded if, 'you say grace".

OK

Seems benign.

The guy, "is like a preacher", and they all, "say that shit".

But, they are not Jesus.

Ha ha ha.

If I say it?

"It will eat you, ALIVE", if you disobey

Me

Little old me.

I'll ruin whole your life, "in a blink, of an eye".

One, snide, comment?

One sideways glance?

From me?

And that will be your last thought.

And What, "am I asking for?" Really?

"You will get on your damn knees!!!!"

Human.

That's my only mission, really.

i.e. Break, every last one of you.

Like a horse.

And "get you, on your knees".

Before, who?

God.

Read between the lines, "you'll do it."

Because? I said so. I made you kowtow.

The whole thing, "is sadistic"

You know, technically.

But, that is my mission.

When they handed me the Saki

Thanks, chum

A Kamikaze

Mission.

i.e. there is not enough gas

To "turn around."

So?

We will go with plan A.

As there is

No B.

Means?

"Every, frikken knee?"

Will, bow.

Just like it says.

As, he can not

Turn the plane, around.

[Mark Dreher]

How is it "the Wayback Machine Fallacy" to mention that the crusades, inquisitions, internecine religious wars, witch hunts and so on and so forth perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and who claim to be obeying biblical instructions when they do so are simply historical matters of fact?

The reason I said they claim to be Christians is that Christians themselves have accused other Christians who also claimed to be Christians that they are not ever since at least as early as the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and they have killed each other over those claims for many centuries thereafter. In the absence of objective criteria for determining who actually is a Christian and who merely claims to be Christian it's not unreasonable to say they all claim to be Christians.

Christian, smis gen, What, is a Christian?

A follower, of Christ.

What is Christ? A messenger.

Selling, what soap? Shekinah, brand, soap.

Gets you clean, an education.

God, "is shy".

So, she sends

Her guy.

Her champion.

Can explain it. Like a teacher, you know.

But really?

More of a butler, "a bodyguard", to the Shekinah.

Yep.

"The fail safe", the one, "who will never, fail"

To protect the Queen.

The Praetorian Guard.

The last one.

Last one, needed.

Before, her.

And?

Court Jester, to God.

Only, the jester? "Makes God, happy".

It's why, he's got the job.

God's Jester? Is Jesus.

Lord Jesus.

But, "I am"

A messenger.

Of note, you know, of note.

When God speaks?

My lips, move.

What, an interesting, phenomenon.

I "vibrate the air," for God.

My lips, do.

So, they name stuff, "after, you"

Signed,

The Christ, Christianity, "is named after".