[PUG] Brothers & Sisters (split from [PAX] thread). | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

[PUG] Brothers & Sisters (split from [PAX] thread).

Ghandi.

Show me where he broke any commandments? The first 5 don't count because he was never either a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Show me his evil actions.

Given the amount that Solomon raised taxes by, for such a small nation with their means, Horses, Gold and Silver, He was most definitely a Tyrant.

Also, show me where Nehemiah was a holy man. I could find an obscure person from Celtic times about whom not much is written and say HE was holy for all the evidence you've provided.
 
Ghandi.

Show me where he broke any commandments? The first 5 don't count because he was never either a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Show me his evil actions.

Given the amount that Solomon raised taxes by, for such a small nation with their means, Horses, Gold and Silver, He was most definitely a Tyrant.

Also, show me where Nehemiah was a holy man. I could find an obscure person from Celtic times about whom not much is written and say HE was holy for all the evidence you've provided.

you ok, you've had a few mistakes popping up in your posts and threads, like this doublepost. Your not drunk are you?


Gahndi, I'm not sure why the first laws don't apply to him, especially not honoring his mother and father. Trying to use the Jewish laws which were Given by God, and sense breaking the law is an offense to God that would mean that he subject to all of them(especially the first five), including worshiping God alone, not using god's name in vain, making Graven images, and what not. Either he is subject to them all or none.

And what of his thoughts and his personal time, there is to much room for error to say that he never sinned.


I'm sorry, but I have to leave. I'll respond to the rest when i get back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I are back.

If Solomon ruled in tyranny why was it not recorded as so, biblical writers had no problem showing the depravity of the rest of their kings nor did they have a problem pointing out Solomon's faults.

You responded in a way that appeared like you already had information on Nehemiah, for proof of him look to the east, there lies a city he rebuilt that still stands, if that is not enough read booth the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
 
Last edited:
Barnabas:

Why is it important that everyone take up these ideals? Can it just be ok for people to come to love and understanding by any means, even if it isn't the best or quickest way?

Are people that aren't Christian wrong by default of not being Christian? If they aren't wrong, then why must they be punished by condemnation as wrong?
 
Last edited:
As a Satanist I'm mildly offended that You believe I'm wrong, merely because I'm not Christian.
 
Barnabas:

Why is it important that everyone take up these ideals? Can it just be ok for people to come to love and understanding by any means, even if it isn't the best or quickest way?

Are people that aren't Christian wrong by default of not being Christian? If they aren't wrong, then why must they be punished by condemnation as wrong?

you look through your own eyes but don't see through ours. We want you to live, we want you to know the love of God in our lives so that you may share it.

We want you to understand that Christ is the only possible way for you to grasp salvation.

Do not cling to my words but instead those of God.
 
As a Satanist I'm mildly offended that You believe I'm wrong, merely because I'm not Christian.

I As a christian am wounded in the heart by the hardness of yours.
 
Barnabas' reply to Shai said:
first off, I think I should mention from my post "good men as far as men can be good."

none of them were perfect, that goes without saying. But tyranical despots as Krump would have them described I think not.

.......

David you probably have the best case against, but even he repented of his ways.

I'd like to start by replying to your post to Shai, specifically this sentence:

"none of them were perfect, that goes without saying. But tyranical despots as Krump would have them described I think not."

Not only were they not perfect, many were tyrannical despots, just look at the actions they took for Christs sake!!

As to my description of tyrannical despots, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I was reffering to specifically the Ayatollahs at the head of Iran ruled by Allah, the fanatical Jewish sects and their leaders that occupy Palestinian land, the 'Lords Army' in western Africa that goes around killing 'enemies of God'. The FACT, cold hard FACT that we saw in the past and still see today is that wherever you get a whole society ruled by a supreme religious ideal you DO get tyrannical despots. I cannot see how you fail to see this blatant reality. You read the bible, extract the 'good' bits and use them as 'evidence of goodness' but fail to see the unreliability in this book when these 'good' things sit side-by-side utterly abominable things. And you suppose that the Koran and Torah are equally good books.

Then you mention how Shai may 'have a case with David', but that it 'doesn't matter because he repented'. Any nutjob can be an asshole then say that he is sorry. Perhaps the supreme irony and contradictive element of hypocrisy in religion is the clause that repentance = being excused for even the most heinous of acts. That is basically letting people off the hook and promoting unaccountability for actions. Yeah, very moral.


You make false points about christian doctrine, I simply showed you where your points were false, and sighted scripture to prove it.
Again, ‘sighted’ scripture is not proof.

you ask questions, I show you were to find answers, what questions did i ask you. If your talking about me asking you if you read Genesis, thats only to see if you knew the answer to your own question. which i'm starting to think not.
Yes that is the question I was referring to. But your ‘answers’ are nothing more than biblical plaigiarism and hold no weight in counter-argument.

Also tell me, if we cannot trust jewish authors to wright about their kings, how can we trust Roman authors to write about their Emperors, or Americans to right about their presidents.
These days writers are subject to far more scrutinty than in the ancient world so drawing a comparison there is fruitless. We can’t trust Roman authors who wrote about their emperors, we have to take their musings with a pinch of salt. In fact the only writers we can trust the most are those who have no obvious vested interest in any camp, and certainly have no religious motivation influencing them. Why you think a religious figure is a source of trustworthy account when they 1) are often politically motivated 2) have private agendas and 3) believe in talking snakes is beyond me.

This should also be countered buy the fact the jews did not spare us the less the wholsome periods of their history. Several Kings reigned in Judah and Isreal, and for the most part none were good. The Jews didn't pick and choose what info they gave us. They have not padded their history.
This is all biblical interpretation and the details are subject to extreme variances. Again, simply relating to me what it says in the bible and stating it as historic fact is nowhere near the reliability of say, the account of a holocaust survivor.



"How many know that if we, only showed the love of Christ more often to our children that they would never have to worry about things like premarital sex, divorce, drug use and abortion. If we raise them to know right from wrong then why would we even have to ask these things."
Once again you take pleasure in making assumptions where none are to be made. Did i say in this post once that non-christians are incapable of raising children, no not once.
No, but the KEY thing that I’m arguing here is that many religious people DO believe that the only way to raise children is the godly way. It is that seething danger and the sheer vulnerability of religious writings to be interpreted in myriad of ways and how we have seen it forcefully applied to people throughout history that is the whole source of my opposition to religion.
surley you have no problem with parents teaching their children not to become teenage unwed mothers and fathers.
Of course I don’t, but you’re totally missing the point. The surface points on morality in faith are often quite innocent, but what you fail to understand is the extreme susceptibility of religion to very rapidly descend into authoritarian dogma, which is actually what it was tailored for.
This final sentence of yours pinpoints the commonly held view among religious people that non-believers are the source of social chaos, lack of discipline, order and promote promiscuity and wayward practices of self-abuse. Religion needs to get off its high horse of supposed moral superiority, understand that it is merely a tool to control the masses and is full of capricious, unbrotherly and cruel doctrines that is sugar-coated with common-sense moralities which anyone could follow totally without the intervention of religion.
 
Last edited:
Ghandi.

Show me where he broke any commandments? The first 5 don't count because he was never either a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Show me his evil actions.
Well, when Gandhi was in south Africa he was supposedly contemptuous of black people and championed the cause of the local Indians and ignored the suffering the blacks at the hands of their colonial masters.

It seems he only got into defending Indian racial rights in South Africa after he was kicked off a first class cabin on a train by a conductor, and thought of blacks as idle savages.

I don't know, but I am suspect of him. He was apparantly quite violent with his family too. Possibly a sort of mother-theresa-like fallacy surrounding him.
 
As far as christianity is concerned, it is a way of life, not a set of do's and don'ts. It's not as simple as to say do this and do that and you will make it to heaven.

Concerning the OT laws, there are loop holes in every legal system. Flexibility isnt a bad thing.
 
As far as christianity is concerned, it is a way of life, not a set of do's and don'ts. It's not as simple as to say do this and do that and you will make it to heaven.
I beg to differ. I think what peope think Christianity is, or has become, is a way of life. Unless one follows the bible word for word how can they be a Christian? The bible is full of do's and dont's and I'd only say that the spiritual 'in tune with oneself' side of faith is a way of life which can equally be drawn from sources without the connotations of historic bloodshed and massacres and manipulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: myself
I beg to differ. I think what peope think Christianity is, or has become, is a way of life. Unless one follows the bible word for word how can they be a Christian? The bible is full of do's and dont's and I'd only say that the spiritual 'in tune with oneself' side of faith is a way of life which can equally be drawn from sources without the connotations of historic bloodshed and massacres and manipulation.


A Bible didnt just drop from a sky and some pope picked it up and started a church. The Church came first, then the Bible (as we know it today). Christians don't follow the Bible, they follow God. At least they are supposed to.

On a side note, you seem to be characterizing Fundamental American Christians instead of Orthodox Christianity, but that is another thread.
 
you look through your own eyes but don't see through ours. We want you to live, we want you to know the love of God in our lives so that you may share it.

We want you to understand that Christ is the only possible way for you to grasp salvation.

Do not cling to my words but instead those of God.

As a Christian, I believe God wants all of us to love everybody :m023:.
 
A Bible didnt just drop from a sky and some pope picked it up and started a church. The Church came first, then the Bible (as we know it today). Christians don't follow the Bible, they follow God. At least they are supposed to.

On a side note, you seem to be characterizing Fundamental American Christians instead of Orthodox Christianity, but that is another thread.
Well this is another new take on religion that I've heard, that Christians follow God but not his book, or that they should but don't..

My abhorrance of religion extends to primarily the three Abhrahamic faiths and their derivatives. If I appear to be singling one out it is probably to do with the topic of that thread.
 
As a Christian, I believe God wants all of us to love everybody :m023:.

As a universalist, I also believe God wants all of us to love everybody, including Christians.

Also I'd like to say, in response to earlier interpretations of my words, that unity between people on the basis of shared humanity, never excludes their right to diversty of views or beliefs. I accept everybody and every view, even if you think you're right and I'm wrong, it doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change what we have in common: this life, and this chance to experience a moment together. I would prefer that moment to be one of kindness, and by keeping an open mind and heart, I can at least intend that from my perspective, it will be, even if i sometimes fall short of those intentions. Idealistic? Maybe. Loving? I hope so. No one religion has exclusivity on Love. It's the one thing that can bind us all together, and so what I really want to say, is that people could, and always have the choice to, unite under the banner of love, compassion and kindness for each other, rather than under an exclusive label.
 
Well this is another new take on religion that I've heard, that Christians follow God but not his book, or that they should but don't..

My abhorrance of religion extends to primarily the three Abhrahamic faiths and their derivatives. If I appear to be singling one out it is probably to do with the topic of that thread.


Its not that Christians shouldnt follow the book, its that the book isnt the end all be all of the Christian religion.
 
Its not that Christians shouldnt follow the book, its that the book isnt the end all be all of the Christian religion.
Well it would make more sense if it was the be all and end all because at least a book is a tangible thing rather than an imaginary being.
 
Well it would make more sense if it was the be all and end all because at least a book is a tangible thing rather than an imaginary being.


zing!
 
zong there goes the bong, do you say 'end all be all' in the States?