It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fury as watchdog says it's OK to send gay people death threats – but only if you're Muslim

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

That's what I was saying earlier. It's about the interpretation. What was meant by the original author is important for certain reasons. But what is important in the here and now is how it's interpreted by those who read it today and act upon what they've read. That is what actually effects us. Not the intent of the original writer. That doesn't effect us. What effect us in reality is what message people living today are getting out of it.




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

People forget sometimes that the Old testament was the book, history and life that the Hebrew followed, the new testament was much later and while part of the bible is a totally different set of rules and a different history.

And still it was not just one book but a series of stories written by many people.

Translation is to be blame as why people think that one religion seems to have ramifications into different sects that obviously they call themselves Christian but as the centuries passed they created many denominations that uses different interpretations of the original text.

Specially in the US where while Christians follow one god and uses the bible they have many denominations that call themselves the truth light of God.

Is funny, but as a multibillion dollar empire that religion has become is big business and as big business they cater to the believes of their majority followers.

I follow no organized religion.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: AMPTAH

So it's okay for God to kill people because he is perfect and therefore able to judge them accordingly?

Wtf? That's bat-#.


I agree, that is bat-stuff...

But that's pretty much how it works. According to Religion anyway. God says "Thou Shall not Murder". But God doesn't have to follow his rules.

It's the old, Do as I say not as I do argument your parents probably used on you when you were little.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

The multiple "branches," of Christainity in itself proves that there is no God/God is a fabrication of man.

Or at least that Christains can't even decide on which sky wizard is "the real one."

"Would the real Slim Shady please stand up, please stand up, please stand up."



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

I will not debate that, in my personal opinion and for what I have research during my life about religion, history and historical accounts, I have to agree, religion originally was an invention of man.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
People forget sometimes that the Old testament was the book, history and life that the Hebrew followed, the new testament was much later and while part of the bible is a totally different set of rules and a different history.


I get it my friend.

I have had this explained to me many times on this forum. So I try not to lump everyone in the same pile and instead allow them to make their views on the topic heard, in this case on homosexuality.

And just for the record I am not for putting anyone to death because a religious book says so.





edit on 3-12-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Zazz 2020!



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly, I agree, and you are right my friend, nowhere in the bible it said that homosexual should be put to death at least on the original Hebrew bible.




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Did you mean to say "yes the bible does say that but it doesnt count"


No, I was referring to the New Testament since the Original Poster mentioned Christians and the killing of homosexuals.





LOL

So then what you meant to say was "Yes the old testament does say you should kill gays but the new testament does not and thats the one that counts"

That would have been better as your easily misunderstood/completely wrong statement was the 1st post and it basically says the OP is an idiot or lying.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: AMPTAH

So it's okay for God to kill people because he is perfect and therefore able to judge them accordingly?

Wtf? That's bat-#.


I agree, that is bat-stuff...

But that's pretty much how it works. According to Religion anyway. God says "Thou Shall not Murder". But God doesn't have to follow his rules.

It's the old, Do as I say not as I do argument your parents probably used on you when you were little.


If God is in fact real I expect a very lengthy discussion when I do pass on.

This is the same God that wiped out all of Earth to prove a point, murdered some dude by spawning a lion to kill him. Talks about killing pregnant girls by stoning them to death at church. The slavery aspects - "deplorable."

How about the illogical fact that an all-knowing and infallible being (supposedly) sent his only son (which was also himself) to save the world from. So, God already knew this was going to happen but did it anyway according to religious folks. Why? I have no idea. It seems like the classic case of someone throwing a baby in a river when no one is looking only to jump in and proclaim "I saved a baby!," when everyone is looking.

And then we can get into the fact where religious folks absolutely and vehemently insist that "my religion is correct," when there are over 4,000 different religions alone on Earth and people can easily dismiss 3,990+ other belief systems but hold onto theirs as if "this one is the correct one."

And then we have the classic, tried and true "but but but the Old Testament but but but," which is a joke.

So God made a typo and had to write up another draft? And I thought the Bible was God's word?

Does not mean that God was incorrect in the OT but his new writings are a-okay?

Or were they written by men based off of previous documentation and scriptures... such as the OT?

This is the thing - I have many, many questions but am offered little to no answers.

I don't care what people choose to believe in but to actually claim some of the absolute madness that some religious people claim... it just makes me wonder how they actually can believe something without questioning ANY of its merits.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So then what you meant to say was "Yes the old testament does say you should kill gays but the new testament does not and thats the one that counts"

That would have been better as your easily misunderstood/completely wrong statement was the 1st post and it basically says the OP is an idiot or lying.


I suppose I was operating under the understanding that posters would know the explanation of the new covenant versus the old since it has been discussed quite often here. I would go back and edit my post but I do not want it to appear that I am being disingenuous.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This argument comes around every so often and it always ends up the same. Someone quotes a verse and then everyone argues about what it really means.

Leviticus is pretty plain and simple in its terminology and intent. There is little room for negotiating interpretation. That having been said, this is one of the areas in which modern thought precludes blind adherence to scripture. The scripture is clear that homosexuality is an abomination. What has changed is our tempered measure of response. The scripture is still the same as it always was.

There was a time when left handed people were put to death because it was believed they were possessed by the devil. Parents would tie their children's left arms to their bodies to try to force them to use the right arm instead. If that failed often parents would cut their own child's left arm off to save him from being burned at the stake. We have grown beyond such barbarity. The same can be said of our treatment of homosexuals. The problem is, not everyone has.

This is always a double edged sword. On one hand you have people criticizing the religious for not following the tenets of their religion to a T. But if they do, as in this case, they are called barbaric animals living in the stone age. It leaves people of religion the difficult choice of deciding what parts of their religion they are willing to sacrifice to be more modern in their thinking, mostly in the name of acceptance from others - which could fall under the heading "vanity"...

We end up with Christians on one side who want to be more modern stressing the tolerance and acceptance "love thy neighbor as thyself" part of the Bible while choosing to ignore the parts that are less attractive. On the other hand, you have the muslims who cling tenaciously to the ancient ways and refuse to change. Is either one right?

If your body is your "temple", then religion is a Home Owner's Association with a zero tolerance policy toward everything. They do keep the leaves raked and the pool clean, but rule breaking can result in losing your home. That is the original rock and a hard place...



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So then what you meant to say was "Yes the old testament does say you should kill gays but the new testament does not and thats the one that counts"

That would have been better as your easily misunderstood/completely wrong statement was the 1st post and it basically says the OP is an idiot or lying.


I suppose I was operating under the understanding that posters would know the explanation of the new covenant versus the old since it has been discussed quite often here. I would go back and edit my post but I do not want it to appear that I am being disingenuous.


I have no idea what the new or old covenant is and when I saw your post I assumed the OP was wrong,
Why would you assume in the political madness forum people would be familiar with religious debates on the site?
What you wrote in the 1st post is either incorrect or at best totally lacking in info, I think you should out of respect for the OP edit it or at least admit you were wrong



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Why would you assume in the political madness forum people would be familiar with religious debates on the site?


Sorry to assume that people have educated themselves about a topic prior to participation.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Not at all. It simply means that when you pour the pure water of faith into the rusty bucket of mankind, you should not be surprised at all manner of strange results.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

I have no idea what the new or old covenant is and when I saw your post I assumed the OP was wrong,
Why would you assume in the political madness forum people would be familiar with religious debates on the site?


The new and old covenants are very basic Christian knowledge. Leviticus comes under the old covenant and Christ is the new covenant.

The new covenant abrogates (or replaces) the old. The old covenant was one of strict law and following the rules. The new covenant is one of forgiveness and repentance because no one can perfectly follow the law.

To some extent the law still applies, but we may still be forgiven if we seek forgiveness from Christ for our sins.

"I am the way, the truth, and the light ..."

"No one comes to the Father excep through me ..."

There. Basic Christianity 101. Now, you know stuff.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
very disappointing that a news item about 'tolerance' for muslims leading to them getting away with death threats, turns into a Christian theological dispute.

question is, are the euroweenies not holding the muslims to the same standard, because they want to be nice and tolerant? or because they're scared that they'll be beheaded next?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for the theology lesson


For further reading where would I find all of this in scripture?
Does it clearly state all old laws are null and void or is just the 2 lines above that your premise is based on?
I have to assume that its not clearly written or is very clearly written as the catholic church still adheres to the 10 commandments which are part of the OT

Im not Christian and obviously know very little, the above questions arent me being snarky, Im genuinely interested in finding out more



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ElGoobero

I guess it's a foregone conclusion that Muslims can make death threats. All that's left is to figure out if Christians and Jews should be allowed to do it too.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the old one obsolete and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

Hebrews 10:9
"Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second."

The first one there, Hebrews 8:13 would seem to make it pretty clear and specifically refers to the old laws as obsolete. Some people will point out another passage though to claim that it isn't, perhaps, entirely true. That would be,

Matthew 5:17
"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."

He then goes on to say though that it won't be until everything is "finished" or fulfilled, and so it is often argued that his death on the cross is that "finish" and thus those old laws can finally be abolished.

edit on 3-12-2016 by rshackleford because: Whoops, typo there.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rshackleford

Isnt Hebrews a book of the OT?




"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." He then goes on to say though that it won't be until everything is "finished" or fulfilled, and so it is often argued that his death on the cross is that "finish" and thus those old laws can finally be abolished.


So then no where is it clearly stated that old laws are invalid?
We have a passage that predates the NT and then we have something that is so open for interpretation its basically useless for the purpose of the argument.

As far as Im concerned its official, under the rules of religious freedom Christians are allowed to behead gays just as much as Muslims are.

Now back to the OP

That nonsense is just another example of a messed up PC world.
The quicker we get rid of the old religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the new religion of PC the better off well all be.

I really hope that not only does that organisation lose its funding but the idiot who made that statement is publicly named and shamed in every way possible

edit on 3/12/2016 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join