Topic: Which is worse: Christianity or Scientology?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #12,577
Or is there a worse belief?
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later[^] [v] #225,639
> no poll
ltamake !!onnLC5KY8 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,643
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,649
Atheism. Just kidding.
I'm going to guess both?
I'm going to guess both?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,651
Scientology.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,653
In the present day, Scientology. Christianity can still be pretty terrible at times too though.
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,654
Question is relative.
Christianity sucks, but Scientology sucks just as much.
Christianity sucks, but Scientology sucks just as much.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,658
Scientology is not truly analogous to Christianity. It is analogous to a Christian denomination. Christian denominations differ widely in practice and doctrine.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,659
@225,654 (!VoCaLoNunI)
I only say Scientology is slightly because the whole thing is a scam to take people's money and isolate them, whereas Christianity has a one or two redeeming elements at least, such as charity work.
I only say Scientology is slightly because the whole thing is a scam to take people's money and isolate them, whereas Christianity has a one or two redeeming elements at least, such as charity work.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,667
Christianity.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,668
At least Scientology has better movies.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,685
I think that Scientology is worse but it's definitely not as widespread as Christianity.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,688
All religions are equally as bad.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,689
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
I believe that all religions are bad but are they equally bad? Is it even possible to determine such a thing?
I believe that all religions are bad but are they equally bad? Is it even possible to determine such a thing?
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,690
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> Is it even possible to determine such a thing?
Exactly. Are Judaism and Buddhism equally as bad? I'm not sure, but compared to Atheism they are as equally fucked up IMO.
> Is it even possible to determine such a thing?
Exactly. Are Judaism and Buddhism equally as bad? I'm not sure, but compared to Atheism they are as equally fucked up IMO.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,691
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
True, but can you judge a religion by it's current practices? To me, Scientology is much more fucked up than most mainstream religions.
True, but can you judge a religion by it's current practices? To me, Scientology is much more fucked up than most mainstream religions.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,719
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> can you judge a religion by its current practices?
You sure can!
> can you judge a religion by its current practices?
You sure can!
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,774
Do you mean which has a more detrimental effect on society, or which has 'crazier' beliefs?
If the former, Christianity. If the latter, Scientology.
If the former, Christianity. If the latter, Scientology.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,778
@225,688 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)> All religions are equally as bad.
Lolno. Compare a religion like Islam with a religion like Jainism or Buddhism. Jainism teaches peace, altruism and non-violence; the Qur'an has around 100 verses calling Muslims to fight non-believers.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,781
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,782
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,786
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,787
@225,782 (E)
> Christianity teaches peace, altruism and non-violence.
The New Testament teachings of Jesus did, for the most part, but I was referring to the practices of the adherents. Christianity has produced some horrific things, whereas Buddhism and Jainism... not so much.
> Christianity teaches peace, altruism and non-violence.
The New Testament teachings of Jesus did, for the most part, but I was referring to the practices of the adherents. Christianity has produced some horrific things, whereas Buddhism and Jainism... not so much.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,792
@previous (L)
Mostly because Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really. I think claiming Christianity is responsible for X is like claiming theory of evolution is responsible for racism, nationalism, genocide &c.
Mostly because Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really. I think claiming Christianity is responsible for X is like claiming theory of evolution is responsible for racism, nationalism, genocide &c.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,800
@previous (E)
It doesn't matter why - Christianity, Judaism and Islam have (via their adherents' actions) had a more negative effect on society than religions like Jainism and Buddhism, that much is obvious. I'm not saying the religions themselves are responsible, but that's the only way you can judge whether a religion or belief is 'worse' than another; by the kind of actions and behaviours they produce.
It doesn't matter why - Christianity, Judaism and Islam have (via their adherents' actions) had a more negative effect on society than religions like Jainism and Buddhism, that much is obvious. I'm not saying the religions themselves are responsible, but that's the only way you can judge whether a religion or belief is 'worse' than another; by the kind of actions and behaviours they produce.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,804
Christianity is worse becuase it's an actual religion. Scientology is just a joke and only idiots take that shir seriously, but christianity... Christianity is far more dangerous.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,841
@225,800 (L)
At the same time one must also recognize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam have (via their adherents' actions) had a more positive impact on society than religions like Jainism and Buddhism - the impact of of the latter being minimal.
Belief in the teachings of Jesus (peace, altruism and non-violence) does not produce the kind of actions and behaviors that negatively affect society. One may, perhaps, say Christianity is less successful at reducing negative behaviors and actions, but the point of reference (Jainism and Buddhism) does not truly allow subjective comparison, as such systems were never tested in the way Christianity has been (state religion for over a millennium, of colonial powers, &c).
At the same time one must also recognize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam have (via their adherents' actions) had a more positive impact on society than religions like Jainism and Buddhism - the impact of of the latter being minimal.
Belief in the teachings of Jesus (peace, altruism and non-violence) does not produce the kind of actions and behaviors that negatively affect society. One may, perhaps, say Christianity is less successful at reducing negative behaviors and actions, but the point of reference (Jainism and Buddhism) does not truly allow subjective comparison, as such systems were never tested in the way Christianity has been (state religion for over a millennium, of colonial powers, &c).
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,853
@previous (E)
Right, cause when christianity was tested they didn't have inquisitions or burn make-believe witches for sport or anything like that.
christian dogma has never been interpreted as justify killing people or depriving them of freedom, never even once!
It's always been and always will be a religion of peace and tolerance!
Right, cause when christianity was tested they didn't have inquisitions or burn make-believe witches for sport or anything like that.
christian dogma has never been interpreted as justify killing people or depriving them of freedom, never even once!
It's always been and always will be a religion of peace and tolerance!
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,871
@previous (M)
Don't know where to begin because you don't make any sense.
> Right, cause when christianity was tested they didn't have inquisitions or burn make-believe witches for sport or anything like that.
Reading comprehension fail? I stated that Buddhism and Jainism were never state religions staffed and funded by kings/tyrants and used as instruments of social control. Christianity was.
> christian dogma has never been interpreted as justify killing people or depriving them of freedom, never even once!
Christianity doesn't have dogma. It has the peaceful, altruistic and non-violent teachings of Jesus. Various groups, denominations, states may claim to be inspired by the teachings of Jesus when they institute dogma particular and peculiar to themselves but if it is not peaceful, altruistic and non-violent then it is contradictory and illogical.
> It's always been and always will be a religion of peace and tolerance!
Amen.
Don't know where to begin because you don't make any sense.
> Right, cause when christianity was tested they didn't have inquisitions or burn make-believe witches for sport or anything like that.
Reading comprehension fail? I stated that Buddhism and Jainism were never state religions staffed and funded by kings/tyrants and used as instruments of social control. Christianity was.
> christian dogma has never been interpreted as justify killing people or depriving them of freedom, never even once!
Christianity doesn't have dogma. It has the peaceful, altruistic and non-violent teachings of Jesus. Various groups, denominations, states may claim to be inspired by the teachings of Jesus when they institute dogma particular and peculiar to themselves but if it is not peaceful, altruistic and non-violent then it is contradictory and illogical.
> It's always been and always will be a religion of peace and tolerance!
Amen.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,886
@225,841 (E)
Hi Mountainman.
> does not truly allow subjective comparison, as such systems were never tested in the way Christianity has been (state religion for over a millennium, of colonial powers, &c).
That's a very good point, although I'd like to point out that Bhutan, Combodia and Kalmykia (a Russian state) all have Buddhism as their state religion, and Sri Lanka recognised Buddhism as having the 'foremost place'. And to claim that "Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really" is so silly it's only something Mounty-man would say. :3
Show me a Jainist terrorist.
Hi Mountainman.
> does not truly allow subjective comparison, as such systems were never tested in the way Christianity has been (state religion for over a millennium, of colonial powers, &c).
That's a very good point, although I'd like to point out that Bhutan, Combodia and Kalmykia (a Russian state) all have Buddhism as their state religion, and Sri Lanka recognised Buddhism as having the 'foremost place'. And to claim that "Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really" is so silly it's only something Mounty-man would say. :3
Show me a Jainist terrorist.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,889
@225,871 (E)
> It has the peaceful, altruistic and non-violent teachings of Jesus
It also has the Old Testament. :D
> It has the peaceful, altruistic and non-violent teachings of Jesus
It also has the Old Testament. :D
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,900
@225,886 (L)
> Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really
By this I mean that if there were billions of Buddhists and Jainists, the most powerful nations now and for most of modern history were Buddhist and Jainist &c. that there would be terrorists of those sects &c. &c. &c.
Show me a Jainist. lol
> Buddhism and Jainism... haven't produced anything really
By this I mean that if there were billions of Buddhists and Jainists, the most powerful nations now and for most of modern history were Buddhist and Jainist &c. that there would be terrorists of those sects &c. &c. &c.
Show me a Jainist. lol
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,903
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,906
@225,900 (E)
Jainism has 12 million followers (4.6 million in India) so it's not exactly huge, but it would be enough produce a terrorist or two.
> Show me a Jainist. lol
I've only ever met two in my life. :D
The core belief of Jainism is non-violence towards all life, not exactly terrorist-producing stuff.
Jainism has 12 million followers (4.6 million in India) so it's not exactly huge, but it would be enough produce a terrorist or two.
> Show me a Jainist. lol
I've only ever met two in my life. :D
The core belief of Jainism is non-violence towards all life, not exactly terrorist-producing stuff.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,907
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,909
@225,906 (L)
The two commandments of Christianity are:
1.Love God
2.Love people
not exactly terrorist-producing stuff.
> implying that "producing terrorists" is a simple linear population equation and not a hugely complicated mix of historical, social, economic and political forces
The two commandments of Christianity are:
1.Love God
2.Love people
not exactly terrorist-producing stuff.
> implying that "producing terrorists" is a simple linear population equation and not a hugely complicated mix of historical, social, economic and political forces
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,911
@225,907 (L)
Take it up with the Jews. Christians follow Jesus' teaching on the Law.
Take it up with the Jews. Christians follow Jesus' teaching on the Law.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,915
@225,909 (E)
Christianity can't be easily boiled down into two single commandments.
@previous (E)
I know that. They discard the hate-filled teachings of the Old Testament, while excluding teachings regarding homosexuality.
Christianity can't be easily boiled down into two single commandments.
@previous (E)
I know that. They discard the hate-filled teachings of the Old Testament, while excluding teachings regarding homosexuality.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,920
@previous (L)
> Christianity can't be easily boiled down into two single commandments.
Jesus wants to have a word with you. He says it can... and he's kind of the expert on the matter.
> I know that. They discard the hate-filled teachings of the Old Testament, while excluding teachings regarding homosexuality.
Who is "they"? You can't reject Jesus' teachings and be a Christian. You are not a Christ-follower unless you follow Christ.
> Christianity can't be easily boiled down into two single commandments.
Jesus wants to have a word with you. He says it can... and he's kind of the expert on the matter.
> I know that. They discard the hate-filled teachings of the Old Testament, while excluding teachings regarding homosexuality.
Who is "they"? You can't reject Jesus' teachings and be a Christian. You are not a Christ-follower unless you follow Christ.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,921
@previous (E)
> Jesus wants to have a word with you. He says it can.
You can't speak to invisible characters, silly Mountainman! :3
> Jesus wants to have a word with you. He says it can.
You can't speak to invisible characters, silly Mountainman! :3
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,923
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,924
@225,900 (E)
There are crazy buddhists. Aum Shinrikyo, for example. They're Buddhism meets helter skelter. Releasing sarin gas in busy subway stations is nice and peaceful.
There are crazy buddhists. Aum Shinrikyo, for example. They're Buddhism meets helter skelter. Releasing sarin gas in busy subway stations is nice and peaceful.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,925
@previous (N)
I know, right? But you can't blame Buddhism for that. You can blame Aum Shinrikyo for it. Just like you can't blame "Christianity" for the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
I know, right? But you can't blame Buddhism for that. You can blame Aum Shinrikyo for it. Just like you can't blame "Christianity" for the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,927
@previous (E)
> I know, right? But you can't blame Buddhism for that. You can blame Aum Shinrikyo for it. Just like you can't blame "Christianity" for the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
I actually agree with you there. In terms of teachings though, Islam is worse than Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.
> I know, right? But you can't blame Buddhism for that. You can blame Aum Shinrikyo for it. Just like you can't blame "Christianity" for the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
I actually agree with you there. In terms of teachings though, Islam is worse than Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,928
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,929
@225,925 (E)
Why can't you blame Buddhism? Buddhism is fucked up. You can tell by the koans. If you see Buddha walking down the road, kill him.
Why can't you blame Buddhism? Buddhism is fucked up. You can tell by the koans. If you see Buddha walking down the road, kill him.
Anonymous N double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,930
@225,928 (L)
The religious movement was mostly buddhism mixed with bits of other religions and Nostradamus.
The religious movement was mostly buddhism mixed with bits of other religions and Nostradamus.
dreamworksage !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,959
shit thread
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,971
@225,927 (L)
From what I can tell (my Quran is as of yet unread) most of the controversial teaching are from the Hadith, not the Quran, and usually the more controversial they are, the more unreliable and contested they are. I don't know enough about Islam to critique it properly. There seems to be ample historical evidence that Islamic cultures were once enlightened and advanced - is this a sign that the pure teachings of Islams have been corrupted by statist abuse? idk
From what I can tell (my Quran is as of yet unread) most of the controversial teaching are from the Hadith, not the Quran, and usually the more controversial they are, the more unreliable and contested they are. I don't know enough about Islam to critique it properly. There seems to be ample historical evidence that Islamic cultures were once enlightened and advanced - is this a sign that the pure teachings of Islams have been corrupted by statist abuse? idk
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,973
ITT: [citation needed]
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,974
@225,929 (N)
You can't really attack Buddhism over what one teacher in the Buddhist school taught. Xun Zi and Mencius taught the opposite on human nature, yet were both in the Confucian school of thought. You can't really say Confucianism is wrong because of what Mencius taught - it is not a valid criticism of the whole thought system.
You can't really attack Buddhism over what one teacher in the Buddhist school taught. Xun Zi and Mencius taught the opposite on human nature, yet were both in the Confucian school of thought. You can't really say Confucianism is wrong because of what Mencius taught - it is not a valid criticism of the whole thought system.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,413
oops
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,415
Christianity does more damage. As far as cults, there are thousands in the US. So, yea. Plus all the bad stuff mainstream Christianity does... No contest.
Still, I think Scientology is inherently evil, whereas Christianity isn't.
Still, I think Scientology is inherently evil, whereas Christianity isn't.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,416
@225,971 (E)
I think the Hadith contains the penalty for apostasy, and maybe adultery, but the Qur'an itself has 109 verses calling for violence.
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non believers]. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Qur'an (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners".
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should [have the upper-hand], for Allah is with you".
Qur'an (61:9) - "He it is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
Contrast the above with the "love your enemy", "be kind to those who hurt you", "feed your enemy" teachings of Jesus.
I think the Hadith contains the penalty for apostasy, and maybe adultery, but the Qur'an itself has 109 verses calling for violence.
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non believers]. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Qur'an (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners".
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should [have the upper-hand], for Allah is with you".
Qur'an (61:9) - "He it is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
Contrast the above with the "love your enemy", "be kind to those who hurt you", "feed your enemy" teachings of Jesus.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,420
@previous (L)
> Contrast the above with the "love your enemy", "be kind to those who hurt you", "feed your enemy" teachings of Jesus.
Okay, but what's the count on Bible verses that call for violence? I would assume that's hilariously high.
> Contrast the above with the "love your enemy", "be kind to those who hurt you", "feed your enemy" teachings of Jesus.
Okay, but what's the count on Bible verses that call for violence? I would assume that's hilariously high.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,421
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,422
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,423
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,424
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,425
Are those quranic verses legit? They're pretty bad.
Also I lol at people who have no understanding of Christianity yet attempt to quote biblical verses to prove their ignorant point...
Also I lol at people who have no understanding of Christianity yet attempt to quote biblical verses to prove their ignorant point...
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,426
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,430
@226,422 (L)
LOL Edit.
@226,424 (L)
Well, I suppose the obvious place to start would be Matthew 10:34? I'm actually curious about your opinion on this one, so please don't hesitate to go into depth.
LOL Edit.
@226,424 (L)
Well, I suppose the obvious place to start would be Matthew 10:34? I'm actually curious about your opinion on this one, so please don't hesitate to go into depth.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,431
@226,415 (sluggy)
> Still, I think Scientology is inherently evil, whereas Christianity isn't.
Exactly this. I'd say that Scientology is more harmful than Christianity in the short-term.
> Still, I think Scientology is inherently evil, whereas Christianity isn't.
Exactly this. I'd say that Scientology is more harmful than Christianity in the short-term.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,434
@226,430 (Q)
Wow. You really went for that? Why not start strong?
Christians dont really know what he was saying. Anything said seems contradictory. You need to investigate the original texts to know.
Wow. You really went for that? Why not start strong?
Christians dont really know what he was saying. Anything said seems contradictory. You need to investigate the original texts to know.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,437
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,439
@226,430 (Q)
That verse doesn't exactly call for violence, and many Christians interpret it to mean idealogical conflict. Also some translations have 'gaudium' (joy) rather than 'gladium' (sword).
I don't think any New Testament verses directly call for violence, unlike the Qur'an.
That verse doesn't exactly call for violence, and many Christians interpret it to mean idealogical conflict. Also some translations have 'gaudium' (joy) rather than 'gladium' (sword).
I don't think any New Testament verses directly call for violence, unlike the Qur'an.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,440
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,444
@previous (sluggy)
Jesus so often spoke in parables that it's tough to nail down anything he supposedly said without someone arguing that he actually meant something else. And why not start with a quote from the star of the show?
@226,439 (L)
Okay, how about Acts 3:23. Surely that is more in the spirit of the Qur'an verses that were posted?
Jesus so often spoke in parables that it's tough to nail down anything he supposedly said without someone arguing that he actually meant something else. And why not start with a quote from the star of the show?
@226,439 (L)
Okay, how about Acts 3:23. Surely that is more in the spirit of the Qur'an verses that were posted?
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,447
@previous (Q)
"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people"?
Still not advocating violence.
"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people"?
Still not advocating violence.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,473
@previous (L)
Violence would certainly seem to be implied there, and it has been used as justification for violence in the past.
...as has Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Violence would certainly seem to be implied there, and it has been used as justification for violence in the past.
...as has Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,486
@226,444 (Q)
That quote isn't promoting violence. You are presenting it completely out of context. It's a tactic employed by theists and you should feel dirty for using it.
If you had any serious knowledge of the bible and the teachings of Jesus, you would have already won this discussion. Instead, you started at a loss.
That quote isn't promoting violence. You are presenting it completely out of context. It's a tactic employed by theists and you should feel dirty for using it.
If you had any serious knowledge of the bible and the teachings of Jesus, you would have already won this discussion. Instead, you started at a loss.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,498
@previous (sluggy)
> That quote isn't promoting violence. You are presenting it completely out of context.
That's actually the point I was working up to, and that is the same point that Muslims make about the Qur'an verses that were posted. The examples posted include statements made to a population preparing to defend to themselves in war but omit the historical context. Others conveniently omit following verses like "if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."
I could easily cherry-pick quotes like Jesus telling people that he "comes not to send peace, but a sword" or asking people to slay others before him and tell people to contrast that with the tolerance and peace in the Qur'an urges, making the same argument from the opposite side. (and if I didn't have to limit myself to the New Testament, it would be even easier)
> If you had any serious knowledge of the bible and the teachings of Jesus, you would have already won this discussion.
I was really waiting for someone to call me out for taking quotes out of context to make that point, so I'm pretty much done here. If you feel there is a better case to be made, feel free to fire away.
> That quote isn't promoting violence. You are presenting it completely out of context.
That's actually the point I was working up to, and that is the same point that Muslims make about the Qur'an verses that were posted. The examples posted include statements made to a population preparing to defend to themselves in war but omit the historical context. Others conveniently omit following verses like "if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."
I could easily cherry-pick quotes like Jesus telling people that he "comes not to send peace, but a sword" or asking people to slay others before him and tell people to contrast that with the tolerance and peace in the Qur'an urges, making the same argument from the opposite side. (and if I didn't have to limit myself to the New Testament, it would be even easier)
> If you had any serious knowledge of the bible and the teachings of Jesus, you would have already won this discussion.
I was really waiting for someone to call me out for taking quotes out of context to make that point, so I'm pretty much done here. If you feel there is a better case to be made, feel free to fire away.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,509
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,511
@226,498 (Q)
haha except that the New Testament comments to a population undergoing persecution was not "Kill your persecutors" but "Love your enemies and pray for them". Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence as advocated by the Quran.
haha except that the New Testament comments to a population undergoing persecution was not "Kill your persecutors" but "Love your enemies and pray for them". Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence as advocated by the Quran.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,521
dreamworksage !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,528
diiiicks
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,529
@226,498 (Q)
Oh. I see. I hadn't realized you were working up to a point. I guess I missed the "to be continued." My mistake.
Oh. I see. I hadn't realized you were working up to a point. I guess I missed the "to be continued." My mistake.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,532
@226,511 (E)
haha except that New Testament comments to a population living in the relatively peaceful (during Jesus' life and when a good deal of when the New Testament was written, at least) Roman provinces and facing some religious and political persecution, not direct foreign invasion and threat of arms. Even with the different time periods, locations, and subject matter in each respective work, taking quotes out of context is still taking quotes out of context. I don't particularly like either side of the argument, but supporting the "my dogma is better than your dogma" crap with uninformed or intentionally misleading examples just makes both sides look worse.
> Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence
How long did that continue? This attitude was surely dead by the time of Constantine. The spread of Christianity, much like the spread of Islam, isn't exactly a pretty story.
haha except that New Testament comments to a population living in the relatively peaceful (during Jesus' life and when a good deal of when the New Testament was written, at least) Roman provinces and facing some religious and political persecution, not direct foreign invasion and threat of arms. Even with the different time periods, locations, and subject matter in each respective work, taking quotes out of context is still taking quotes out of context. I don't particularly like either side of the argument, but supporting the "my dogma is better than your dogma" crap with uninformed or intentionally misleading examples just makes both sides look worse.
> Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence
How long did that continue? This attitude was surely dead by the time of Constantine. The spread of Christianity, much like the spread of Islam, isn't exactly a pretty story.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,550
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,664
Itt: masturbatory arguing over ancient and irrelevant fairy tales.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,666
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,668
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,671
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,673
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
You are one of the few who always ask on topic questions and tend to ask questions other people don't think to ask, yes, I agree.
You are one of the few who always ask on topic questions and tend to ask questions other people don't think to ask, yes, I agree.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,973
@226,550 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Yes. Anything other than this is a practical exposition of these rules which may or may not apply in any or all situations today.
Yes. Anything other than this is a practical exposition of these rules which may or may not apply in any or all situations today.
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,976
@226,532 (Q)
> haha except that New Testament comments to a population living in the relatively peaceful (during Jesus' life and when a good deal of when the New Testament was written, at least) Roman provinces and facing some religious and political persecution, not direct foreign invasion and threat of arms. Even with the different time periods, locations, and subject matter in each respective work, taking quotes out of context is still taking quotes out of context. I don't particularly like either side of the argument, but supporting the "my dogma is better than your dogma" crap with uninformed or intentionally misleading examples just makes both sides look worse.
lol Jesus and many of the Apostles died peaceful deaths LOL. Jesus message was preached to a nation clamoring for political independence, many groups advocating violent overthrow of the oppressive government. Jesus preached deference to the hated Romans and peace in the face of cultural and religious oppression. 70AD Jerusalem (home of Christianity)is invaded and destroyed by the Romans. It was a time of great social and political upheaval, yet peace and love was the message of Christianity.
> > Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence
> How long did that continue? This attitude was surely dead by the time of Constantine. The spread of Christianity, much like the spread of Islam, isn't exactly a pretty story.
We've managed to mainly stay away from this fallacy. We are discussing the doctrine and dogma as contained in the scriptures/core texts of various religions. The behavior of individuals who self-identify as a member of a religion has zero relevance to this discussion.
> haha except that New Testament comments to a population living in the relatively peaceful (during Jesus' life and when a good deal of when the New Testament was written, at least) Roman provinces and facing some religious and political persecution, not direct foreign invasion and threat of arms. Even with the different time periods, locations, and subject matter in each respective work, taking quotes out of context is still taking quotes out of context. I don't particularly like either side of the argument, but supporting the "my dogma is better than your dogma" crap with uninformed or intentionally misleading examples just makes both sides look worse.
lol Jesus and many of the Apostles died peaceful deaths LOL. Jesus message was preached to a nation clamoring for political independence, many groups advocating violent overthrow of the oppressive government. Jesus preached deference to the hated Romans and peace in the face of cultural and religious oppression. 70AD Jerusalem (home of Christianity)is invaded and destroyed by the Romans. It was a time of great social and political upheaval, yet peace and love was the message of Christianity.
> > Christians willingly accepted martyrdom at the hands of the civil authorities instead of committing violence
> How long did that continue? This attitude was surely dead by the time of Constantine. The spread of Christianity, much like the spread of Islam, isn't exactly a pretty story.
We've managed to mainly stay away from this fallacy. We are discussing the doctrine and dogma as contained in the scriptures/core texts of various religions. The behavior of individuals who self-identify as a member of a religion has zero relevance to this discussion.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,065
@previous (E)
Yes, I agree. Jesus' message was a peaceful one. The point I'm making above is that the bulk of the New Testament spans an entirely different situation than the Qur'an. The revolt that lead to the First Roman-Jewish War (which was a revolt as the Romans had been invited into the area well before Jesus' birth to help settle a Jewish civil war) happened well after Jesus' death. The Gospels and much of the New Testament are aimed at a population facing political and religious persecution within relatively stable, protective borders. You don't see the tribal warfare, military leadership, or kill-or-be-killed foreign invasion that the Qur'an covers. There will, of course, be different messages present in each work. To take those messages out of historical context, however, and ignore the other tolerant messages within the work is dishonest and no different than making wild claims about Jesus asking to have people slain before him.
My objection here is mainly to the tactic of having to awkwardly portray another religion as worse in order to make Christianity look better by comparison.
Yes, I agree. Jesus' message was a peaceful one. The point I'm making above is that the bulk of the New Testament spans an entirely different situation than the Qur'an. The revolt that lead to the First Roman-Jewish War (which was a revolt as the Romans had been invited into the area well before Jesus' birth to help settle a Jewish civil war) happened well after Jesus' death. The Gospels and much of the New Testament are aimed at a population facing political and religious persecution within relatively stable, protective borders. You don't see the tribal warfare, military leadership, or kill-or-be-killed foreign invasion that the Qur'an covers. There will, of course, be different messages present in each work. To take those messages out of historical context, however, and ignore the other tolerant messages within the work is dishonest and no different than making wild claims about Jesus asking to have people slain before him.
My objection here is mainly to the tactic of having to awkwardly portray another religion as worse in order to make Christianity look better by comparison.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,117
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,448
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,449
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,451
@227,065 (Q)
At the end of the day the quran advocates violence and the new testament rejects violence.
At the end of the day the quran advocates violence and the new testament rejects violence.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,455
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,461
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,466
@227,449 (T)
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. We have all done bad things, but god doesn't hold this against. He loved us while we were sinners. We can't earn forgiveness , it is a gift freely given. Our response to this gift of love is to love god in return, and to love our brothers and sisters whom god loves too.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. We have all done bad things, but god doesn't hold this against. He loved us while we were sinners. We can't earn forgiveness , it is a gift freely given. Our response to this gift of love is to love god in return, and to love our brothers and sisters whom god loves too.
Anonymous R double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,468
Anonymous R triple-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,470
@227,461 (Q)
You must be reading into my statements. They have no ulterior meaning.
I am not saying that one can't read the quran and conclude that violence was suitable then but not now; I am merely stating the incontestable fact that the quran advocates violence and the new testament rejects it.
You must be reading into my statements. They have no ulterior meaning.
I am not saying that one can't read the quran and conclude that violence was suitable then but not now; I am merely stating the incontestable fact that the quran advocates violence and the new testament rejects it.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,486
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,530
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #227,536
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,038
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?â€
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?â€
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€