ADVERTISEMENT

Threats of Violence by Christians: Music Fest Canceled

ThunderCat98 said:
Fify.

I'm sure some of their Muslim brethren in the region would have been much more accepting of his sexuality.
Click to expand...

Oh, so Christianity in Lebanon is different than Christianity in the U.S.? Thanks for proving my long-held stance on here that Christianity is fluid. Most Americans practice a watered-down, "if it fits comfortably in my life I will accept it" take on Christianity instead of supporting the hate, violence, and intolerance the Bible promotes. I'm relieved to know that Christians in some countries, such as Lebanon, actually follow through with what the Bible says.
 
You have a quote you can offer showing intolerance, hate, and violence in the New Testament??
 
what's with the all out attack on christianity today? have a slut in the sack that screamed "oh jesus" one too many times over the weekend and you couldn't bust a nut?
 
extragreen said:
Fail.
There's more definitions for sword than the one your using.
Click to expand...

Jesus, this is some basic reading comprehension buffoonery. Regardless of what you think "sword" means - which I won't even waste my time with laughing at your alternative fact definition of "sword" - the entire point is that your god is saying he isn't coming to send peace on Earth, but rather, something else. The fact that he mentions something else shows it's the opposite of peace. I guess it's just a coincidence that "sword" signifies violence/war and fits perfectly in what he's saying.

Fail? Just stop.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Jesus, this is some basic reading comprehension buffoonery. Regardless of what you think "sword" means - which I won't even waste my time with laughing at your alternative fact definition of "sword" - the entire point is that your god is saying he isn't coming to send peace on Earth, but rather, something else. The fact that he mentions something else shows it's the opposite of peace. I guess it's just a coincidence that "sword" signifies violence/war and fits perfectly in what he's saying.

Fail? Just stop.
Click to expand...

Fail again.
The context in your scripture does not propose war or violence. The definition of sword in that context would best be dissension. You wouldn't normally need a sword to attack or defend yourself from the people mentioned in that scripture, those people being....


35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
 
extragreen said:
Fail again.
The context in your scripture does not propose war or violence. The definition of sword in that context would best be dissension. You wouldn't normally need a sword to attack or defend yourself from the people mentioned in that scripture, those people being....


35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for walking right into that.

You just claimed that your god brings the sword as a way to bring intolerance and the opposite of peace within one’s own family.
 
extragreen said:
That's right, idiot. Still waiting for that New Testament scripture telling about Jesus hitting someone, christianwannabe.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Thank you for walking right into that.

You just claimed that your god brings the sword as a way to bring intolerance and the opposite of peace within one’s own family.
Click to expand...

What happened is that I walked all over your inability to understand scripture. That scripture in context proves you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Christ told us in that scipture what that "sword" was. It's right there in the scripture....variance.

For I am come to set a man at variance....
 
extragreen said:
What happened is that I walked all over your inability to understand scripture. That scripture in context proves you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Christ told us in that scipture what that "sword" was. It's right there in the scripture....variance.

For I am come to set a man at variance....
Click to expand...

He came to destroy families simply for a mother not loving him as much as her children! That's intolerance!

This is far from the only example. He purposely places the demons in a group of pigs knowing it will lead them to fall to their deaths off of a cliff. Nice and violent.

In Matthew 15, he reiterates his stance that children who talk back to their parents should be put to death. He scolds the Pharisees for not following that demand. Nice and violent.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
He came to destroy families simply for a mother not loving him as much as her children! That's intolerance!
Click to expand...

Wrong. If you love Christ as commanded you will obey his commandments. And that means loving and treating children extremely well. You cannot love children as much as possible until you are a Christian. Matt 18 gives a good idea what Christ thinks of children.

Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
This is far from the only example. He purposely places the demons in a group of pigs knowing it will lead them to fall to their deaths off of a cliff. Nice and violent.
Click to expand...

Are you defending the demons or the pigs?

Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
In Matthew 15, he reiterates his stance that children who talk back to their parents should be put to death. He scolds the Pharisees for not following that demand. Nice and violent.
Click to expand...

You're getting back into the Old Testament as that's what Christ is referencing. Furthermore, he's actually scolding them because they were asking Jesus why his disciples didn't follow Jewish TRADITION while THEY didn't keep the Gods LAWS. I asked about New Testament scripture. You'e already attempting to bring in the Old Law.
 
extragreen said:
Wrong. If you love Christ as commanded you will obey his commandments. And that means loving and treating children extremely well. You cannot love children as much as possible until you are a Christian. Matt 18 gives a good idea what Christ thinks of children.
Click to expand...

What relevance is any of that? Your god stated that he wasn't coming to bring peace, but rather the sword. The sword means he came to cause destruction of families if they loved each other more than they loved him. In other words, if a mother loved her children more than god, he was going to destroy the family. Intolerance.

extragreen said:
Are you defending the demons or the pigs?
Click to expand...

Neither. I'm giving a prime example of your god being violent in the New Testament.

extragreen said:
You're getting back into the Old Testament as that's what Christ is referencing. Furthermore, he's actually scolding them because they were asking Jesus why his disciples didn't follow Jewish TRADITION while THEY didn't keep the Gods LAWS. I asked about New Testament scripture. You'e already attempting to bring in the Old Law.
Click to expand...

Wrong. His comments referring to the Old Law are in the New Testament. If that Law was supposed to be ignored, he would have no reason to call them "hypocrites" for avoiding that law. In other words, the rule still stood.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
What relevance is any of that? Your god stated that he wasn't coming to bring peace, but rather the sword. The sword means he came to cause destruction of families if they loved each other more than they loved him. In other words, if a mother loved her children more than god, he was going to destroy the family. Intolerance.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The "sword" is variance, as I've already told you. Furthermore, that variance is brought about by the gospel, and it will bring variance between family members and others, just like it is right now between you and I. I'm a believer, you're not, and there's the variance.

Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Neither. I'm giving a prime example of your god being violent in the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Jesus cast the devils into the swine, exactly what the devils asked him to do. Nowhere does it say that Jesus made the swine run into the sea.

Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Wrong. His comments referring to the Old Law are in the New Testament. If that Law was supposed to be ignored, he would have no reason to call them "hypocrites" for avoiding that law. In other words, the rule still stood.
Click to expand...

Wrong, yet again. While the comments are in the New Testament, those comments are referring to the Old Law, the Old Law that Christ was in the process of bringing to an end. He wasn't advocating violence, he wasn't advocating killing the children, he was exposing their complete hyprocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back