Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

I come not in peace but with a sword. Matthew, 10:34

Go buy a dictionary and look up the word "metaphor."

How can you tell when something in the Bible is a metaphor or is real. If this is a metaphor, then the resurrection could be a mteaphor too - or the vigirn birth. In fact a lot of good Christians believe that.

The Bible explicitly states that the resurrection is not a metaphor. 1 John 4 says that anyone who denies the physical resurrection of Christ is of the spirit of Antichrist. It's pretty easy to read things stated in such a way as meant to be literal. But Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables all the time. In the Gospels, Peter cuts off a man's ear, and Christ tells Him to put the sword away. The message of not bringing peace but a sword is that there are those who will reject Christ as being God, and those will war against those who do. Also, Christ will judge mankind for its sins in the Second Coming. His first coming was to save the world; His second coming is to judge it. All this is there to be known for those who truly want to understand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

You can hardly blame a Roman massacre of innocents on the Abrahamic faiths.

Nice try, troll.

Hey - it's in the Bible - as a good thing that happened to protect the baby Jesus -- and it was fortold in the OT, wasn't it?

You really don't know your Bible, do you? The massacre was not a "good thing" that "protected" the baby Jesus. Quite the contrary, the Bible used that incident to demonstrate Herod's cruelty. What "protected" the baby Jesus was that his parents were warned and escaped.

Done playing here. You're just making stuff up now.

ANd God didn't care about all the other innocent children -- only Jesus --whose destiny was to be killed anyhow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

I come not in peace but with a sword. Matthew, 10:34

Go buy a dictionary and look up the word "metaphor."

How can you tell when something in the Bible is a metaphor or is real. If this is a metaphor, then the resurrection could be a mteaphor too - or the vigirn birth. In fact a lot of good Christians believe that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

You can hardly blame a Roman massacre of innocents on the Abrahamic faiths.

Nice try, troll.

Hey - it's in the Bible - as a good thing that happened to protect the baby Jesus -- and it was fortold in the OT, wasn't it?

You really don't know your Bible, do you? The massacre was not a "good thing" that "protected" the baby Jesus. Quite the contrary, the Bible used that incident to demonstrate Herod's cruelty. What "protected" the baby Jesus was that his parents were warned and escaped.

Done playing here. You're just making stuff up now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

I come not in peace but with a sword. Matthew, 10:34

Go buy a dictionary and look up the word "metaphor."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

I come not in peace but with a sword. Matthew, 10:34

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

You can hardly blame a Roman massacre of innocents on the Abrahamic faiths.

Nice try, troll.

Hey - it's in the Bible - as a good thing that happened to protect the baby Jesus -- and it was fortold in the OT, wasn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

Ok, sure! Try reading Matthew and "his" parables especially as the relate to evildoers. There's a lot of violence in there.

Cite, please.

Anonymous wrote:All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

You can hardly blame a Roman massacre of innocents on the Abrahamic faiths.

Nice try, troll.

Anonymous wrote:All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

And the Abrahamic religions survive, as the culture has evolved to be less violent, or to be violent in more humane ways (e.g., declarations of war between countries and the Geneva conventions, instead of unannounced rampages through towns, killing newborns, kidnapping virgins, etc)

All the Abrahamic religions are violent and anti-female. They are a product of the time and cultures that founded them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

Ok, sure! Try reading Matthew and "his" parables especially as the relate to evildoers. There's a lot of violence in there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

Of course it's germane -- it happened in the new testament - in the gospels - and if Mary and Joseph hadn't avoided it, Jesus would have been killed and his message would not have been heard. 1000's of newborn boys were killed and GOd did nothing to stop it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.