Anonymous wrote:This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

In my opinion, the response misrepresented what I said, and therefore I feel it was dishonest.

Also, I am by no means defending the Quran. I do not believe in the Quran. I am against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to, as I explained quite clearly. I am not attacking Christians, either (unless they are also hypocrites). In fact I made a point of defending the majority of Christians also.

Also, I am not angry in the least. Please don't make assumptions. You can ask me and I will tell you.

You make no sense. It’s not hypocrisy or dishonest to point out that your knowledge of religion is highly flawed. Sorry you took that personally, but this is not a reason to call people names for questioning you. None of this reflects well on you.

See this is you being dishonest again.

You accused me of attacking christians when I defended them. You ignore that. Dishonest.

Might be my time to say "Bye". You are not honest enough to have a reasonable discourse with.

You seem to have no self-awareness. You need to take a good look at your posts.

Far from defending Christians, you write they’re on some shaman’s hallucinogenic drug (yage) and you snark about their holy book (“the good book”). Then you call people who corrected your many mistakes “dishonest” repeatedly. The responses you got were remarkably tolerant, considering.

If you truly don’t understand how any of this is offensive, then you need to show your posts to a friend or family member.

That, or you’re just a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

In my opinion, the response misrepresented what I said, and therefore I feel it was dishonest.

Also, I am by no means defending the Quran. I do not believe in the Quran. I am against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to, as I explained quite clearly. I am not attacking Christians, either (unless they are also hypocrites). In fact I made a point of defending the majority of Christians also.

Also, I am not angry in the least. Please don't make assumptions. You can ask me and I will tell you.

You make no sense. It’s not hypocrisy or dishonest to point out that your knowledge of religion is highly flawed. Sorry you took that personally, but this is not a reason to call people names for questioning you. None of this reflects well on you.

See this is you being dishonest again.

You accused me of attacking christians when I defended them. You ignore that. Dishonest.

Might be my time to say "Bye". You are not honest enough to have a reasonable discourse with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

In my opinion, the response misrepresented what I said, and therefore I feel it was dishonest.

Also, I am by no means defending the Quran. I do not believe in the Quran. I am against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to, as I explained quite clearly. I am not attacking Christians, either (unless they are also hypocrites). In fact I made a point of defending the majority of Christians also.

Also, I am not angry in the least. Please don't make assumptions. You can ask me and I will tell you.

You make no sense. It’s not hypocrisy or dishonest to point out that your knowledge of religion is highly flawed. Sorry you took that personally, but this is not a reason to call people names for questioning you. None of this reflects well on you.

See this is you being dishonest again.

You accused me of attacking christians when I defended them. You ignore that. Dishonest.

Might be my time to say "Bye". You are not honest enough to have a reasonable discourse with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

In my opinion, the response misrepresented what I said, and therefore I feel it was dishonest.

Also, I am by no means defending the Quran. I do not believe in the Quran. I am against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to, as I explained quite clearly. I am not attacking Christians, either (unless they are also hypocrites). In fact I made a point of defending the majority of Christians also.

Also, I am not angry in the least. Please don't make assumptions. You can ask me and I will tell you.

You make no sense. It’s not hypocrisy or dishonest to point out that your knowledge of religion is highly flawed. Sorry you took that personally, but this is not a reason to call people names for questioning you. None of this reflects well on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

In my opinion, the response misrepresented what I said, and therefore I feel it was dishonest.

Also, I am by no means defending the Quran. I do not believe in the Quran. I am against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to, as I explained quite clearly. I am not attacking Christians, either (unless they are also hypocrites). In fact I made a point of defending the majority of Christians also.

Also, I am not angry in the least. Please don't make assumptions. You can ask me and I will tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Hope you feel good getting your anger out an an anonymous poster by calling her dishonest and more. I’m not the poster talking about the Quran. But you’re not doing a great job of defending the Quran if you think the way to go about defending the Quran is to attack Christians (and ignorantly, too) for two pages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

I did not think YAGE was an ad hom, I thought it was a common vernacular for what you did. I'll retract if you prefer.

The one thing I have to call you out on being dishonest is you totally ignored when I wrote "Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book." As in, I know copying and pasting these things doesn't mean Christians beleive it, so don't do that to Muslims either.

My point was not to get into a literal discussion about the meaning of passages in the bible. My point was to show that it is nonsensical to insist that Muslims believe their old book stuff that is now immoral but that christians don't. I know Christians believe in monogamy. I believe in it also. That wasn't the point. I was commenting against the hypocrisy of the post I responded to.

It may be "strange" to you, but the posts prior were "strange" to me, as is yours.

Have a good day. Thanks for answering my request that you respond. If you felt like answering the other 2 questions I posed, I would appreciate it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't.

But we care about what is true. So if the subject comes up, be prepared to hear our thoughts.

But nearly every atheist is happy to let you believe what you like as long as you don't choose legislation based on it.

Lol. This doesn’t make you special or tolerant.
Even the harshest dictators are happy to have you believe whatever you want so long as you keep it between your own two ears.

No one said anything about "keep it between your own two ears" and you just made it up. PP mentioned legislation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And it does, in fact make PP tolerant. Exactly tolerant. By definition.

Of course people are going to choose legislation and live according to their beliefs if they have them. I believe that stealing is wrong. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that God has given us the earth to care for and protect it. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
I believe that prisoners do not deserve cruel punishment or death penalty. I am going to choose legislation that supports that.
If you are only tolerant of people if they don't talk about or act on their beliefs, then you are NOT tolerant.

Again since you either can't or refuse to get it -- no one said you can't talk about your beliefs.

But if you want to legislate based on them - then YOU are starting the debate, since that is what legislation is, and then YOU have to accept what people tell you in return.

For the record, everyone thinks stealing is wrong. It does not require a religion. At all. So another strawman point there.

Not everyone thinks stealing is wrong. You only think that because you were brought up in a society with judeo-Christian beliefs.
And of course *I* can start the debate. It’s you who aren’t ok with the debate at all.

PP, this is interesting, tell us more. Who believes that stealing is okay?
Aside from the residents of the penitentiary systems of course.

Quaran is OK with stealing from unbelievers / infidels.

As is the bible with slavery and keeping female virgins for yourself after you have slaughtered all the men (including children) and non-virgin women.

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a true christian belief, even though it is in the old book. Are you saying it is different for Muslims?

Honestly, it is different. The Quran is not like the Bible, every word in it is supposed to be the exact words of Allah, as dictated to Mohammad. There is no dismissing verses because it was written by a third party. It is the exact word of God, word for word. The only variance would be in the translation from Arabic.

1. That is by no means the view of by the majority of Muslims
2. That is by every means the view of a minority of Christians

Therefore, no different.

Unbelievable that you’re so ignorant, or maybe just hateful. That’s the Old Testament; Jesus made it very clear that a man has one wife and that’s it.

Ignorant and hateful for posting the good book word for word?

Please show me the quotes from Jesus about monogamous marriage. I am not saying they aren't there, I am not familiar with them and google searches came up with a lot of things that weren't from Jesus.

Also, FYI

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 19:3-6 “The two will become one flesh.” Not “the many...”
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 3:2

But I don’t need to waste my day on a hater. Bye.

Hey, I know you! Nice to see you again, and I genuinely wish you a happy 2020! If you choose to come back despite your YAGE, please address the following questions. I promise to be polite and not use ad hominem or pejoratives if you will.

1. Those quotes are not from the gospels and not directly attributed to Jesus' words. Am I wrong about that?

2. I do agree the old testament and the new testament have many contradictions. You've pointed out a good one, thank you. So how does one know which one takes precedence?

3. Also, please note my previous use of the word "minority". Do you dispute that there are some Christians who take the bible literally?

If you meant YAGE and that wasn’t just a typo, that’s an ad hominem right there, and you’re off to a bad start.

Could you please let us know where you get your info about Christianity? It’s really curious. You seem to be able to quote one Matthew passage, but you’re unaware of the Matthew passage about one man and one woman. You toss around the word “gospels” but you’re unaware that Matthew is one of the four gospels. You quote Matthew 5:17 but you seem to have no idea about the context and traditional interpretation of this passage (what does “accomplish” or, more commonly, “fulfill” mean in the context where Jesus was answering this question). You quote Numbers (Old Testament) about killing children, but you’re unaware that Jesus was against violence and told his followers to turn the other cheek. And you’re also unaware of the most basic fundamentals, like how to find out (google would tell you) that it’s a quote from Jesus.

It’s all very strange!

Anonymous wrote:

Matthew 19 3-6 is quoting Jesus. Matthew is one of the gospels. For Christians, the New Testament takes precedent over the old.