errr...thou shalt not kill (or murder, depending on which translation you're reading)?????lowing wrote:
Not really sure how my argument that you can not have CHRISTianity without CHRIST is null, but whatever. The OT is mostly stories of what happened, it is not instruction on how to treat your fellow man. The only part that does this is the 10 commandments. and guess what, killing non-believers isn't listed.
read what he said again.ruisleipa wrote:
errr...thou shalt not kill (or murder, depending on which translation you're reading)?????lowing wrote:
Not really sure how my argument that you can not have CHRISTianity without CHRIST is null, but whatever. The OT is mostly stories of what happened, it is not instruction on how to treat your fellow man. The only part that does this is the 10 commandments. and guess what, killing non-believers isn't listed.
Thou shalt not kill.lowing wrote:
killing non-believers isn't listed.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-03 10:13:21)
thats his pointruisleipa wrote:
Thous shalt not kill.lowing wrote:
killing non-believers isn't listed.
what? Not killing is listed. That's not his point. Are you drunk?11 Bravo wrote:
thats his pointruisleipa wrote:
Thous shalt not kill.lowing wrote:
killing non-believers isn't listed.
nvm
Thou shalt not murderruisleipa wrote:
Thou shalt not kill.lowing wrote:
killing non-believers isn't listed.
The lord is a warrior
.............and now you know why I refuse to discuss this any longer with him. His dissection of every word, making each word an argument onto itself is a debate tactic I will not engage in.ruisleipa wrote:
what? Not killing is listed. That's not his point. Are you drunk?11 Bravo wrote:
thats his pointruisleipa wrote:
Thous shalt not kill.
IF you ever decide to address the post in the context it was meant ( as you very well know) I will continue with you.
Come the hell on lowing. You said:lowing wrote:
.............and now you know why I refuse to discuss this any longer with him. His dissection of every word, making each word an argument onto itself is a debate tactic I will not engage in.
IF you ever decide to address the post in the context it was meant ( as you very well know) I will continue with you.
I point out that there IS a commandment - which you YOURSELF have already argued (somehow) is the 'only' part of the OT instructing us on how to treat our fellow man - against NOT KILLING. Full stop. In the commandments you refer to it says NOTHING about anyone being exempt from the instruction to NOT KILL. And yet you also say that killing 'non-believers' is NOT included in that.lowing wrote:
Not really sure how my argument that you can not have CHRISTianity without CHRIST is null, but whatever. The OT is mostly stories of what happened, it is not instruction on how to treat your fellow man. The only part that does this is the 10 commandments. and guess what, killing non-believers isn't listed.
So how the hell am I NOT taking it in context exactly???
Seriously I thought that you were better at arguing but you're apparently not - as soon as someone takes you to task for your line of argument you just say boohoo you're taking it out of context I'm not arguing with you. Well what-the-hell-ever. You fail.
russunition timeout
yeah some guy not too far away from here was arrested for that crime or for supposedly being part of that group...
tried to read your bullshit a few times ( I have no idea why) and you talk in such circles it is not to be understood. My post was straight and to the point. THere is a commandment against killing in the OT.ruisleipa wrote:
Come the hell on lowing. You said:lowing wrote:
.............and now you know why I refuse to discuss this any longer with him. His dissection of every word, making each word an argument onto itself is a debate tactic I will not engage in.
IF you ever decide to address the post in the context it was meant ( as you very well know) I will continue with you.I point out that there IS a commandment - which you YOURSELF have already argued (somehow) is the 'only' part of the OT instructing us on how to treat our fellow man - against NOT KILLING. Full stop. In the commandments you refer to it says NOTHING about anyone being exempt from the instruction to NOT KILL. And yet you also say that killing 'non-believers' is NOT included in that.lowing wrote:
Not really sure how my argument that you can not have CHRISTianity without CHRIST is null, but whatever. The OT is mostly stories of what happened, it is not instruction on how to treat your fellow man. The only part that does this is the 10 commandments. and guess what, killing non-believers isn't listed.
So how the hell am I NOT taking it in context exactly???
Seriously I thought that you were better at arguing but you're apparently not - as soon as someone takes you to task for your line of argument you just say boohoo you're taking it out of context I'm not arguing with you. Well what-the-hell-ever. You fail.
What the fuck are you talking about??
Never mind, lets just leave it at what ya said earlier, "no one really knows Jesus and Muhammad" so no one can speak of them. You win I "fail"
You said killing non-believers was not listed as a commandment. i pointed out it is. now you're agreeing with me. Awwwright, makes sense.lowing wrote:
THere is a commandment against killing in the OT.
4th time you've agreed with me today. Must be some kind of record.lowing wrote:
You win I "fail"
Really? Then you go over the 10 commandments and tell me which one gives you permission from God to kill.ruisleipa wrote:
You said killing non-believers was not listed as a commandment. i pointed out it is. now you're agreeing with me. Awwwright, makes sense.lowing wrote:
THere is a commandment against killing in the OT.4th time you've agreed with me today. Must be some kind of record.lowing wrote:
You win I "fail"
Like most other things in your arguments, the obvious eludes you. In this case, sarcasm.
huh? You say killing non-believers is NOT listed as something we shouldn't do in the ten commandments and you want me to point out which one tells us to kill?lowing wrote:
Really? Then you go over the 10 commandments and tell me which one gives you permission from God to kill.
Like most other things in your arguments, the obvious eludes you. In this case, sarcasm.
wot.
teh.
fuck.
are you on about?
O, I see it's sarcasm now. Ahhhh well that makes perfect sense. Now I understand. you're obviously completely correct in what you say.
Oh before I forget I'd better put my sarcasm header in:
/sarcasm
Don't you forget next time ya hear?
Try reading the OT, there are hell of a lot of intructions on what to do to your fellow men, women, women on heat, mouldy bread, etc.lowing wrote:
Not really sure how my argument that you can not have CHRISTianity without CHRIST is null, but whatever. The OT is mostly stories of what happened, it is not instruction on how to treat your fellow man. The only part that does this is the 10 commandments. and guess what, killing non-believers isn't listed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah fine, but there are as many Christians who believe the Old Testamant is literal truth as there are muslims who believe the Koran justifies jihad.lowing wrote:
Sorry, told ya before these are not my beliefs, but that does not negate the fact that this is the belief of Christians.
The majority of muslims pick the peaceful parts of the Koran same as the Christians pick the NT over the OT.
Again, your argument is null.
Fuck Israel
As I predicted.
The judge is asking, where is the crime?
These guys in the Hutaree militia are being used as a " test market " for thought police tactics and detention without convictions.
There is not there there. They will all be released and the police will end up looking like a-holes.
These guys didn't plan anything. They didn't issue orders.
The Obama admin wants words to become unlawful. Opinions need to be criminalized. See drudge for the link and read snipets of the transcript.
Its rather funny and sad, with more of the latter than the former.
The judge is asking, where is the crime?
These guys in the Hutaree militia are being used as a " test market " for thought police tactics and detention without convictions.
There is not there there. They will all be released and the police will end up looking like a-holes.
These guys didn't plan anything. They didn't issue orders.
The Obama admin wants words to become unlawful. Opinions need to be criminalized. See drudge for the link and read snipets of the transcript.
Its rather funny and sad, with more of the latter than the former.
I would tend to agree.13/f/taiwan wrote:
No where near as bad as that fucked up religion Islam
Wow, I should karma you for finally seeing the light. Congratulations! I wonder how many others are going to start agreeing with us.
Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.
"'What if' is not the standard. ... None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime," said Stone's attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.
Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what's said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
"Millions of people" are talking about "taking our country back," Weiss said.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100429/D9FCD8I00.html
Sounds like once again, the feds are douche bags.
"'What if' is not the standard. ... None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime," said Stone's attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.
Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what's said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
"Millions of people" are talking about "taking our country back," Weiss said.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100429/D9FCD8I00.html
Sounds like once again, the feds are douche bags.