Jump to content

Teachings of Jesus - Sermon on the Mount


3nigma
 Share

Teachings of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. After reading the post, did you find this interesting?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      13
  2. 2. Had you seen this in its entirety before?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      12


148 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

This is just simply wrong. Love, mercy, and grace is perhaps more common in the Old Testament, and there is plenty of justice in the New Testament. Just look at Genesis 3 and 4. Yahwey shows considerable amount of love towards a murderer of all people!

I've never understood why God wants to kill so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why God wants to kill so much.

It is interesting that throughout the history of Israel they weren't executing their own population. It may be though that by the first century a few (of the Pharisees) were taking this more "literally".

 

Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,

I killed you with the words of my mouth;

my judgments flashed like lightning upon you.

 

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,

and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Doing evil itself is a type of death, and the proper response of the community towards individuals who do evil is to cut them off from the community. The escalation of retaliation toward bad things done to you was limited by Moses to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Jesus points out that doing additional evil as retaliation was never endorsed by God. We can and should retaliate by doing something for the other person's benefit. Something which powerfully shames them and urges them to reject the evil they did and choose to do good themselves (think about the action of the Bishop Myriel towards Jean Valjean in Les Miserables).

 

So, yes, God wants to kill all human evil, but exactly how that happens is often up to humans. Also Christians must believe that they themselves deserve death--otherwise they have no need of Christ the Savior.

 

Also from another Christian:

 

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'

In general, we humans do not care enough about others, and allow evil to grow.

 

PS-I just watched El laberinto del fauno. Horror is about the only place we truly popularly address the human predicament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not really. "Ad hominem" means a personal attack ("argument against the man").

And it's a 2,400 year old book written by a bunch of uneducated tribesmen...

 

If the above is your reason for believing the Bible to be false then you are commiting the fallacy of ad hominem. This thinking of yours is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's a 2,400 year old book written by a bunch of uneducated tribesmen...

 

If the above is your reason for believing the Bible to be false then you are commiting the fallacy of ad hominem. This thinking of yours is irrational.

 

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

 

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can people waste so much time writing huuuuge replies over a stupid old book?

The reason this is important is because this book claims to be the written words of God. If it is true, then there is literally nothing that is worth more time than writing about- whether you believe in it or not. But even if you don't believe in it, there is nothing more important to investigate, if indeed it is legitimate.

 

Our laws pertaining to punishment don't claim to be "fair" or perfectly just... Laws are there for the good of the people, they aren't for giving someone what they deserve.
I didn't say that the laws claim to be fair or perfect.

 

Your second sentence contradicts itself, you should think through each of those statements attached to one another.

 

Moreover, this is a tangent point about civil law, that is not relevant to the subject at hand.

 

..as for people that haven't heard of Jesus, you have not answered my question; you only said that were supposed to go tell people. If he was truly being just and good to each person, he wouldn't be able to lay down laws like "if you do X your going to hell." Every persons situation has to be judged differently, and yet we have enough laws from god to be sure that some people will go to hell.
This part is subject to debate. Christians interpret the New Testament differently, and different people have different beliefs on this. As a matter of fact, this has been a debate in the Christian Church for 500 years.

 

Some say that the "Law" of the Old Testament (do good, don't do bad) is written on every person's heart, and every person instinctively knows right and wrong, along with their conscience. These people would argue that as long as people live good lives, and believe in "God," that they have hope.

 

Others say that God is the ultimate sovereign over all creation. (This view corresponds with your 'determinist' proposition against the concept of a true "free" will). This camp argues that God chooses who he will give mercy to, and who he will give justice to.

 

There is no consensus in Christianity on this issue, and there hasn't been for centuries. Christians are simply told to tell people about Jesus, either way.

 

Then about the bible: Before the new testament, the old testament was all there was. So, did those people simply not get to know that he was also a loving and great god?
God displays his love, mercy, and grace in the Old Testament abundantly. When Adam sinned, he didn't give Adam the punishment he deserved. Instead, he substitutionally put it on an animal, and then in an act of grace, used the animal's skin to clothe Adam. The entire Old Testament is riddled with God's constant love, mercy and grace. I am simply talking about the bigger picture, metanarrative of the Old and New Testaments combined. As QuietOC points out-

Love, mercy, and grace is perhaps more common in the Old Testament, and there is plenty of justice in the New Testament.

As a big-picture, the Old Testament was to be a forerunner to the New. On the big picture, the Old displayed the punishment that everyone deserves, to highlight the act of love that he does in Jesus in the New Testament.

 

there are stars out there that are 3x the age of the earth, contradicting what the bible says.

If it cannot be factual in a literal sense, then it can not be used as a source of facts, because the presentation of facts must not be ambiguous.

I have already written extensively on the Biblical record of creation, earlier in this thread.

 

As a brief recap-

The record of the creation of the universe is written in complicated Hebrew poetry. There is parallelism, and fascinating sentence structure in the Hebrew. Some sentences do inversion, and others have exactly seven words, for multiple sentences. It can be interpreted in many ways, and it is my opinion that the people who read it as a narrative (i.e., literally) are doing injustice to the Hebrew poetic writing.

 

The author wasn't writing a scientific documentation of creation- he was depicting God's act of creation in a poem. He was writing a song. He was writing a sonnet. etc. You do not read Shakespeare the way that you read the Wall Street Journal, or the journal "Nature."

 

However, as QuietOC pointed out, it still has documentable merit to it. At that time, the stars and solar figures were objects of worship and myth. Also, it records a logical progression of things. We can draw insights from it.

 

But ultimately, it is poetry. Poetry is trying to make a point, but the exact language usage is more metaphorical and picturesque, in the context of poetry.

 

I would go through the entire thing and find all the references that claim that "since the Bible says it, it must be true", but it's not a particularly well-laid out site and the rebuttals are also kinda funny
This proves my point- you have no interest in having this conversation, or digging into these issues.

 

And to put the nail in the coffin- the site is laid out very, VERY well. The author strictly copy and pasted the original work, then added his own rebuttals throughout in bold text. This gives the fluidity of the original work, and the point-by-point rebuttal necessary, rather than a holistic-conceptual rebuttal. There is no better way to do a rebuttal.

 

In fact, even your own methodology for "rebutting" my posts here on this very forum follows this identical pattern, which you call "not particularly well laid out" ;-).

 

He also falls back on the "interpreted wrong" excuse.

There is a thing in scholarship called "prooftexting." Prooftexting is treating the Bible like a book of little nuggets and sentences, and randomly picking and mixing and pulling them out. Even Christians do this.

 

However, this is not what the Bible is. The Bible is a collection of many types of literature, but ultimately is a narrative. Narratives have context, and context is important. This forum is an example of people who don't understand textual criticism, who try to practice it. People randomly pull texts out of context, which is a "prooftext," in order to make some kind of "proof." But to anyone that is actually familiar with the text and what it says, this is an absolute joke.

 

But to someone who knows nothing about the text, this same misinformation is perpetuated over and over again. And you think that it makes sense, because you have never studied it, and neither has the person who is feeding you the misinformation.

 

...before the 'disobedience', man had no idea what 'disobedience' was. 'Wrong' did not exist, therefore 'right' did not exist either. Besides, they also had no guideline for what authority was, and no reason to believe or doubt anything told to them.
This is referred to as "eisegesis." This refers to the practice of reading one's own interpretation into the text, rather than what the text itself is saying for itself. The latter is referred to as "exegesis."

 

According to the Eden account, Eve even explained to the serpent why it was wrong to eat of the tree.

 

Again, I appreciate your efforts at contributing to the conversation regarding the Bible, but take some notes from erei33. He recognizes that there are some who know what they are talking about, and others who don't. If you have a question about the Bible, you should probably ask someone who knows what it has to say.

 

Re: Japan-

You did not address any of my points, and you made many extra, unnecessary ones. This is a tangent that is unrelated to the subject.

 

Christianity is not about religion, it is about reconciliation with God. It is about putting trust in Jesus, and living as he did.
Many Christians do not see it this way. Or is a "no true scotsman" defense?
No, but you could say it is an example of "The New Testament does not teach this." The reason there are so many differences in Christians is eisegesis, and poor exegesis. (Also a point that I have already explained earlier in this thread).

 

As a side note, the philosopher that coined the "No True Scotsman" argument is renown atheist philosopher Antony Flew. The reason this is noteworthy is because in 2004, Flew changed from atheist to agnostic, and then changed from agnostic to deist. He certainly doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, but he said that based on the evidence, he finds it more likely than unlikely that there is a God in the universe.

 

Russia in its early years of communism was capable of great things.

Capitalism has elements that go beyond sheer greed

I disagree with neither of these statements. But neither of these provides any rebuttal to the points that I made. This, again, is a tangent that is not relevant to the topic.

 

There have been things in his books [Dawkins] outright admitted to not knowing much about, and other things he's clearly stated as his opinion.
What you may not realize is that one of his books that he does such a thing is indeed the very book in question, the God Delusion. He explicitly states that he doesn't know much about Biblical scholasticism, because he doesn't "need to," because it's "all wrong anyway."

 

"[One] assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God."

So, to use his same metaphor, an ignorant moron could say: "One assumes that there is a serious subject called "science," which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in gravity."

 

Dawkins is saying, "I can disbelieve in gravity if I want to, because 'science' isn't a serious subject of study." He just uses theology and God as the subjects.

 

Ignorance cannot be summed up more aptly.

 

Islam today spreads like Christianity of olden times must have spread.. At knife point.
You, here, demonstrate your scholasticism in the subject.
It's not a "belief in disbelief"
Here, you demonstrate that you have never seriously studied the difference between atheism, agnosticism, and the fundamentals and the capacities of Naturalism as a paradigm.
The people who wrote the Bible encouraged the pimping of Jesus because religion is a great control tool.
The people that wrote the New Testament were fishermen, former tax collectors, and former Christian-killers. None of them were in any kind of position of any power. No government or any kind of power galvanized Christianity until Constantine, three hundred years after Jesus was off the scene. This, too, displays your lack of knowledge of the subject.

 

Moreover, at this stage, you are simply babbling nonsense-

The New Testament had to be written because the Old Testament was not very good at doing what people using it were trying to do.
Case in point. Not even non-believing Biblical scholars say this.

 

"Ad hominem" means a personal attack ("argument against the man").
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Alessandro, please take 25 seconds to review carefully this.

 

QuietOC said that the Bible is written by no-names.

ParanoidMarvin said that because the Bible is written by no-names, it therefore is wrong.

Ad Hom says that an argument is fallacy if it attacks the characteristics of the person (no-names), rather than the claim (Bible).

 

And for goodness sakes, don't use Wikipedia for your source of scholasticism, you are making everyone embarrassed for you.

 

*********************

 

This entire conversation is based on faith-based atheistic presuppositions, rather than agnostic evaluation of data. Unfortunately, our conversation keeps going off topic and hitting brick walls, based on these same limitations. It is an epistemological issue, and people need to examine their epistemology for even utilizing the data.

 

In light of this, I can't devote any more time to answering questions, point-by-point. erei33 is the only person showing any non-fundamentalist atheism, and everyone can learn a lot from his methodology.

 

I for one just prayed, asking for Jesus to appear, and then finished with Amen. Unfortunately nothing happened. What do some of you who are familiar with the Bible think of this?
Here are the two links for rebuttals to those two points-

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/2007/0...-to-appear.html

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/2006/0...d-wants-to.html

 

I don't like the approach that the author takes, and I haven't read all the arguments, but at least it's something to start with.

 

Back to your original question-

That person has taken four prooftexted sentences, pulled them out of context, then pasted them together into a new, four-point-context that they never belonged in.

 

As if this isn't problematic enough, furthermore these kinds of things assume (1) that some "abra-kadabra" formula will make Jesus 'happen,' and (2) that we are in a position to coerce God into jumping through our hoops.

 

Jesus is ready and waiting to reveal himself. But one of the ways that he has already revealed himself is through the Old and New Testaments. If we are sincere in our pursuits, we can extremely easily just pick up these historic manuscripts that have been recorded, and find truth. This is a first step, but it doesn't end there.

 

Jesus also said that he would be ready and waiting to accept anyone who puts their trust in him, and believes he is who he says he is. So there is this experiential element, but it comes only after putting trust in him.

 

A first step could be to take a week or weekend, and simply read one of the gospels. I would suggest the gospel called "Matthew." They are not long, and even if you don't believe it, you can at least say that you have actually read a gospel. If you don't have a printed copy, you can read it online here-

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=51;

 

Jesus is ready to reveal himself- but we have to commit to giving up pursuing a life of denying him, and trust that Jesus is who he says he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason this is important is because this book claims to be the written words of God. If it is true, then there is literally nothing that is worth more time than writing about- whether you believe in it or not. But even if you don't believe in it, there is nothing more important to investigate, if indeed it is legitimate.

 

But that's just it. What is there to investigate? There is no way to prove that they are indeed the written words of God. Any effort to do so has and will only end in another equally unprovable hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QuietOC said that the Bible is written by no-names.

ParanoidMarvin said that because the Bible is written by no-names, it therefore is wrong.

 

No, I said that the bible is wrong (at the very least, genesis) because science has proved it wrong.

 

You merely helped my argument by saying it was written by uneducated tribesmen - how could they possibly know about the origins of the universe?

Even if it was divine inspiration, they got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And because of that it is automatically false?

 

No, but a hypothesis that has such little observable evidence*, such as the claim that the bible is the word of God, certainly can never come to a resolution, at least in the absence of observable evidence*. All we are left with is endless mental masturbation over what these "words of God" actually mean, like the circle jerk that is this thread.

 

* Please do not start throwing out currently unexplainable events or items as observable evidence of God or that the Bible is the word of God. It's just another road that goes nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's just it. What is there to investigate? There is no way to prove that they are indeed the written words of God. Any effort to do so has and will only end in another equally unprovable hypothesis.
And because of that it is automatically false?

It is not unreasonable to disbelieve something that can't be unproven.

 

Writing claiming a divine source need not fail here. I offered a method to prove divine-sourced knowledge back a page or so ago. People have only questioned whether we are able to apply the method, but I think that is like saying the Heisenburg uncertainty principle means we can apply or prove anything about physics. I happen to be a little more optimistic about human ability to discern truth than that. Sure, we end up with a provisional, probablistic belief after our investigation, but such is the required condition of all knowledge to the finite observer and judge.

 

* Please do not start throwing out currently unexplainable events or items as observable evidence of God or that the Bible is the word of God. It's just another road that goes nowhere.

Again, we can appeal to the observed and explainable as evidence of the divine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said that the bible is wrong (at the very least, genesis) because science has proved it wrong.
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to prove the bible wrong in such a way.

 

The whole idea of a God allows God's noodly appendage to have manipulated our reality so it only appears like science is right and the bible is wrong. You need to have faith that the bible is still right -- or understand that you are just interpreting the words of God wrong, or ..., ..., ...

 

It is not unreasonable to disbelieve something that can't be unproven. Writing claiming a divine source need not fail here. I offered a method to prove divine-sourced knowledge back a page or so ago.
Your method of "proof" still gets you nowhere. You base it on the belief that a prediction of an "unpredictable natural event" in religious text increases the probability that the prediction is from a divine source. What have you gained? You simply have another unknown that you're plugging God in for. The proper thing to do is to continue to look for how the prediction was made, until you solve the problem.

 

Not solving the problem (unexplained prediction) does not equal God, or even a higher probability of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper thing to do is to continue to look for how the prediction was made, until you solve the problem.

Please take a physics or math course in chaos. Many things just are unpredictable--it is strictly impossible to know their outcome except to wait and observe it. And this condition even occurs in rather simple deterministic systems that are fully understood. It requires knowledge beyond (or behind?) the entire space-time causality itself to predict such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take a physics or math course in chaos. Many things just are unpredictable--it is strictly impossible to know their outcome. And this condition even occurs in rather simple deterministic systems that are fully understood. It requires knowledge beyond (or behind?) the entire space-time causality itself to predict such things.

 

The accurate prediction of such a thing (again, assuming you can find a non-vague prediction of something so unpredictable in a religious text) does not default to proof of it's divinity, or even a higher probability of it's divinity. It only gives you an unanswered question: how was the prediction made? To answer that with "a divine source" is the same as saying "I don't know". You only claim a divine source because you feel a need to answer the question, and are unable to do so in any other way at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeating your ignorance is not proving anything except your ignorance.

 

Where is my ignorance? Your responses imply that you are interpreting what I type as "there has to be an answer" when I say no such thing. What I'm saying is simply: Absence of an answer does not equal God. There is nothing ignorant about this stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said that the bible is wrong (at the very least, genesis) because science has proved it wrong.
Yes, and I deconstructed this argument in my post immediately above. Please read it.
You merely helped my argument by saying it was written by uneducated tribesmen - how could they possibly know about the origins of the universe?
This is ad hominem. "You are an uneducated tribesman, a no-name, how can you possibly know anything?" This is attacking the man (lit. "ad hom"), not the argument.

 

It's like saying men can't talk about abortion. "How would you, you're a man." Basically, your ideas don't count because of you, characteristically.

Even if it was divine inspiration, they got it wrong.
Stop and think about what you just said.

 

"Even if [the writings of the Old and New Testaments] is divine inspiration [from a genuine, real God], they got it wrong."

 

That is what you just said. You literally just now said that even if it is real, it isn't real.

 

This is what I am talking about. You guys are not even engaging your gray matter, let alone offering substantial arguments. Do you even realize the babble that just came out of your mouth?

 

These are not the words of reason. These are the words of religious fundamentalism.

 

Agnosticism is the enlightened path for the naturalist. Atheism is for practitioners of faith.

 

-3nigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is my ignorance?

What I'm saying is simply: Absence of an answer does not equal God.

I can model something unpredictable on a computer, but to observe the actual outcome of the model all the calculations must be done. Nothing running on the computer can predict the outcome outside of running the actual calculations. Certainly I can run the exact calculations on another computer and "predict" the outcome. However, I am the source for the precise values of the initial conditions and the model in both instances. However any mere space-time observer cannot have precise knowledge of the conditions of space-time--even infinite observers of space-time! So, if we have such predictions they don't come from any observation of space-time, they come from something both beyond and precisely intimate with space-time, and divine is a good word for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can model something unpredictable on a computer, but to observe the actual outcome of the model all the calculations must be done. Nothing running on the computer can predict the outcome outside of running the actual calculations. Certainly I can run the exact calculations on another computer and "predict" the outcome. However, I am the source for the precise values of the initial conditions and the model in both instances. However any mere space-time observer cannot have precise knowledge of the conditions of space-time--even infinite observers of space-time! So, if we have such predictions they don't come from any observation of space-time, they come from something both beyond and precisely intimate with space-time, and divine is a good word for that.

 

Thank you for your analogy, but it was unnecessary. I've understood your position, and admittedly, my first inclination was to agree and say "yes, if (big if) you can find such a prediction, it has some grounds for divinity", however, that "big if" is a really big IF:

 

A prediction of such an event leaves a few possibilities open:

 

1) The event is actually predictable by a "space-time" observer, and an error in judgment has been made about its non predictability.

 

2) The prediction was chance.

 

3) There was no accurate prediction, and interpretation of existing text was influenced to fit the event, postmortem.

 

4) The prediction was indeed from outside "space-time"

 

 

Tell me how you can find such a prediction that fits option 4 without also including at least one of the other 3 as a possibility?

 

That also leads to the questions: If you do somehow manage to qualify only option 4 (somehow excluding 1, 2 and 3 as even remotely possible), does this "divine prediction" scattered among other text make the other text just as divine? Would religious texts then work the same as pork barrel politics? Who has the power of line item veto? Do they first need to make divine predictions? At what point do enough "divine predictions" bring us to look again at options 1, 2 or 3? How again did you remove options 1, 2 and 3?

 

It doesn't seem to get us anywhere. We have not proven that the full text volume is the word of god, only that the divine prediction is suspected to be, and the divinity of the prediction is still up in the air (although likely having gained more followers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

 

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

 

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune when he used it as the central argument in his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for goodness sakes, don't use Wikipedia for your source of scholasticism, you are making everyone embarrassed for you.

 

Thanks for being so considerate :dev:

I used Wikipedia as a quick reference, for the sake of the others. I didn't need it in this case, because I studied Latin for 8 years.

 

erei33 is the only person showing any non-fundamentalist atheism, and everyone can learn a lot from his methodology.

 

Thus you are calling me, among others, an atheist.

 

I feel deeply offended, because I do believe in a Supreme Being (Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Buddhism (Adi-Buddha).

 

But I find Christianity, based on the Bible, extremely irrational and childish.

Morevorer, I find it a form of Paganism and an insult to the true God.

 

And finally I find that religious propaganda should be forbidden in this forum. This is a forum devoted to computers and operating systems, so take your propaganda somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is the enlightened path for the naturalist. Atheism is for practitioners of faith.

Indeed, Atheism does require some faith. The question in though, out of the thousands of Gods that have been worshiped in human history, does choosing not to believe in some of them require faith?

 

Something to consider:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

erei33 is the only person showing any non-fundamentalist atheism, and everyone can learn a lot from his methodology.
Thus you are calling me, among others, an atheist.
No, as I said in my sentence the first time, I was talking to the atheists. You are not an atheist, and everyone knows this.

 

I feel deeply offended, because I do believe in a Supreme Being
Don't be so easily offended, it wasn't even addressed to you =).

 

Morevorer, I find [Christianity] a form of Paganism and an insult to the true God.
This shows a clear lack of understanding of what exactly Paganism is. Not even a non-spiritual atheist would attribute Christianity under the umbrella of the many Paganistic beliefs, unless they were completely ignorant of paganism.

 

And finally I find that religious propaganda should be forbidden in this forum. This is a forum devoted to computers and operating systems, so take your propaganda somewhere else.
This forum is for computers and operating systems. This subforum is devoted to, quote:

"The place for politics, sports, philosophy, religion, and all the things that probably matter most."

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to choose not to participate in these conversations. Nobody is forcing you to.

 

-3nigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, this category is here...religion is a huge part of life...even athiests believe in their logic, so the discussion of religion is quite pertinent to all people.

 

*edit*

 

beat me to it

 

This forum is for computers and operating systems. This subforum is devoted to, quote:

 

"The place for politics, sports, philosophy, religion, and all the things that probably matter most."

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to choose not to participate in these conversations. Nobody is forcing you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...