Are you saying there were Catholics before Jesus died?
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
kx000
Valued Senior Member
No. Correction: There where men who seeked to form the Catholic church before Jesus died. These men were descendnt of Egypt. Any man who figures who men these men were will beceom a quagillion aire.
Let me help you out here. Exodus is part of the Old Testament. Care to rethink your statement?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
No sorry. Exodus was not a jewish tradition, it happend, and the account we have of it is very poor. It took place in about 2500 b.c. led by Mosses, and his brother Aaron. The Hebrews where not necisarly all slaves, but they were greatly out numbered by the Egyptians. The Egyptians lead a heathenistic life, and Hebrews were faithful. YHWH spoke to the faithful and told them to leave their cities. Mosses travled the lands of Egypy and told the faithful "go, go south to the desert. Set up camps there and more will join." They asked him "will you join us?" He said of course, "but I must get as many as I can, then we will al join you." Mosses was a descendent and a ancestor of the Lion of Judah.
He got as many of the Hebrews out as he could, and he got faithful Egyptians to joing along the way. After the exodus dark days were common in Egyptian cities. Exodus camps were set up in the desert as Mosses said. After he got as many out as he could he took the remaining faithful and he went south to meet the other faithful. When Pharoh caught wind of this he attempted to tail Mosses south, but Pharoh was narrow minded and went south along the Red Sea, when the faithful were lost in the desert. At some point a great storm occured on the Red Sea as "God parted the Red Sea." Both shores east and west flooded, and the Egyptian army drown. The faithful where caught up lost in the desert when this occured, and they missed the entire storm (God LULZ). Then they re grouped and went west for the Red Sea and trailed it all the way south to the mouth of the Indian Ocean so they could cross into modern day Yemen where the Sea was most narrow. From there they travled north until they got to Israel.
He got as many of the Hebrews out as he could, and he got faithful Egyptians to joing along the way. After the exodus dark days were common in Egyptian cities. Exodus camps were set up in the desert as Mosses said. After he got as many out as he could he took the remaining faithful and he went south to meet the other faithful. When Pharoh caught wind of this he attempted to tail Mosses south, but Pharoh was narrow minded and went south along the Red Sea, when the faithful were lost in the desert. At some point a great storm occured on the Red Sea as "God parted the Red Sea." Both shores east and west flooded, and the Egyptian army drown. The faithful where caught up lost in the desert when this occured, and they missed the entire storm (God LULZ). Then they re grouped and went west for the Red Sea and trailed it all the way south to the mouth of the Indian Ocean so they could cross into modern day Yemen where the Sea was most narrow. From there they travled north until they got to Israel.
Remember, this is your response to my pointing out that the Old Testament says you can't let a witch live. You replied that this passage referred to something about Mary Magdalen who wasn't born yet and the Catholic Church which did not exist within her lifetime.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
What? What is a witch? Marry Magdelan sury is not in the eyes of the LORD, but her type was surly made out to be. She escaped to France, whil Jude and the boys led the Romans secretly through the middle East, until Jude was cornered somewhere in the Persian empire. Jude, Mother Mary and many others met there end in this battle between Romans, and faithful martyrs.
Spidergoat!!!
:xctd: :roflmao: :xctd:
:xctd: :roflmao: :xctd:
Sorry for the religiously motivated violence.
It was only your wit that was too sharp to bear,
It's someone else's wits that are too dull to bear.
"No true physics professor is without a suitable degree in the physics field."
Is that a fallacy?
Not everything that one might read in a book of scripture or hear at church or temple has directly to do with religion.
Most if not all belief systems, theistic or non-theistic, also contain clauses on practical issues of self-preservation: from washing one's hands before eating to keeping a distance from suspicious people to driving out enemies.
Nobody is free from intruders of one kind or another, and everyone has to deal with them somehow, and in fact deals with them somehow.
The US sends its army around the globe to kill those who it considers to be a threat, children at school isolate or bully a classmate who doesn't fit in, your landlord evicts you if you don't pay the rent, you lose your job if you don't do your job properly, a gang of thugs beats you up if you don't pay them respect, a husband divorces a cheating wife, at an online forum, you put on ignore those whom you can't stand, people living in simple circumstances throw stones at intruders, parents disown their lazy children, the state locks up criminals ...-
everyone is subject to people who are intruders, pose a threat, refuse to cooperate, are a waste of one's time and resources, or are in any other way a pain in the neck, and everyone has to deal with them.
It is a strange idea that anyone, religious or not, should tolerate those who are intruders, pose a threat, refuse to cooperate, are a waste of time and resources, or are in any other way a pain in the neck.
Mundane good and bad have nothing directly to do with religion.
No thanks - it is rather a key issue in this thread, given that one of the arguments is along the lines that religious beliefs no more motivate violence than do "atheist beliefs". So it is quite key that the person who made this claim at least specify what those "atheist beliefs" are (as in those beliefs they think all atheists have that make them an atheist).
Why would it be relevant to core atheism, it has no need for ontology.lightgigantic said:
No you err because you believe core atheism needs belief. It doesn't.lightgigantic said:
Bingo, By Jove I think he's got it.lightgigantic said:
You may wish to use ignorant, I much prefer unaware/without (knowledge of). but either way that is atheisms core position (if you like ignorant/unaware of a god/god, they don't need belief for that. Belief doesn't come into the equation.lightgigantic said:
Or people who have never come across religion, and I'm not trying to equate it, being unaware/without (knowledge of), is the core position.lightgigantic said:
Well if you believe that the lack of any belief equates to shitting your pants, then you would be correct.lightgigantic said:
Because there is no need for a distinction. Belief doesn't come into the equation. You keep erring in this way.lightgigantic said:
No! Of course not, no more than I would acknowledge unicorns, fairies, elves, etc...lightgigantic said: