105 replies to this topic

[Volition]

well you can't really do that because Christians would claim that Jesus preaches against violence, and honestly jesus is a more important figure than Jehovah for christians anyway.

Well I would say that christians haven't really much from jesus. Crusades? violence against other religious groups over land (cough sorta like how bush and obama have troops in the middle east for oil). Witch hunts? sorta violent towards anyone who the church doesn't like. Inquisition? pretty violent. Holocaust? Well its not like Hitler/German Christians blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. oh and the killing of 300k Bosnian Serbs by Christian Serbs in 1992-1995.

[luvsmyncis]

So you do agree that the Bible teaches people to be violent (atleast to non-believers). Well now I can start blaming violence on Christians

No. That was the Old Testament. You'd have to blame the Jews for that.

[Volition]

No. That was the Old Testament. You'd have to blame the Jews for that.

Still a part of a Christian holy text amirite?

[luvsmyncis]

Still a part of a Christian holy text amirite?

Yeah, but the whole "Love thy enemy" thing is in the later part of the bible, the New Testament part that the Jewish people don't believe in.
Since Christians believe in loving their enemy, and turning the other cheek they are never violent. Except when you have to murder a doctor who performs abortions. Then it's okay.
PEACE BE WITH YOU, BROTHA.

[frostz]

Well I would say that christians haven't really much from jesus. Crusades? violence against other religious groups over land (cough sorta like how bush and obama have troops in the middle east for oil). Witch hunts? sorta violent towards anyone who the church doesn't like. Inquisition? pretty violent. Holocaust? Well its not like Hitler/German Christians blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. oh and the killing of 300k Bosnian Serbs by Christian Serbs in 1992-1995.

No. That was the Old Testament. You'd have to blame the Jews for that.

Well religion can be used as a vehicle for political expansion, so you can't blame the religion itself for what people do with it.

If you refer to my other debate thread about Christianity and polytheism, i argue that Jehovah is involved in a lets call it "power grab" against other gods. From that standpoint, violence against nonbelievers would be justified. but since mainstream christianity doesn't actually believe in this...
(it would actually be nice if someone gave their views on that cause i spent a lot of time writing up the post)

and to punkrockbigmouth
Aside from the random gentile, Everyone in the new testament are Jews as well.

[luvsmyncis]

and to punkrockbigmouth
Aside from the random gentile, Everyone in the new testament are Jews as well.

Really? I had no idea! That explains the lack of bacon in the New Testament. Thanks.

[jungle]

end of the world "shit" is rapture day. Someone predicted that it was supposed to happen today even though there is no proof from the scriptures in support of this event.

i know what it is. I was just calling it shit because, well, it is.
6pm is when its going to happen? hrm, I wonder how many different 6pms there are all over the world.

[frostz]

Really? I had no idea! That explains the lack of bacon in the New Testament. Thanks.

Yea, most of the preaching that Jesus did was around Jewish territory. Gentiles did not appear en-mass in the bible until after Jesus had ascended, and even then most of them don't play any important role except as people who listen to the preachings of Paul or some such.

[Sweeney]

Yea, most of the preaching that Jesus did was around Jewish territory. Gentiles did not appear en-mass in the bible until after Jesus had ascended, and even then most of them don't play any important role except as people who listen to the preachings of Paul or some such.

She was ripping the shit out of you for being a patronising cunt.
Learn to read between the lines.

[frostz]

She was ripping the shit out of you for being a patronising cunt.
Learn to read between the lines.

I assume that anyone in the debate section is either contributing to the debate, or is trolling. Since it wasn't an obvious troll given the context of the statement i'll automatically respond with information.

[Sweeney]

I assume that anyone in the debate section is either contributing to the debate, or is trolling. Since it wasn't an obvious troll given the context of the statement i'll automatically respond with information.

You should also read some Thomas Harris.

[luvsmyncis]

I assume that anyone in the debate section is either contributing to the debate, or is trolling. Since it wasn't an obvious troll given the context of the statement i'll automatically respond with information.

Irrelevant information. I was addressing the person who said because violence exists in the Old Testament, that violence can be blamed on the Christians. I corrected that by saying it would be the Jews responsible for that violence. Doesn't matter if there were Jews or Romans or Pandas in the New Testament, because we weren't talking about that. We were discussing the violence depicted in the Old Testament.

If you had read my other responses in this thread, you'd have noticed that despite the usage of colorful pictures, I am not trolling, and that I already knew Jesus was Jewish. I'm not here for a lesson, that's what I had catechism for. I'm here to spread the good news!

Though, I thought the bacon bit would have made it obvious I was being a sarcastic asshole.

[frostz]

Irrelevant information. I was addressing the person who said because violence exists in the Old Testament, that violence can be blamed on the Christians. I corrected that by saying it would be the Jews responsible for that violence. Doesn't matter if there were Jews or Romans or Pandas in the New Testament, because we weren't talking about that. We were discussing the violence depicted in the Old Testament.

If you had read my other responses in this thread, you'd have noticed that despite the usage of colorful pictures, I am not trolling, and that I already knew Jesus was Jewish. I'm not here for a lesson, that's what I had catechism for. I'm here to spread the good news!

Though, I thought the bacon bit would have made it obvious I was being a sarcastic asshole.

hmm. yea ok i went back and read my post and my reply to you didn't make a whole lot of sense. sorry about that.

Wasn't calling you a troll either, was just responding to Sweeney's barb.

Edited by frostz, 21 May 2011 - 04:16 PM.

[luvsmyncis]

Well, if Jesus can find it in his heart to forgive you, so can I. <3

[Volition]

Irrelevant information. I was addressing the person who said because violence exists in the Old Testament, that violence can be blamed on the Christians. I corrected that by saying it would be the Jews responsible for that violence. Doesn't matter if there were Jews or Romans or Pandas in the New Testament, because we weren't talking about that. We were discussing the violence depicted in the Old Testament.

If you had read my other responses in this thread, you'd have noticed that despite the usage of colorful pictures, I am not trolling, and that I already knew Jesus was Jewish. I'm not here for a lesson, that's what I had catechism for. I'm here to spread the good news!

Though, I thought the bacon bit would have made it obvious I was being a sarcastic asshole.

I was referring to the entire Bible as the holy text for Christians. Old or New Testament, still a part of the Bible, which if I presume correctly Christians still read/learn, and with much of the Christian holy text preaching violence, it can be said that Christians, from learning/reading these texts learn to be violent. Unless the Christians are never at fault and its always someone else's fault.

[Eyams]

end of the world "shit" is rapture day. Someone predicted that it was supposed to happen today even though there is no proof from the scriptures in support of this event.

wasnt today the rapture? nice rapturebro. bestineurope.

Shows how religion is a load of bullshit.

[frostz]

I was referring to the entire Bible as the holy text for Christians. Old or New Testament, still a part of the Bible, which if I presume correctly Christians still read/learn, and with much of the Christian holy text preaching violence, it can be said that Christians, from learning/reading these texts learn to be violent. Unless the Christians are never at fault and its always someone else's fault.

yea, but

John 14:6
⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

This implies that what Jehovah teaches is trumped by what Jesus teaches, for Christians anyway. Much of the old testament teaches violence, but i think that it was meant to be read as a historical text rather than as actual rules to follow, afterall much of the old testament laws (food laws, etc) were over turned in the new testament.

Act 10

¹¹And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: ¹²Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.

¹³And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat.

¹⁴But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.

¹⁵And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.

[Volition]

This implies that what Jehovah teaches is trumped by what Jesus teaches, for Christians anyway. Much of the old testament teaches violence, but i think that it was meant to be read as a historical text rather than as actual rules to follow, afterall much of the old testament laws (food laws, etc) were over turned in the new testament.

I was saying that even if the content of the Old Testament was even considered to be on par with the stuff in the new, then that would be learning violent ways still. I'm gonna bring up the Crusades, a series of HOLY WARS religiously sanctioned for the "promised land" against non-believers. This stuff was sanctioned by the Pope, which if I am correct, is supposedly the world's closest person to god/Jesus. If even he sanctions warfare then what does that say about Christianity. And overturning laws regarding food just makes people less violent amiright?

[frostz]

I was saying that even if the content of the Old Testament was even considered to be on par with the stuff in the new, then that would be learning violent ways still. I'm gonna bring up the Crusades, a series of HOLY WARS religiously sanctioned for the "promised land" against non-believers. This stuff was sanctioned by the Pope, which if I am correct, is supposedly the world's closest person to god/Jesus. If even he sanctions warfare then what does that say about Christianity. And overturning laws regarding food just makes people less violent amiright?

Back during the Crusades, we did not have this idea of "ethnic identity" rather people were defined by their "religious identity". The war wasn't fought so much because they wanted to secure the "promised land" but because they wanted to expand their territory and to get the Muslims out of their lands, or to convert them. The Europeans were perfectly find with having "colored" people in their lands so long as they converted, and thats what the inquisition was formed to do.

During this time, religion was tied closely to politics and you really cannot separate one from the other. The holy wars may have been sanctioned, but it wasn't done for religious purposes alone.

Honestly i don't think they even considered what the scriptures had to say when they decided to launch the crusades. Its pretty much the religious equivalent of Hitler trying to rid Germany of all the undesirables.. Religious only because during that time as i said, your identity was defined by your religion and not your "race".

The Crusades could have just as easily been started as a war to force colored people out of the Mediterranean area if racial identity had been as important as religious identity.

So i guess what i am saying is that you can't blame Christianity itself for violence when the religion was only being used as a vehicle for political expansion (crusades were Catholics though there really isn't much difference except we don't see the pope as the world's closest person to god as Christians)

[Volition]

Back during the Crusades, we did not have this idea of "ethnic identity" rather people were defined by their "religious identity". The war wasn't fought so much because they wanted to secure the "promised land" but because they wanted to expand their territory and to get the Muslims out of their lands, or to convert them. The Europeans were perfectly find with having "colored" people in their lands so long as they converted, and thats what the inquisition was formed to do.

During this time, religion was tied closely to politics and you really cannot separate one from the other. The holy wars may have been sanctioned, but it wasn't done for religious purposes alone.

Honestly i don't think they even considered what the scriptures had to say when they decided to launch the crusades. Its pretty much the religious equivalent of Hitler trying to rid Germany of all the undesirables.. Religious only because during that time as i said, your identity was defined by your religion and not your "race".

The Crusades could have just as easily been started as a war to force colored people out of the Mediterranean area if racial identity had been as important as religious identity.

So i guess what i am saying is that you can't blame Christianity itself for violence when the religion was only being used as a vehicle for political expansion (crusades were Catholics though there really isn't much difference except we don't see the pope as the world's closest person to god as Christians)

Conversion, the inquisition gave the choice of convert to christianity or die. How this gave them political gains I'll never know. Back in those days religion was politics, the Church was on equal strength with monarchs, even at times appointing monarchs, political expansion meant religious expansion. The Crusades were fought to reclaim the land of Christ (http://www.jesuschri...t/Crusades.html), religious reasons much? The politicians or Pope may have had expansionist ideals, but the people fought for Christ, unless EVERY single soldier in the Crusades was fighting for land, and not a single one was motivated by Christian ideal. How about violence in modern society? Abortion clinics bombed, gays attacked, but wait, its obviously political gain OR maybe the Bible teaches it (http://bligbi.com/20...ity-in-america/). When all else fails someone always says "those aren't real christians", to which I say, bullshit, they read the bible, they worship god/jesus, they're christians.
And again, its NEVER Christianity, its always someone else right? like some unsuspecting patsy or whatever you can blame it on, so long as its not your religion amiright?

[frostz]

Conversion, the inquisition gave the choice of convert to christianity or die. How this gave them political gains I'll never know. Back in those days religion was politics, the Church was on equal strength with monarchs, even at times appointing monarchs, political expansion meant religious expansion. The Crusades were fought to reclaim the land of Christ (http://www.jesuschri...t/Crusades.html), religious reasons much? The politicians or Pope may have had expansionist ideals, but the people fought for Christ, unless EVERY single soldier in the Crusades was fighting for land, and not a single one was motivated by Christian ideal. How about violence in modern society? Abortion clinics bombed, gays attacked, but wait, its obviously political gain OR maybe the Bible teaches it (http://bligbi.com/20...ity-in-america/). When all else fails someone always says "those aren't real christians", to which I say, bullshit, they read the bible, they worship god/jesus, they're christians.
And again, its NEVER Christianity, its always someone else right? like some unsuspecting patsy or whatever you can blame it on, so long as its not your religion amiright?

hey hey now, if you have read all my other posts you would realize that im not so much defending the religion because im a devout Christian, when my own views are pretty much heresy, but rather I am arguing for Christianity in this thread because no one was doing it, and everyone was just posting one liners to agree with one person. no debate going on. so lets not get all personal here.

What im saying here is that back then politics and religion were essentially the same thing. We want to expand? oh look theres Muslims over there, they are different from us lets attack them and take back the holy land, while at the same time assimilating muslims into our Christian society. Whether its the crusades, or when the muslims were pushing into Europe from the Mediterranean, its for the same reasons.

Conquered Muslims actually found a place in Christian society, albeit a step below the Jews. Convert or die? sure, but its not like they could ever enforce conversion in the first place. People "converted" all the time then went back to their practices when the Europeans left.

The individual may have thought they were fighting for Christ maybe but violence honestly isn't a Christian ideal. But since when has the common individual mattered in history anyway. But again, religion and politics are too intertwined, to use it as an argument for christianity promotes violence.


There are fundamentalists in every religion that takes things to the extreme, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. but they are honestly a minority albeit the most vocal.
But again violence against all that you stated above was taught in the old testament, i do not deny that. But the fact of the matter remains that technically the christian church could simply throw away the old testament, and not be significantly effected in anyway..since as i stated before the teachings of jesus is "supposed" to trump whatever came before.

[Alexiel]

There are fundamentalists in every religion that takes things to the extreme, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. but they are honestly a minority albeit the most vocal.

It's kinda sad really. If anyone actually took the time to read the text, truly read it with an open heart and open mind then they'd see many of our religions have the same core concepts being taught. Lessons about life, family, friends, neighbors. Values, morals, etc. Sure, how those messages are delivered may be somewhat to even completely different but lets face the fact... no two people are the same. We need these differences, these different religious views to speak to people of different thinking.
It's like... say someone tells you in a language you don't understand (for the sake of example Latin) "Respect your elders, honor your mother and father, do unto others..." you simply cannot understand. Then someone in your own native language (lets say English since that seems to be the majority here) "Respect your elders, honor your mother and father, do unto others..." it's like "oh, okay I understand now". Or speaking sports statistics to a anime/scifi geek or a scifi geek talking about time travel & parallel universes in the Star Trek universe to a jock/prep.

But then extremist take control, interpret it their own ways, and then use it against others. Fear, intimidation, brainwashing, etc. tactics used to distort the truth for their own purposes.

Now from my own personal experiences, I'm chosen not to be associated with any one religion. Very against organized religion in this day and age because all the bs problems it causes.
However, I do acknowledge the necessity of religion (regardless of what it is, Christianity or otherwise) in our society.
To me, it's like the rules & laws of any society - to prevent complete chaos and anarchy. Only instead of for a society, necessarily, it's more for oneself (or a collective of selves) - to help find and guide us through some aspects of life we couldn't deal with otherwise.
As such, I feel all religions have their ups and downs. Without any outside influences or another holocaust there will always be a steady need for religion and the people to find one that speaks to their individuality. Some will find what they need through Christianity while others will find it elsewhere. Some may never need religion while some will always. Balance.

I apologize if any of this has been mentioned before, if it's completely off topic from anything said prior, and if anyone is offended. This topic has often crossed my mind and I felt like this was an opportune time to share some of my own thoughts/beliefs. They're no more right or wrong than anyone else's.

[Madcowz]

Religion only becomes needed for some people who just need something to grasp on to. They can't stand now knowing. Any normal logical human being knows they don't know. There has been thousands upon thousands of religions and the one you believe in usually a result of what region you were born in and your families beliefs. When if you were to really make an educated decision about religion it should be after studying all of the various religious texts and see which one, if any, you really believe in. Christianity is a religion that clearly just took bits and pieces of more ancient religions in older civilizations and crammed it all together to make what they have today.

[Frank12]

I feel like i could debate this into the ground, but given that 80% of the people who posted on this thread have no clue what they are talking about or are just morons who for some reason believe they need to post 100 times a day. The other 20%, as far as i can see, agree with me on a fundamental level, even Sweeney.

to answer the question, Christianity, as well as most commonly practiced religions in the world, tend to interfere with the development and growth of politics, science, and intellectual reasoning in most things not pertaining to the scientific world. The reason for this being; most people would rather believe than think. Thinking requires effort. Even the smartest people in the world need to think in order to function. Yet, billions of people around the world, not just the 2 billion odd who believe in the Christian creed, would rather let someone else say what should and shouldn't be; what is right and what is wrong, and how these people should live their lives. And the reason Religion appears to appose education, or at least the spread of thought, is the fact that it is much easier to control people who do not question what you are saying. Notice how in the Middle Ages, most of christian followers were uneducated and poor. Christianity was at its height during these times, at least in my opinion. But if you look at modern day, although there may be more followers, religion is no longer as big a role in people lives as it was 50, 100, even 1000 years ago.

In no way am I saying that Christian morals are all bad; in fact, most are great. But here is where my personal thought comes into it. Jesus Christ was a man who had a great idea. But if you think about it, if he just went around preaching things, staying conformed to the Jewish lifestyle and not attracting too much attention, how was it to spread? Instead, he said something so radical that EVERYONE knew who he was. He told everyone he was the son of god. Yet, he still needed to get people to not only notice him but like him. SO what he did was appease to the poor, Roman dominated, Jews. For example, the most hated person in that time period was the tax collector. So what Jesus said was that money was the root of all evil. (Rich man - Camel's eye analogy to name one). The people agreed with him because of their current oppression. Do you think that he would have been popular if everyone was fine with their surroundings, and thriving.

In more modern day life, we see people take these ideals and twist them to say that it is better to be poor and dumb and to let others be smarter. That is why Christianity halts progress

[frostz]

I feel like i could debate this into the ground, but given that 80% of the people who posted on this thread have no clue what they are talking about or are just morons who for some reason believe they need to post 100 times a day. The other 20%, as far as i can see, agree with me on a fundamental level, even Sweeney.

to answer the question, Christianity, as well as most commonly practiced religions in the world, tend to interfere with the development and growth of politics, science, and intellectual reasoning in most things not pertaining to the scientific world. The reason for this being; most people would rather believe than think. Thinking requires effort. Even the smartest people in the world need to think in order to function. Yet, billions of people around the world, not just the 2 billion odd who believe in the Christian creed, would rather let someone else say what should and shouldn't be; what is right and what is wrong, and how these people should live their lives. And the reason Religion appears to appose education, or at least the spread of thought, is the fact that it is much easier to control people who do not question what you are saying. Notice how in the Middle Ages, most of christian followers were uneducated and poor. Christianity was at its height during these times, at least in my opinion. But if you look at modern day, although there may be more followers, religion is no longer as big a role in people lives as it was 50, 100, even 1000 years ago.

In no way am I saying that Christian morals are all bad; in fact, most are great. But here is where my personal thought comes into it. Jesus Christ was a man who had a great idea. But if you think about it, if he just went around preaching things, staying conformed to the Jewish lifestyle and not attracting too much attention, how was it to spread? Instead, he said something so radical that EVERYONE knew who he was. He told everyone he was the son of god. Yet, he still needed to get people to not only notice him but like him. SO what he did was appease to the poor, Roman dominated, Jews. For example, the most hated person in that time period was the tax collector. So what Jesus said was that money was the root of all evil. (Rich man - Camel's eye analogy to name one). The people agreed with him because of their current oppression. Do you think that he would have been popular if everyone was fine with their surroundings, and thriving.

In more modern day life, we see people take these ideals and twist them to say that it is better to be poor and dumb and to let others be smarter. That is why Christianity halts progress

1)Jesus himself was never concerned with spreading his word amongst people outside of the Jews, he told his followers to do that for him during his ascension to heaven.

2) Secondly your argument is fundamentally flawed. Why would the son of god (God who for our purposes we will say actually exists) have to appease people by speaking out against money?
The context of your example was not appeasement of the poor. He was talking about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This rich man came to Jesus, and asked him what he had to do to gain eternal life having adhered to the commandments for all of his life. Jesus gave him a chance to become one of his disciples but the man refused. Hence it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle , because the rich are too unwilling to give up their wealth, even if its for eternal life. Jesus is saying that earthly wealth is nothing compared to your reward in heaven if you were willing to give up that wealth and follow him.

The rich man seriously could have been anybody, he didn't have to be a rich man he coulda been an owner of land, or a person with a high governmental position. These people would find it extremely difficult to throw away what they have whereas a poor person with nothing to lose, would have followed Jesus and gained eternal life.

nothing to do with money being evil. If anything he is saying that earthly wealth is a hinderance to gaining what actually matters

3) the people agreed with him that money is the root of evil? The reaction of his disciples most certainly did not seem that way. After all they thought, if the rich could not be saved, then who could?

¹⁷ As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸ “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’^{d]" class="footnote">[d]}”

²⁰ “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

²¹ Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

²² At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

²³ Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

²⁴ The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is^[e] to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

²⁶ The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

²⁷ Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

²⁸ Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”

²⁹ “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel ³⁰ will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. ³¹ But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Sure people hated the tax collector, but money is most certainly not evil. Even though jesus said the below to get out of a trap, it doesnt change the fact that the point is that you are to give god his due. Besides if money were so bad, then why was it that in the Old testament, abraham etc, were constantly being rewarded with wealth? So long as you give god his due everything is fine.

¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

²² When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

And what about this another example about the hinderance of wealth. No where does it say that it is the root evil. Again Jesus only teaches that earthly wealth is a hinderance to enter the kingdom of heaven. Figure out why by reading the passage below.

⁴¹ Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. ⁴² But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. ⁴³ Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. ⁴⁴ They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Besides this i don't think you were even reading the debate and seriously... spammers, people who don't know what they are talking about, people who dont agree with you? Why we havn't even been on this topic for like 2 pages, read everything before you decide to point fingers, if not then just post what you have to say without being hostile. We are now talking about how Christianity promotes violence.

Don't make assumptions about scriptural analogies without at least quoting scripture to try and back you up. Ill gladly change my mind if you can provide scripture not quoted out of context that supports what you just said about money being the root of all evil.

Edited by frostz, 22 May 2011 - 04:26 PM.