Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
Language: JP EN FR DE
Version 3.1
New Items
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
First Page 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 23 24 25
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:23:45
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present.

Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist.

The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning.
The Christian God/Jesus also specifically said that the earth was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old....
Lol, no he didn't. Just stop, lol.
Who said that the bible was written from God's word again?

I know we're not typically on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite the 6,000 years part.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:24:09
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.

If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though.
Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?

Seriously?
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander?
You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!

You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:25:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God.


you can't see it but i am rolling my eyes SO HARD right now

there is a ton wrong with this but let's start here:

why would you think that God, if he deigned to speak to mortals, would not choose to speak to them in a way they would understand
Did you miss the part that *predates the concept of a singular God*?

As in at that time, the Greek and Romans worshipped many Gods, and lesser deities, yet had a foundation of language said to be given to them by the Gods themselves as in plural?
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:26:09
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Alexandero said: »
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:27:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present.

Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist.

The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning.
The Christian God/Jesus also specifically said that the earth was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old....
Lol, no he didn't. Just stop, lol.
Who said that the bible was written from God's word again?

I know we're not typically on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite the 6,000 years part.
Ok

Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.

Quote:
If we go by the reigns of the kings of Judah, without assuming any co-regencies, from the Temple to the Exile of Judah would have been 429.5 years + less than 21 years. But we know that there were co-regencies in Judah, partly by comparing the kings of Judah to the kings of Israel.3 If we do that, we know that from the Temple to the Exile of Judah is actually around 345 years, at around 3553 AM. At this point, it’s possible to say what the date would be in our terms—and when one adjusts for the differences in calendrical systems, the vast majority consensus is 586 BC. This would mean that 1 AD would be around 4150 AM, plus or minus less than 50 years, and today we would be around 6150 AM, plus or minus less than 50 years.
 Asura.Alexandero
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: jalexan4
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:28:51
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.

If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though.
Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?

Seriously?
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander?
You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!

You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....

That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God).
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:28:58
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ok

Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.

Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots.
 Valefor.Sehachan
Guide Maker
Offline
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Seha
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-01-16 15:28:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Dinosaurs weren't killed by God, they were raptored.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:30:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ok

Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.

Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots.
Hey, I don't believe in any religion.

I can't argue what I don't believe in. I'm just pointing out where I saw, and somebody in this thread did state that the bible was written by God himself...

But if you want to say that's false, then I'll bow to your expertise in the matter.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:31:00
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.

If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though.
Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?

Seriously?
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander?
You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!

You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....

That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God).
Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:31:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.

If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though.
Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?

Seriously?
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander?
You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!

You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....

That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God).
Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources.
I even pointed that out....
Offline
Posts: 1563
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:32:22
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God.


you can't see it but i am rolling my eyes SO HARD right now

there is a ton wrong with this but let's start here:

why would you think that God, if he deigned to speak to mortals, would not choose to speak to them in a way they would understand
Did you miss the part that *predates the concept of a singular God*?

As in at that time, the Greek and Romans worshipped many Gods, and lesser deities, yet had a foundation of language said to be given to them by the Gods themselves as in plural?

this is relevant because _________

if God wishes to offer salvation to a bunch of people who speak/read Greek, he will (as the story goes) divinely inspire a Greek translation that adequately conveys that message of salvation

seriously, this is one of the LEAST bonkers ideas in religion
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:32:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:34:22
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ok

Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.

Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots.
Hey, I don't believe in any religion.

I can't argue what I don't believe in. I'm just pointing out where I saw, and somebody in this thread did state that the bible was written by God himself...

But if you want to say that's false, then I'll bow to your expertise in the matter.

Fair enough. I most certainly think that's false. Even if you want to argue that all of the original books were "written by God" (which I wouldn't), by the time it became "the Bible" it had been subject to centuries/millenia of mishandling.
 Asura.Alexandero
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: jalexan4
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:34:37
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording.
I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.

Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.

^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.
Offline
Posts: 1563
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:34:46
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.

If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though.
Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?

Seriously?
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander?
You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!

You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....

That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God).
Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources.
I even pointed that out....

He's toeing a weird line here, but I think he's saying the Gospels are self-contained primary sources that don't inform/serve as the basis of the secondary accounts that make up the rest of the Bible. Paul's letters aren't recounting the events of the Gospels, for instance; they're offering his interpretation of their meaning.

SO...

Bloodrose said: »
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.

the Gospels are one small part of the New Testament. IIRC even Paul's letters get more screentime.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:35:30
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.

Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.

What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"
[+]
 Asura.Alexandero
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: jalexan4
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:36:46
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.
A board makes up a house, does that mean the board is a house?
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:37:02
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording.
I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.

Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.

^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.

I'd like a source that says there were no discrepancies between the dead sea scrolls and modern translations. I did a quick search and found articles citing some discrepancies immediately. Also, the scrolls were not the original manuscripts to begin with, just earlier versions.
 Bismarck.Magnuss
Offline
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-01-16 15:37:40
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Are all squares rectangles?

Well, yes. But, are all rectangles squares?

I say NO to you!
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:38:23
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
Are all squares rectangles?

Well, yes. But, are all rectangles squares?

I say NO to you!

You, sir, are a rhombus. Prove me wrong.
[+]
 Bismarck.Magnuss
Offline
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-01-16 15:39:46
Link | Quote | Reply
 
*** dat. I'm a dodecahedron. I have ten sides and ten points! Deal wiff dat!
[+]
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:40:20
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Bloodrose said: »
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.
A board makes up a house, does that mean the board is a house?
Architecturally speaking, if that board carries the primary weight of the house, if can then be argued, that yes, it is the house.

If it were simply a piece for decoration purposes, as to the cornerstone that gave the house an identity, it makes it a "home".

In this context, the Gospels are what carry the weight of the Bible's impact on Christianity, and people more often than not, will redirect back to the "Gospel Truth" to defend the Bible.
 Asura.Alexandero
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: jalexan4
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:40:24
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Alexandero said: »
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.

We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording.
I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.

Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.

^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.

I'd like a source that says there were no discrepancies between the dead sea scrolls and modern translations. I did a quick search and found articles citing some discrepancies immediately. Also, the scrolls were not the original manuscripts to begin with, just earlier versions.
Again, I don't know why people like to generalize in these forums. I said "related" documents. That doesn't mean every single document. Ill source the book when I find it, although I doubt you will read it.

This whole sources thing is an attempt to take it in a new direction. It still changes nothing about the original argument. I don't have a problem with sources of sources, you do. I simply stated, that the time frames of the books written on both topics were vastly different. That you couldnt reject the smaller time frame and accept the longer timeframe. Im not towing a weird line. I accept the documents are historically accurate documents. So do scholars. The miracles are would obviously cause controversy. Whether they happened or not... you decide.
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2015-01-16 15:40:57
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
Offline
Posts: 1563
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:42:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.

Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.

The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.

Salvation is available to everyone who believed in God, which, as it goes, was one of the points he wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.

Quote:
What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"

That is what happens when a religion for and of lepers and prostitutes becomes the religion of generals and kings.

As I said earlier, Christianity's calling card among the major world religions is a real focus on mercy and forgiveness. Unfortunately, this means a persecution complex is pretty much baked into its DNA; there's not much room to exercise forgiveness if nobody gives you anything to forgive.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:43:48
Link | Quote | Reply
 
A lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls are also completely unreadable, or have parts where the scholars have to make their own interpretations, based on what knowledge they have, or can glean from the text they are able to read.

And they are still discovering scrolls, things written in scrolls already found, and re-examining their position when something new comes to light.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:46:48
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.

Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.

What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"

The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.

Salvation is available to everyone, which, as it goes, was one of the points God wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.

The bolded part would make sense, but I distinctly remember having an argument when I was in middle school with a kid that was very vocal about religion. He stated that you had to accept Jesus to be saved, so I asked him what happened to people in, say, parts of Africa where they would live and die without ever hearing of Jesus. He said that they would go to Hell. When I said that was crazy, he shoved me to the ground. What a fine Christian he was.
 Valefor.Endoq
Offline
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Endoq
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-16 15:48:01
Link | Quote | Reply
 
terrorist
[ter-er-ist]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
adjective
5.
of, relating to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists:
terrorist tactics.
Origin
French
1785-95; terror + -ist; compare French terroriste

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist


According to this terrorist are French or bears on unicycles and not muslim.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:49:46
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.

Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.

What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"

The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.

Salvation is available to everyone, which, as it goes, was one of the points God wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.

The bolded part would make sense, but I distinctly remember having an argument when I was in middle school with a kid that was very vocal about religion. He stated that you had to accept Jesus to be saved, so I asked him what happened to people in, say, parts of Africa where they would live and die without ever hearing of Jesus. He said that they would go to Hell. When I said that was crazy, he shoved me to the ground. What a fine Christian he was.
That was the part I never really understood. "Accept the Lord, thy savior into your heart, and you shall be saved", and anyone who didn't, ended up suffering at the hands of the proselytizers in life, then again at the gates of Judgment (or purgatory) and again in hell.
First Page 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 23 24 25