Thank you.

Ready guys?

Here's my short take on the video as shown by Sophiera about the similarities of the violence in the Bible and the Quran.

While the issue may have been taken out of the context, it does not change the fact that the acts itself are barbaric in nature, and it is only natural to think that "contexts" should not be a form of excuse to deny something horrifying in the first place.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Dec 8 2015, 09:50 AM

Except that it is not necessarily something we ask for, correct? The Bible teaches sins have its consequences, but the stance taken especially in the OT are usually within the realms of only two extreme colours, extreme black, and extreme white. Perhaps one should discuss with such extremities should even be conceived in the first place?

Proof by assertion fallacy. Once again, you are not necessarily incorrect, but your points have been represented in a way that begs the question of whether it is proven because it is, or because you have asserted it. For if it is the latter, then anyone would be capable of asserting anything that is false and claim them to be the truth.

I'm afraid that's highly inaccurate. People do flinch and react accordingly even in the smallest way possible whenever they see something that is considered horrifying, I'm sure this is obviously common sense. To be not able to flinch at all while witnessing an execution? I'm sure there will be a number of proclaimed psychotics may be able to do such things, but it is only natural for people to feel disturbed watching these things. Even gore in horror movies are quite unsettling. What more then, will be witnessing an actual execution taking place, or hearing how horrible these punishments are being carried out?

And even if God knows everything, why would that prevent you to feel unsettled, uneasy, and horrified over obviously horrifying things? Do you hide your emotions and feelings towards suffering simply because you have faith that the Bible isn't actually wrong?

But that doesn't mean we should do such things, correct? We are human beings, and it is obvious that I will be shocked to see those horrifying things that was explained by the ones in the Bibiel, whether or not if it serves the correct "contexts". By placing my faith into this, would it be then, logical for me to do these horrifying, barbaric acts simply because I just happen to attain the correct context which allows me to do so? If so, what are those very contexts that will allow people to do these horrid acts accordingly?

But that's the problem there isn't? If it is acceptable mainly because of the explicit reason that it came from the Bible, why would it matter whether it is a "universal doctrine" or not, when one can obviously be naturally horrified with the barbaric acts in the Old Testament, and to the ones as shown in the video by Sophiera?

Which is why I asked for a green light first.

Not true. If you've checked my posts accordingly, you will find that there are mostly inquiries, without any claims of anything conclusive. Ergo, I do not find how they can be considered as "imposing", as you've put it.

Furthermore, if one were to to only claim that the Bible is the ultimate truth without allowing anyone to question it in the first place, why do you even bother giving me the green light at all?

Then why would you bother giving me the green light when I have already hinted that my take on the video is not necessarily in favour to the Bible?

If you decided to proceed with the 'proof by assertion' fallacy, i.e. "because the Bible said so", then it would be natural to only think that you, and the rest of the ones here will be happy to be completely ignorant of the questions presented. As such, allow me to ask you again, this time, rephrased differently?

Would you give me the green light to comment on the video as shown by Sophiera with my opinions and questions which may not necessarily in favor with the Bible, and in addition, possibly questioning the moral fibre and rationale of what it is written in the Bible itself? If not, how open minded must you be, before even considering giving me the green light?

If you answer 'no' to both questions, then I'm afraid that it is only obvious to be ignored by a group that refused to open their minds accordingly in order to inquire what it means to believe in the Bible, and equally, what it also means to disbelief it.

I'm not sure how you came up with "irony" to describe the situation when I am only questioning the problem of what constitutes as good and bad by completely ignoring the fact that we no longer associate ourselves with the barbarism as shown in the Bible itself. If I have a Cthulhu book that says murdering infants is a good thing, will you be able to accept my standard of what constitutes as "good" is I also were to say, I am merely following the book? How then, will we able to discern of whether if the Bible and the book of Cthulhu will be worthy of following in order to determine ethics?

While the motivation behind the barbaric acts could possibly be a good thing, but does it justify the methods that were used?

Say, for example, if it is your fault that you have lose my keys, wouldn't it natural to think that it would be too extreme for me to dismember your hands as a form of response?

Not exactly. While it is true that both Christians and non-Christians have studied the bible, my point here of not being associated with the barbaric acts in the bible means that we are no longer PRACTICING nor even ADVOCATING such violence in our everyday lives today. it's not a misconception if you and I can agree that the violent acts in the bible are considered as barbaric.

That is, unless you do not view upon it as barbaric? How would you define such horrifying acts then? Do you NOT call them, horrifying, just so you may justify it as "because it is humanity's fault?"

I'm sure you won't, nor did I ever shown any signs of being forced to believe in anything anyway. But you may be inaccurate about the part of me using the green light to "dictate to people of what I think". That did not happen. What I've done so far are just asking questions, because something didn't seemed quite right. At the end of the day, they're only questions, not claims, nor ultimatums.

It's not so much whether if God can, or could not be discovered by thinking rationally, it's about whether if we wish to think rationally or not. If you have decided to think rationally for a specific issue in life, be it groceries and career choices, why wouldn't, or rather why, should you not be allowed, or even attempt to do the same for the issue of god? The fact that you're allowed to think, betrays your need for faith, because like most people, no matter what your faith may be, you still decided to lock your doors, because you have chose to think of it rationally.

Like I've mentioned earlier, I did not claim that "my way", or any other way to be the truth. I was merely asking questions.

It is religion itself that claimed to have the truth. I did not do this.

Religion claims to be the ultimate truth.

I ask questions.

Two completely different things.

If you cannot agree of me doing such things, then you shouldn't have gave me the green light?

Would you rather kick me out instead, in the spirit of Christianity?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Dec 14 2015, 05:02 PM

Yes. Kick me out because Christians can never be open-minded to handle any questions (I know, I was once a Christian myself).

Of course.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

You TEST everything. And to not question is NOT to hold on everything that is good.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 3 2016, 07:58 AM

That...isn't exactly my intention, but never mind.

Either way, please look at my signature if y'all got the time. Shameless promotion ni.

Actually, D&D is more of a tabletop game. The board games today are something like this, if you are interested to know more (it's a very different genre from what most people nowadays think about board games):