Islam - the thread of peace and tolerance

[GORDON]

Hell of a loophole. But really, if killing a peep makes you not a christian, then doesn't the "asking forgiveness" thing become null and void? Only christians get to ask forgiveness, right?

IDK.

[Malcolm]

Hell of a loophole

.
It's a spectacular gimmick. It solves the "why aren't assholes struck by lightning" problem and simultaneously gives their priests vastly increased social control and information.

But really, if killing a peep makes you not a christian, then doesn't the "asking forgiveness" thing become null and void?

False.

A) Christianity allows for killing under certain circumstances. Thou shalt not kill* has a big-ass asterisk next to it, I guess. It's kind of like, "Yeah, we totally have a Constitution in the U.S. Well, at least until times of crisis, then that shit gets 86'd faster than Andy Dick at a popper party."

B) Let's assume the "killing" you mean is premeditated, random murder. Still no. If you die with mortal sin against you, it's rather bad but occasionally leads to purgatory depending which specific denomination you're in. In any case, any sin, I repeat ANY sin, can be forgiven.

Only christians get to ask forgiveness, right?

False. In fact, you don't technically even need a priest in some denominations. Any follower will do.

IDK.

Fortunately, I have years of parochial waste knowledge lying around in my brain that refuses to fucking leave in spite of my repeated attempts to murder every fucking brain cell housing their engrams.

[Vince]

When you can "reprogram" the general election let us know.

Conventions haven't happened yet.

[Vince]

A) Christianity allows for killing under certain circumstances. Thou shalt not kill* has a big-ass asterisk next to it, I guess.

Not to argue your point, but rather to clarify...

The asterisk generally arrives from the mistranslation. Jews will tell you it isn't "Thou shall not kill" as much as "Thou shall not do murder".

[Malcolm]

Semantics. Murder = killing in my dictionary. The justification is irrelevant.

[Vince]

Semantics. Murder = killing in my dictionary. The justification is irrelevant.

So the guy that kills the home invader is the same as the guy that walks into a school and shoots a child?

[Malcolm]

I just said justification is irrelevant. I don't care why, I care what. I'm not focused on the killer/murderer. The act has the same end result: someone's dead. We have made up rules we tell ourselves when we have to do that shit, and it's based off what we can or think we can live with.

[TPRJones]

"Thou shalt not kill" applies only to unlawful killings. It's is lawful - and frequently required - to kill certain people in certain conditions. Killing during war, in self defense or in defense of your possessions, to execute prisoners, or to remove sinners from the world not just perfectly fine but a must if you want to follow the rules of Yehwah. Further the word used for "kill" includes things like "break" and "destroy" so really it's less about killing and more about perpetrating destruction in an unlawful manner.

The god of the bible is is not a god of Good. He is very clearly Lawful Neutral.

As to the neatly controlling scam of confession that's nothing. Check out plenary indulgence.

[Malcolm]

"Thou shalt not kill" applies only to unlawful killings. It's is lawful - and frequently required - to kill certain people in certain conditions.

That also depends on which denomination. Quakers, for instance, are entirely nonviolent, and MLK's whole movement was based on that philosophy. Lastly, there are some Jesus quotes on that sort of thing which don't leave much to the imagination:

If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.

- Matthew 5:47

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

- Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV

Emphasis mine. He specifically says being held to the same low standard as everyone else's faith isn't good enough. That means you don't automatically get to tell everyone outside it to fuck off. The second one goes so far as to have a masochistic bent to it, and the bold part is as direct and all-encompassing as it gets. Both seem quite unambiguous and yet contradict dozens of other passages in the same literature

The god of the bible is is not a god of Good. He is very clearly Lawful Neutral.

Which half? The one in first part is a total bastard. The one in the second half isn't as much, although he approves of what the old one did. If I had to pick words to describe that god in the bible, "schizophrenic" and "amnesiac" spring to mind.

I can argue theology, especially the Christian kind, all goddamn day.

[TPRJones]

That also depends on which denomination.

I was only referring to denominations that actually make some attempt to follow the teachings of both old and new Testament. Throwing out the old Testament entirely makes for a different sort of more hippie-like Christian that isn't quite as dangerous to their fellow men. But only a handful of denominations do that.

[Malcolm]

That also depends on which denomination.

I was only referring to denominations that actually make some attempt to follow the teachings of both old and new Testament. Throwing out the old Testament entirely makes for a different sort of more hippie-like Christian that isn't quite as dangerous to their fellow men. But only a handful of denominations do that.

I don't know of any that disown it completely. You can't boot the Pentateuch from Christianity without making it virtually unrecognizable. Dispensationalism comes close but that's just a timebox game.

[TPRJones]

Well, no, they don't officially remove it. But if their only interaction with the old Testament is that they carry it around stuck to the part they actually do read and make no attempt to follow what it says then they've thrown it out as far as I'm concerned. And it's a good first step towards becoming a decent person. The old Testament is nothing but poison.

[Malcolm]

But if their only interaction with the old Testament is that they carry it around ... and make no attempt to follow what it says then they've thrown it out as far as I'm concerned

By that criteria, most religions have thrown out most of their dogma and doctrine.

[TPRJones]

Yes.

[GORDON]

I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" was ever intended to be a suicide pact.

Or maybe it was.

But I don't consider it to be such.

[Malcolm]

I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" was ever intended to be a suicide pact.

Or maybe it was.

But I don't consider it to be such.

No one knows except the original author that put down the words or the overworked, sometimes incompetent medieval monks that translated the work a billion times. But the thought springs to mind that if you can have something as direct and clear as "Thou shalt not kill," open to interpretation then anything is up for grabs. The bible is no stranger to long, boring lineages being listed exhaustively, nor does it shy away from the nuance of legal code (the entire book of Leviticus is dedicated to that shit), so I find it hard to believe someone decided brevity was the soul of wit and put down the abridged version of a ruling that came straight from the divine mouth.

[TPRJones]

But it wasn't thou shalt not kill" in the original. It was "לֹא תִּרְצָח".

The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

It's more about committing destructive chaos - including murder - than about just simply killing someone. If God meant thou shalt not kill he would have written "לֹא תִּהרג".

[Leisher]

Shooter used gay apps.

Shooter worked with and had gay friends.

[Malcolm]

But it wasn't thou shalt not kill" in the original. It was "לֹא תִּרְצָח".

The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

It's more about committing destructive chaos - including murder - than about just simply killing someone. If God meant thou shalt not kill he would have written "לֹא תִּהרג".

Whatever. So it's broader than literal killing.

[Leisher]

French cops killed by live streaming jihadist.

Clearly France needs better gun laws.