• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Informational Deep Into Christianity

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
I am really impressed with the proficiency of Muslim warriors in copy pasting videos and images followed by a request for an explanation.

Seriously, you do realize that anyone can trash your thread with videos and images coming from ISIS only and ask you for the same thing.

You provide no benefits at all to the Christian infidels when you showcase your ignorance in our faith.

Try harder please!
i have yet to encounter an argument that gives any heed to veracity. it is always one attempt after the next to dress you in the outfit they desire simply to tell you that you have a bad taste in clothing. and that makes the difference between an intelligent discussion where people can learn and grow, and between a war of hatred under the banner of "my God is stronger than yours".

most people want to approach this subject from an ongoing war perspective, nothing you can say will make them change their mind to perceive it otherwise, this could be a very enjoyable topic as it culminates the essence of humanity, and it could either be a very positive experience when examining theology and the philosophy of religions, or a very negative one when approached from the narrow perspective of "we are right and you are wrong". without mentioning the countless parasites along the way.

but at the end of the day, people cannot offer what they do not possess...
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
wtf did you just say? If the muslims religion was so superior, how come you find the most retarded systems and countries are being run under sharia while those inhabited by statue kissers have seen inventions like the internet, the telescope, the computer, the iPhone, Hubble, spaceships, penicillin wawawa... That fu**** devil you keep chasing with stones seems to have come to stay. About time you try kissing statues for a change, perhaps you'd get some answers and start producing something more useful than bomb belts.😜

You probably already know this, but just for the record, no Christian believes that praying to or kissing a statue will get them anything from the actual statues. The statues in our churches and homes are portraits of Christian figures we hold in high esteem. No different from having framed photos or paintings of your family members in your home, that you can look at to remember them. And, yes, sometimes people kiss a picture of someone they love. It doesn't mean that they think they are kissing the actual person.

It is amazing how "athoritatively" people speak of subjects they have no clue about, and how delusionally superior they think they are while doing so.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
and reality remains that like most participants in these threads, not only you have no clue what Christianity is, but your own knowledge your own faith is also shockingly lacking for someone who is oozing zeal on the surface, a pattern that we became all too familiar with across time in these threads, which continue to shed the light on some very interesting phenomena that have to do more with the participants than it has to do with God and faith.

Notice that most of the forumers who behave this way are not actually religious. Hating on Christianity and defending islam seems to be a tribal issue for them, rather than a religious or philosophical one.

This also explains their lack of interest in genuine conversation, and their resorting to trolling, slander, and lies instead.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I am really impressed with the proficiency of Muslim warriors in copy pasting videos and images followed by a request for an explanation.

This is all they can do. They can't dispute actual Christian doctrine so they either:

- Copy paste examples of people going against Christian doctrine, and try to pass it off as Christianity.

- Invent strawman doctrines that are not Christian, and demand that Christians argue about them.

I have long stopped replying to such people. Unfortunately, I have discovered that they don't come from a place of genuine curiosity and knowledge seeking, but from a place of hatred.

In fact, they don't even come from a place of genuine concern for victims of abuse, as they like to pretend. For example, it is obvious from their posts in other threads that their thoughts about women are full of disgusting perversions; and, that they are incapable of relating to women without objectifying them.

P.S. On another topic, I see from your name and avatar that you seem to have a thing for nazis. The nazis hated the Church and seeked its destruction. Furthermore, the suffering and death they caused go against everything Christianity stands for; so, if you truly love Christ, I urge you to denounce nazism and the horrors it represents.
 
Last edited:

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
P.S. On another topic, I see from your name and avatar that you seem to have a thing for nazis. The nazis hated the Church and seeked its destruction. Furthermore, the suffering and death they caused go against everything Christianity stands for; so, if you truly love Christ, I urge you to denounce nazism and the horrors it represents.


 

Totenkopf

New Member
This is all they can do. They can't dispute actual Christian doctrine so they either:

- Copy paste examples of people going against Christian doctrine, and try to pass it off as Christianity.

- Invent strawman doctrines that are not Christian, and demand that Christians argue about them.

I have long stopped replying to such people. Unfortunately, I have discovered that they don't come from a place of genuine curiosity and knowledge seeking, but from a place of hatred.

In fact, they don't even come from a place of genuine concern for victims of abuse, as they like to pretend. For example, it is obvious from their posts in other threads that their thoughts about women are full of disgusting perversions; and, that they are incapable of relating to women without objectifying them.

As Dark Angel said above, it could be a very enjoyable subject to discuss but alas, it's more of an entertainment thread since not one of these cyber jihadists is able to follow up on any of their claims...

P.S. On another topic, I see from your name and avatar that you seem to have a thing for nazis. The nazis hated the Church and seeked its destruction. Furthermore, the suffering and death they caused go against everything Christianity stands for; so, if you truly love Christ, I urge you to denounce nazism and the horrors it represents.

Indie sis, I don't have a big thing for nazism, in fact, I'm not white, I don't have blond hair or blue eyes. Nazism was a political ideology that incorporated many -isms I do not believe in. I am a military history buff and I enjoy ww2 from the German side. Not all Germans were nazis. I don't know why it's hard to grasp.

In order to not derail from the subject of this thread, I HIGHLY recommend this book to you:

If you don't enjoy reading this book, I will reimburse you for it*!
*offer applies only to indie
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Indie sis, I don't have a big thing for nazism, in fact, I'm not white, I don't have blond hair or blue eyes. Nazism was a political ideology that incorporated many -isms I do not believe in. I am a military history buff and I enjoy ww2 from the German side. Not all Germans were nazis. I don't know why it's hard to grasp.

Of course, not all Germans were nazis. I just assumed you sympathised with them because of your forum name and avatar. I'm glad that is not the case.

In order to not derail from the subject of this thread, I HIGHLY recommend this book to you:

If you don't enjoy reading this book, I will reimburse you for it*!
*offer applies only to indie

I never heard of this book before. Sounds like one I would enjoy reading. Thank you for the recommendation!
 

Thoma

New Member
It is a given that the argument for the problem of evil (or of suffering) fails by default against the classical theist God who, by human reason alone, is independently demonstrated and held to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient (in a more straight forward fashion; creation ultimately cannot but be a perfect act of love, of self-giving, for God by definition benefits nothing of it, and since God knows better and is trustworthy, there goes down the drain any supposedly valid reason for holding God to be evil or not all-good or for validly doubting his goodness, unless that reason successfully tackles the independent argument for God's aforementioned attributes)

This is all good and sufficient by default, yet still all too difficult to process, let alone so entirely and satisfactorily (to let it 'sink in', to use simpler wording) especially for those in the midst of an incredible suffering. Consequently, valid important questions comes up to the human mind, like for instance: If this God is that good and loving and trustworthy, and although he isn't obliged to; would he have not at least made his attitude towards my suffering revealed to me? Let alone manifest it somehow as well? The problem with Islam is that it not only ignores it, but shoots itself in the foot and answers it in the negative.

Expounding on my previous post (#problem_of_evil, #problem_of_suffering, #Christianity, #Islam, #Difference_between_Christianity_and_Islam):

While an objector may concede the classical theism refutation of the logical problem of evil, namely that a perfectly good God is logically compatible with evil in the world, that “we are not in a position to prove" that there is no greater good drawn out of the otherwise seemingly pointless suffering, that we “cannot know with certainty” that there is no such greater good, that there could in principle be such a greater good which we simply don’t know about, they posit that there's rationally still a room for believing that it is likewise possible that there could be no such greater good, and thus believing in the non-existence of a perfectly good God.

This objection has come to be dubbed as the 'evidential problem from evil' whereby, given the obvious evidence of great and sometimes seemingly pointless suffering in the world, and that while the existence of such evil is logically compatible with a perfectly good God and that therefore there could be a greater good drawn out of this suffering which we happen to not know about, it is rational to also believe in the possibility that there could be no such greater good and thus no such God.

The problem with this objection is that it can be rational to believe this, only if we don't already have an independent reason to think that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God exists, an independent reason to think that there must be some greater good that God will draw out of instances of 'suffering that may appear pointless to us'. These independent reasons are the classical arguments for God and his classical attributes (all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good). On the basis of these arguments we know that there must in fact be some greater good that God will draw out of instances of suffering like the ones that appear pointless to us, whether or not we can know what that greater good is.

By the objection's own admission, there could in principle be such a greater good, and thus the defender of this objection would have to admit also that if we really do have independent arguments which show that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God, then we have independent reason to think that there is in fact such a greater good. And in that case the “evidential argument from evil” fails. For it to succeed, its defender would first have to provide an independent refutation of said classical arguments. And if they do that, they wouldn't need the 'evidential argument' in the first place.

---

Hence, the existence of even the worst evils gives us no reason whatsoever to doubt the existence and goodness of the God of classical theism. In that sense the problem of evil poses no intellectual difficulty for theism. But evil poses an enormous practical difficulty, because while we can know with certainty that God has a reason for allowing the evil He does, we are very often simply not in a position to know what that reason is in this or that particular case.

Consequently, valid and important questions comes up to the human mind: If this God is perfectly good and loving and trustworthy, and although he isn't obliged to; would he have not at least made his attitude towards our suffering revealed to us, and by so doing conf(i/o)rm and fulfill our human-reason-driven attempt at probing it? While we still don't know the whole answer as to why God permits suffering, we do know now how God views our suffering, though, because He took the worst of it upon Himself for us. That’s what the Cross is all about. Only with that kind of God, we can wait for the rest of the answer.


-------

Note: this is mainly googled up and put together with a very tight margin of improvisation.
 
Last edited:

NewLeb

Member
i can show you very precisely where that is written and detailed in Christian scripture and theology, can you do the same and show me where that is explicitly pointed out in the quran?

WTF are you talking about? You type a lot of words, most of which lack any substance. What do you want me to point out exactly?

To Him [alone] is the supplication of truth. And those they call upon besides Him do not respond to them with a thing, except as one who stretches his hands toward water [from afar, calling it] to reach his mouth, but it will not reach it [thus]. And the supplication of the disbelievers is not but in error [i.e. futility].

Again, what are you trying to prove here? Just get to the freaking point.
 

NewLeb

Member
I gave you the easiest way out, you had ONE JOB: quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church with that teaching. Had you done so, you would have had a blast laughing at us.
Instead, you chose to remain the village idiot! In this case we're the ones laughing at you for your arrogance in ignorance :lol:

No go, kid. I’m not playing your silly pedantic games. IDGAF what the “catechism of the Catholic Church” says. Catholics clearly pray to statues and use them as an intermediary, whether you like it or not.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
WTF are you talking about? You type a lot of words, most of which lack any substance. What do you want me to point out exactly?

Again, what are you trying to prove here? Just get to the freaking point.
it is very obvious what i am talking about, and the point has been made very clearly. switching to fool and troll mode to pretend that you don't get it will not be in your favor either.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
No go, kid. I’m not playing your silly pedantic games. IDGAF what the “catechism of the Catholic Church” says. Catholics clearly pray to statues and use them as an intermediary, whether you like it or not.

As you have failed to backup your claim, enjoy your status as the village idiot....and thanks for the entertainment in advance!
 

NewLeb

Member
it is very obvious what i am talking about, and the point has been made very clearly. switching to fool and troll mode to pretend that you don't get it will not be in your favor either.

If it’s so obvious, then spell it out. What is you’re main argument here???
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
Continuing the discussion we've had months ago on self-defense in the Christian doctrine. Excuse the far-right narrative in the tweet.

 

SeaAb

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Continuing the discussion we've had months ago on self-defense in the Christian doctrine. Excuse the far-right narrative in the tweet.

Pope Francis' humility is on another level. As as atheist, I have nothing but the utmost respect for this guy.
 

Picasso

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Don’t Let Trump Pay Back Evangelicals Like This

By Katherine Stewart

New rules promulgated by his administration to advance ‘religious freedom’ will actually restrict it.

Many Americans know by now that when Christian nationalists talk about “religious freedom” they are really asking for the privilege to impose their religion on other people. What Americans may not yet understand is that they are also demanding money from taxpayers to do so.

Long before Donald Trump hitched his political fortunes to the Christian right, previous Republican administrations had primed the pumps that would send public money flowing toward religious organizations.

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration increased the flow of federal money to faith-based organizations providing services on behalf of the government. Mr. Bush himself insisted that these organizations would not be permitted to discriminate. But in fact the new method of faith-based funding invited the risk of discrimination and the erosion of church-state separation.

The Obama administration, responding to these concerns, put in place provisions to ensure that members of the public were not subject to discrimination on the basis of religious belief or unwanted proselytizing. The provisions also required that users of church-sponsored social programs be made aware of nonsectarian options.

The Trump administration is now proposing to eliminate these Obama-era safeguards. And true to form, they did so earlier this year, on the increasingly Orwellian-sounding annual Religious Freedom Day in January.

One purpose of the new proposed regulations is to make sure that organizations receiving taxpayer money are exempt from the kinds of anti-discrimination law by which nonreligious organizations must abide. If that sounds like a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that’s because it is — or at least it should be.

Under the proposed regulations, faith-based aid organizations that receive public money are free to hire and fire their workers and subcontractors on account of their religion, sexual orientation, or any other behavior or characteristic that the organization finds religiously appealing or objectionable. Aid-providing organizations will no longer have any obligation to let members of the public receiving their services know if there are available nonsectarian options. Organizations that receive their money through vouchers and other forms of indirect aid can now proselytize, require that recipients participate in religious activities or ask that recipients pledge their loyalty to Jesus. And the government itself is no longer required to offer a nonsectarian option for those whose beliefs or conscience make it impossible for them to accept aid on these terms.

“The proposed rules would strip away religious freedom protections from people, often the most vulnerable and marginalized, and even allow faith-based organizations to discriminate in government-funded programs,” Rachel Laser, president and chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told me. She added that this puts the interests of these organizations “ahead of the needs of the people seeking critical services.”

Why is the Trump administration so determined to tear down the wall of separation between church and state? The long game is clear: because that’s the way you “take back America” and make it a Christian nation.

But the short game is more relevant now. There is a pile of public money on the other side of the wall that separates church and state, and Christian nationalists are determined to grab it (and to hold on to what they have already grabbed).

These kinds of pro-discrimination rules are bound to cause harm. There may be a woman who loses her job at a faith-based service provider because she is “living in sin” with her partner. There may be people seeking counseling services who will forgo the help they need because it is offered only in conservative Christian health care settings and is staffed with Christian-only providers, all of whom claim to be living in conformity with a “Bible lifestyle.”

There will be some minority-religion providers — a Jewish soup kitchen here, a Muslim job-training initiative there — that will defend the new rules and claim to benefit from them. But they will serve, in effect, as strategic cover, lending the appearance of diversity to a movement that ties the idea of America to specific conservative religious and cultural identities.

Legitimizing these forms of discrimination is itself a grotesque violation of whatever it is that we actually mean by religious freedom. But that’s the point, as far as Mr. Trump and his Christian nationalist allies are concerned. The religious rights of the larger American public are collateral damage in a war of conquest aimed squarely at the public coffers.

To grasp the motivation for the Trump administration in promulgating “religious freedom,” it helps to review a little Supreme Court history. In 2017, the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Mo., brought a case in which the church claimed that it had an equal claim to government grants for purchasing materials to upgrade its playground.

At the time, many commentators raised a concern that the case was really just a device for eliminating Establishment Clause concerns from decisions affecting the public funding of religious institutions and activities. Lawyers from conservative Christian legal organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that refusing to allocate public money to religious institutions amounted to discrimination against religion. This theory, if it takes hold in law, significantly weakens the Establishment Clause. If withholding taxpayer money from religious institutions amounts to discrimination, then the taxpayer has no choice but to fund religion.

Some important things to know about today’s Christian nationalist movement: It doesn’t believe in the First Amendment as we usually understand it and as our founders intended it. It doesn’t believe that the government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It also takes a dim view of government assistance — unless the money passes through churches first. Politically connected religious leaders like Ralph Drollinger of Capitol Ministries, whose White House Bible study has been attended by at least 10 current and former members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet, maintains that social welfare programs have no basis in scripture. “The responsibility to meet the needs of the poor lies first with the husband in a marriage, secondly with the family (if the husband is absent), and thirdly with the church,” Mr. Drollinger has written. “Again, nowhere does God command the institutions of government or commerce to fully support those with genuine needs.”

These ideas are shared by David Barton, a historical revisionist who sits on the boards of an array of Christian nationalist legislative and data initiatives, pastoral networks and other influential groups. Mr. Barton has argued that the Bible and God himself oppose progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and minimum wage laws. “Since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries,” according to an essay posted to Mr. Barton’s WallBuilders website titled “The Bible, Slavery and America’s Founders.” “The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to provide for themselves. The only solution to slavery is the liberty of the Gospel.”

While these activists rail against direct government aid to the poor, they are eager to increase the flow of government handouts to churches and religious groups who may then provide the aid themselves, but without adherence to nondiscrimination law. As a further bonus, when the money gets funneled to religious organizations, some of it then can then be pumped back into the right-wing political machine through religious organizations and the policy groups they support, which act as de facto partisan political cells.

In order to understand the game that Christian nationalists are playing, it’s important to remember that the First Amendment has two clauses concerning religion: one that guarantees the freedom to exercise religion and one that prohibits the government from establishing any religion. What the framers understood is that these two come as a pair; they are necessarily connected. We are free to exercise religion precisely because the government refrains from establishing religion.

At present, the Christian nationalist movement has substantial sources of support in the form of access to wealthy donors and robust donor-advised charities. It also has a large base of supporters who make large numbers of small contributions. But leaders of the movement know that their bread will have a lot more butter if it comes from the government. They already receive significant funding indirectly from taxpayers in the form of deductions and exemptions. They are determined to secure these extra funds, and they are immensely fearful of losing them, especially if a pluralistic society decides to do something about the fact that its tax dollars are being used to fund groups that actively promote discrimination against many citizens and support radical political agendas.

In the future, if the Trump administration has its way, the current flow of taxpayer money to religious organizations may well look like the trickle before the flood. Religious nationalists dream of a time when most or all social welfare services pass through the hands of religious entities. They imagine a future in which a young woman seeking advice on reproductive health care will have nowhere to turn but a state-funded, church-operated network of “counseling” centers that will tell her she will go to hell if she doesn’t have the baby.

The discrimination against individuals and the misuse of public money that the Trump administration’s proposed regulations would allow is bad enough. But these are far from the worst consequences of this kind of assault on the separation of church and state. The most profound danger here is to the deep structure of American society and politics.

In 1786, when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pushed through the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that Religious Freedom Day commemorates, the issue that motivated them and that brought evangelical Christians at the time over to their side was a detested tax imposed on all Virginians to pay for the church services demanded by the established church. “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical,” Jefferson wrote. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”

It is ironic, then, that the Trump administration’s religious freedom initiative seeks to fund religious organizations with taxpayer money. But what makes this particularly dangerous is that the same money in many cases goes to churches and religious organizations that are increasingly and aggressively asserting themselves in partisan politics, and that happen to support Mr. Trump. As Jefferson and Madison understood, the destruction of the wall that separates church and state corrupts politics just as surely as it corrupts religion.

Katherine Stewart (@kathsstewart) is the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”

NYTimes
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
 
Top