• 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.

Who murdered the most Innocent Human Beings on Earth?

Indie

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
That’s your interpretation of a mythological text shared by many of your fellow christians and muslims. So Adam & Eve had to eat from a fig tree to realise being naked was a sin? What exactly is so sinful about being naked? I don’t think cavemen had their Diors or Armanis to suit up. Did their sudden knowledge lead them to worship other deities, which according to the Ten Commandments is the worst sin of them all. Did humanity start murdering each other at the point Eve was beguiled by the serpent? I say all this to illustrate the absurdity of such beliefs, whether it was meant allegorically or literally.

It’s no accident when the protestants broke away from the Church, its power waned. Once christians began to read and analyse scripture on their own, they became more likely to critique it. Before that, knowledge was handed down by the absolute authority, the Church. What it said was absolute truth and dogma. After all, it wasn't very wise, nor safe putting it mildly, to question his holiness, God's rep on earth, the infallible pope.
No. That was not my interpretation of the text. That is what the text says, and how Christians have understood it from the very beginning of Christianity.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The animals are better than humans
    I share you disappointment with people, but there's no point comparing apples to oranges.

    At the end of the day, we are all flawed and have things to work on, and we have to help each other be better. We need other people, flaws and all.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    With the low IQ you have, you should have no worries lol
    Hey @JB81 baba, do you really believe @Dynamite Joe has low IQ or you're trying to prove me right?

    4 - Because of such insecurities and lack of factual arguments to win a debate, anyone who disagrees with them becomes target of personal attacks.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    That’s your interpretation of a mythological text shared by many of your fellow christians and muslims. So Adam & Eve had to eat from a fig tree to realise being naked was a sin? What exactly is so sinful about being naked? I don’t think cavemen had their Diors or Armanis to suit up. Did their sudden knowledge lead them to worship other deities, which according to the Ten Commandments is the worst sin of them all. Did humanity start murdering each other at the point Eve was beguiled by the serpent? I say all this to illustrate the absurdity of such beliefs, whether it was meant allegorically or literally.
    1- the text is not shared by muslems, there isn't even a single mention of eve in the quran.
    2- it is an apple tree, a red fruit, not a fig tree. red fruits and serpents are what evolved mankind's vision.
    3- the realization of being naked is the realization of being self aware.
    4- being naked has nothing to do with sin even in the narrowest interpretation of the term sin.
    5- the minute mankind became self aware and conscious they paused the existential questions leading them straight to God.
    6- the worst sin of all as depicted in the 10 commandments is to willingly worship something other than what one could fathom as the highest ideal.
    7- all kinds of sin, including murder, surfaced when people deviated by choice from the goodness of that absolute ideal.

    i say this to show that every single interpretation you have made is wrong, whether the corresponding text was intended literally or allegorically.

    It’s no accident when the protestants broke away from the Church, its power waned. Once christians began to read and analyse scripture on their own, they became more likely to critique it. Before that, knowledge was handed down by the absolute authority, the Church. What it said was absolute truth and dogma. After all, it wasn't very wise, nor safe putting it mildly, to question his holiness, God's rep on earth, the infallible pope.
    the protestants share the core beliefs of the Church, what they disagree with is the deviation of the Church from the text at some point in its history, probably when it fell under the control of people that resemble you.

    there is absolutely no truth in you. not a single statement you make is actually true. how on earth anyone can manage that is really beyond me.
     
    Last edited:
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    Hey @JB81 baba, do you really believe @Dynamite Joe has low IQ or you're trying to prove me right?

    Viral said:
    4 - Because of such insecurities and lack of factual arguments to win a debate, anyone who disagrees with them becomes target of personal attacks.
    How about you support the opposite case that you both are not idiot and/or wicked, with factual argument using this thread, lest you fail your own criterion?
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    I didn't get you. You got yourself by making a self-contradicting statement. There's no shame in that. We've all been there. Just accept that you made a mistake and stop arguing the unarguable :)



    Again, we are not talking about the rotation of the earth or the existence of God. Stop diverting the topic.

    We are talking about the statement you made about truth: "There is no absolute truth."

    Is that statement an absolute truth?
    My sincere apologies for failing to supply you with a gratifying answer, though your insistence on it is intriguing. With religious belief, truth can only be relative even if the theist thinks his religion is the absolute truth. Indeed, followers of the same religion can subscribe to their own version of ‘truth’. Notwithstanding, what is absolutely true is that all deities are manmade. That’s just a fact. If you think it contradictory, then you don’t know the difference between scientific and theological matters.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    Hey @JB81 baba, do you really believe @Dynamite Joe has low IQ or you're trying to prove me right?
    Blame it on the bud light. I should have gone with Guinness draft, it does wonders for the IQ.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    1- the text is not shared by muslems, there isn't even a single mention of eve in the quran.
    2- it is an apple tree, a red fruit, not a fig tree. red fruits and serpents are what evolved mankind's vision.
    3- the realization of being naked is the realization of being self aware.
    4- being naked has nothing to do with sin even in the narrowest interpretation of the term sin.
    5- the minute mankind became self aware and conscious they paused the existential questions leading them straight to God.
    6- the worst sin of all as depicted in the 10 commandments is to willingly worship something other than what one could fathom as the highest ideal.
    7- all kinds of sin, including murder, surfaced when people deviated by choice from the goodness of that absolute ideal.

    i say this to show that every single interpretation you have made is wrong, whether the corresponding text was intended literally or allegorically.


    the protestants share the core beliefs of the Church, what they disagree with is the deviation of the Church from the text at some point in its history, probably when it fell under the control of people that resemble you.

    there is absolutely no truth in you. not a single statement you make is actually true. how on earth anyone can manage that is really beyond me.
    It’s fig season now… Regarding the infamous apple, can you provide evidence that it was an apple tree? You seem very sure of yourself... Maybe it wasn’t a tree at all, but kousa me7she. But come now, I take full responsibility for mixing apples with oranges. I mean here I am applying deductive reasoning to an ancient fable. I figured once they ate from this mysterious tree, having realised their private parts were exposed, they sewed fig leaves together and made them aprons. Quite innovative you must admit. Therefore, I submit to you the evidence points towards a fig instead of an apple. But if DA wants an apple, then so it shall be.

    It's not a secret that the qur'an plagiarises the bible and adds its own twist. No different than arguing over an apple or a fig, it's still the same rotten fable. What I would say though is the abrahamic god was a misogynist. That much is consistent in both stories. The bible lays it on Eve and the Qur'an omits even mention of her.

    Lastly, lest we not forget from the Ten Commandments, “for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God”. The story of all megalomaniacs, which brings us back to the topic of this thread. You've already proven your piety.
     
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    It’s fig season now… Regarding the infamous apple, can you provide evidence that it was an apple tree? You seem very sure of yourself... Maybe it wasn’t a tree at all, but kousa me7she. But come now, I take full responsibility for mixing apples with oranges. I mean here I am applying deductive reasoning to an ancient fable. I figured once they ate from this mysterious tree, having realised their private parts were exposed, they sewed fig leaves together and made them aprons. Quite innovative you must admit. Therefore, I submit to you the evidence points towards a fig instead of an apple. But if DA wants an apple, then so it shall be.

    It's not a secret that the qur'an plagiarises the bible and adds its own twist. No different than arguing over an apple or a fig, it's still the same rotten fable. What I would say though is the abrahamic god was a misogynist. That much is consistent in both stories. The bible lays it on Eve and the Qur'an omits even mention of her.

    Lastly, lest we not forget from the Ten Commandments, “for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God”. The story of all megalomaniacs, which brings us back to the topic of this thread. You've already proven your piety.
    Look at the genre of the text. It's a symbolic narrative. What makes you think it is correct to read it through strictly scientific lenses?

    'A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.[2][3][4] While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths.[5][6] In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense.[7][8].'

    The view with which you approach the subject in general, that science is the only reliable source of knowledge, is itself not a scientific view or claim (it isn't and cannot be proven true or false through science and be thereby held as knowledge). It is a valueless self-refuting view, much like your other view of there being no absolute truth (and that claiming and validly demonstrating otherwise is just 'being absolutist', whatever you mean by that. If pointing that out and putting those erroneous views back in the dustbin of history is absolutism, then absolutism has a good and necessary facet).

    I'm genuinely curious about what makes someone hold on to their demonstrably erroneous conceptions, for decades, no less
     
    Last edited:
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    My sincere apologies for failing to supply you with a gratifying answer, though your insistence on it is intriguing. With religious belief, truth can only be relative even if the theist thinks his religion is the absolute truth. Indeed, followers of the same religion can subscribe to their own version of ‘truth’. Notwithstanding, what is absolutely true is that all deities are manmade. That’s just a fact. If you think it contradictory, then you don’t know the difference between scientific and theological matters.
    You didn't fail to give a gratifying answer. You failed to give an answer at all.

    Keep deflecting.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    How about you support the opposite case that you both are not idiot and/or wicked,
    You too, Thanks for making my case even clearer with a double argument. @JB81 couldn’t have expressed it better.
    anyone who disagrees with them becomes target of personal attacks. They become obsessed with the messenger instead of the message.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    After this painful rejection... Any chance Trump would want to bring democracy to Greenland and liberate its people from tyranny?
    Or maybe it's too white?


    Greenland is a semi-autonomous Danish territory, and when told of the news about Trump, Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, called the idea "absurd". "Thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over,” she added. “Let's leave it there.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    You too, Thanks for making my case even clearer with a double argument. @JB81 couldn’t have expressed it better.
    Only for you to taste your own medecine. Hopefully next time you don't call people bigots, sectarians, insecure, ignorants...
    We just learning from your tactics m3allem
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    After this painful rejection... Any chance Trump would want to bring democracy to Greenland and liberate its people from tyranny?
    Or maybe it's too white?


    Greenland is a semi-autonomous Danish territory, and when told of the news about Trump, Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, called the idea "absurd". "Thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over,” she added. “Let's leave it there.
    Like selling Europe to Brown Muslims?
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member

    'Prophetic' Ted Cruz predicted Trump nuking Denmark in 2016 campaign video

    'Prophetic' Ted Cruz predicted Trump nuking Denmark in 2016 campaign video

    FILE PHOTO © Reuters / Stringer

    No one could have predicted in 2016 that US President Donald Trump would be throwing a geopolitical hissy fit over Denmark’s refusal to consider his offer to buy Greenland. No one, that is, except… Republican ex-rival Ted Cruz?
    I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the [nuclear] button. We’re liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were president, would’ve nuked Denmark,” Cruz told a crowd during a New Hampshire campaign event in February 2016.



    With Trump cancelling a visit to Denmark in a fit of pique after PM Mette Fredriksen refused to discuss his offer to purchase Greenland, a C-SPAN producer with a shockingly good memory dug the Cruz clip out of the archives and posted it on Twitter, where it enjoyed a popularity Cruz never did when he was running for president.

    Ted Cruz really is a prophet,” one user marveled. “It’s easy to forget, but I do occasionally agree with Cruz,” another admitted. Others elaborated on the nuclear futures of Trump’s tantrum: “If I can’t have it, no one can!

    French satirical outlet Le Gorafi posted its own tribute, which translates to Donald Trump accuses Denmark of possessing weapons of mass destruction.”

    He forgot to say, ‘and I will have helped him,’” one user snarked, referring to Cruz’s transformation into a stalwart Trump supporter post-election, despite the president having nicknamed him “Lyin’ Ted” on the campaign trail and insulting both his wife and his father.
    Most Danish politicians called the idea of the US purchasing Greenland “absurd” and likened it to an “April fool’s joke,” but some went a step further. Greenland’s own PM Kim Kielsen suggested that since the Vikings had found America before Columbus, “it is only natural for us to get the United States back,” but it might not be the wisest investment given Washington’s massive debt problems.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    You didn't fail to give a gratifying answer. You failed to give an answer at all.

    Keep deflecting.
    Not possible to get the better part of you in a debate. Your adversaries are routinely denounced for deflection, straw man, shifting topic, twisting facts, evading etc. Consequently, they are summarily guillotined. Debate Indie at your own peril.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Not possible to get the better part of you in a debate. Your adversaries are routinely denounced for deflection, straw man, shifting topic, twisting facts, evading etc. Consequently, they are summarily guillotined. Debate Indie at your own peril.
    Or you could simply answer a simple "yes or no" question with a yes or a no.
     
    Top