Good perhaps he can explain his non-functional website upon which reading a thread is not possible and for which no new features have been showcased and for which one must be 'approved' to have equal opportunity
That facial hair is far too scripted for your face to be trustworthy.
But they're jewish
-
Religion and/or ethnicity does not describe the evil you aim to eradicate
But their religion teaches evil
-
And yet their association with an organized set of traditions does not in and of itself indicate that they subscribe to any such evil any more than one's enjoyment of a disney movie indicates an association with epstein island
But their ethnic bloodline predisposes them to a set of objectively demonstrable predilections due to heritable traits
-
And yet your generalized superimposition of individual characteristics and tendencies to exhibit them at the extremes onto a population at large prior to observable demonstration of said characteristics belies your stated intention to adhere to scientific reasoning
But the individuals I point at now show said characteristics
-
and yet the fact that they do so is independent of any ethnic (or religious) association, as exhibited by the behavior seen outside of said group
But the individuals openly state association with said nationality and alliance with zion nation
-
and yet the propagandized delusion you work against is not limited to groups you favor, nor is the propensity for useful idiocy, capacity for deindividuation or stockholm, susceptibility to tribalism
The solution is always individualism, innocent before proven guilty, to each his own, live and let live, empathy and grace, humility and compassion - and giving the devil and his imps their due while understanding the plight, rather than blaming, his victims.
Correct, you have not bought the lie that this is all we could be. Jefferson was a young man.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
– Mark Twain
Mostly false, you prey with the twisted notion of inescapable damnation that is so often wielded by the worst of those who claim to be church
More can be learned by abstracting, and then applying as potential truism, than by viewing as an inevitable prophecy
Implies war is spiritual, any more than all human experience is spiritual, implies that manual can be read properly, in second/third/fourth language, post translation - while assuming that said text can reasonably be viewed as 'the' manual, much less 'a' manual. If so, then show
To what extent is it mixed up? One would not know without effort.
Your statement implies that the minority of humans, the minority of bible readers, the minority of christians, the minority of english speaking christians - believe you will 'suffer in hell for eternity' in the way that you imagine, and yet they do not, by any stretch.
The point - and hear me here - is that there is something to be gained by reading that would not otherwise be gained - nothing more.
Try a controversial passage, look it up on the website that shows a comparison of many different versions of the bible, many different translation. Look up a discussion on what the greek or aramaic words were that it came from. See what you find?
The bible is comprehensible, the original languages only with study. The ability to find honest individuals who have learned the original languages, and how much to trust them - or to learn the languages yourself - is up to you.
The dig toward scripture not included, the possibility of adjacent archaeological study and findings that might illuminate, all debatable.
And in that way you grow to understand the bible, religion, your world, and yourself. This is a success.
I would caution you from resenting and judging others who are on a path toward self-enlightenment and concrete understandings, but somehow become stuck.
The fact that you can identify their obstacle is no excuse to use it as a weapon toward them, or their ilk. It can instead be viewed as an invitation to heal and to save.
While the gist is gisty, I see you've cherry picked a potential way that a 'christian' or person who follows 'islam' the way that you describe ^might respond if you question what they ^might believe. This should not be superimposed on all who have gained from reading one or the other scripture, or both, or any other.
If someone were to aim an argument at me that involved an assumption that I were evil - solely due to my challenge of their interpretation of the scripture - I would defend myself from it.
And yet, I rarely see that. What I instead see, is that people within any group tend to defend the structure to which they identify instinctually, which by definition predisposes them to a preconceived aversion to one who challenges that structure. It matters not whether some rulebook that is said to define their structure explicitly states it. The book does not define their internal structure - no matter what they think. It is their own - and no one elses.
You are presuming the conclusion one is supposed to reach from reading - it is you that is leading the witness. You are saying that a person who reads scripture will be 'led astray' or perhaps you are saying that engaging in religion results in being 'led astray' and this shows what you believe about the ability of others to think for themselves.
It is my contention that reading is just as likely to result in understanding history, and how many different attempts there have been to control people through churches, while also showing examples of how challenges to bad church have resulted in enlightenment, spirituality, and grace.
I would also argue that engaging with church is likely in many parts of the world to result in a feeling of inclusion and provide an opportunity for knowing like minded people who can help to feed each other, and those in their community who cannot, in difficult times.
I would also caution that in many places, even where most have not read the scriptures on which that religion is based - perhaps especially in those places - there will be many who seem so rudimentally oriented that one of any real self-awareness might find themselves mired in tedious attempts to share what seem to be impossibly basic lessons to the inexplicably mis- or non- understanding.
These are the abstractions I find to be helpful. It is the behaviors that lead to success and the behaviors that lead to destruction that are learned through generations - and need to be recorded, as history, or as story, so that future generations might be saved from the suffering that some of our ancestors must have experienced.
Did you study which translations include these bits? What the original languages stated? I don't doubt that any aspiring politician finding a religion useful for subjugation would accentuate any angle that would seem to curse those who would oppose - if not invent it outright. I do not doubt that small minded followers who are afraid of the weakness of their own position would lean on such portions to rationalize their bigotry or directed hatred/violence. But I do not allow the small minded to dictate the course of history. That they use some portion of a document to do such things, has no bearing on the document.
You may read the bible and say, all people will take this portion literally, and use it as I have seen others use it, and come to the conclusion I have seen an idiot come to, and therefore decide that no one should read it - I would denounce that viewpoint.
I would venerate those who aim to determine what portions of said document are indefensible, and ensure that those portions are not what define the course of history.
It is black and white, closed minded thinking to assume that a person would take the entire english translation, just one translation, and view it literally as an instruction book, and live their lives the way that one person has interpreted it, much less in the way that one dumb person has interpreted it.
The book contains 'lies' perhaps, I don't disagree. Certainly passages that ^seem to contradict. And certainly there are individuals who have used one passage, or the other, while ignoring its opposite, as part of an incoherent rationalization system - only to attempt to impress that system upon those they find impressionable.
And yet, there are those who are respectable who have read the very same words?
Where any words are false, they should be called false.
'A book of lies'
'A book of history'
'A book of books'
'A book'
You're aiming at the book, when it is not the book that takes action against others. It is people who interpret the book.
The book is no more dangerous than the gun.
Books don't subjugate people. People subjugate people.
Where a person hides evil behind religion, call out that person. And call out that excuse. Thinking people will never believe that the religion itself is to blame.
Where a religion is codified into a binding legal document in such a way as to allow the courts, and their enforcement mechanisms, to assume authority to impose unethical judgment, I am also opposed.
To each his own. Reason and truth will win out in time. How soon depends on how honest the efforts, and where the focus.