Nah i want the literalist to lose. Not that i accept the term. All are literalists to some extent. And since verses are interpretable literalism verys depending interpretation.

Btw i also say the bible says not to kill for blasphemy, remember i said it holds both messages? Or is it you just want to portray me in a certain light?

That was not the issue i brought up. I brought up the issue you have to edit the bibles God to make him not like (at least sometimes) the type of violence displayed.

Editing is your word and your framing of the issue. Yes, anyone can literally interpret just about anything written literally. Glad we are on the same page that punishing blasphemy is immoral and outdated.

Editing is my word and its what you did. It says God says one thing and you say thats not God. You changed it.


Now a Christian can get around this by saying Jesus fulfilled the law. Not that i agree with that interpretation but...ok. So no need to kill them now. But i think most would say the passage i quoted is form God just its no longer necessary. Which is why i asked if you are a believer. Cause it doesn't seem so but you do have a True religion for them which is odd.

actually, Christians don't have to get around it by saying Jesus fulfilled the law. Christians can feel perfectly free to note that the Torah was written neither by God nor by moses hundreds of years after the purported events and that their religion does not depend on reading the Bible both inerrantly and as a literal history. That is not editing, it's interpretation and criticism.

Yeah didn't mean to say it was the only way just most common in my experience.

And all right maybe its not editing form your perspective (or his). But from mine there is no True bible and its changing a pretty straight forward verse.

Neither Christians nor I require editing to reach a conclusion regarding blasphemy.

Editing would be a mistaken path to go as it would omit the information that has been learned from to reach better conclusions about moral virtue.

You dont speak foe all Christians. Many would say God did say that.

An appeal to popularity doesn't change the quality of my response or a Christians response to literalism. Besides, Many Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and believe in universal human rights. It's odd we both agree that punishing blasphemy is immoral and outdated, but you seem to still be arguing in favor of it. Such a contradictation also exists in many literalists and that's is huge clue to the weakness and out-dated ness of their interpretation.

Your response hasn't been very informative. So i dont know about its quality.

Ive again never argued in favor of it. Ive argued that the bible has many messages from God and one of them is punishing blasphemy. That there are counter messages doesn't change that or mean im in favor of it.

But dont seem to want an honest conversation and want to twist my posts so ill treat you the same here as in PU. Gl with your quest.

Batair I said you seem to be arguing in favor of it, not that you were.

Have you considered that the notion that religious people need to edit old books to advance thinking is not a solid premise?

We can get from an old idea of punishing blasphemy with death to a new idea of not punishing blasphemy at all with good will and open information ; while still having the liberty of personal belief to share mutually.

You said it twice. First im their sock-puppet. I explain my view that both are in there. Then after that again i seem to be supporting blasphemy laws.

I dont have time or the desire to get out of the boxs you incorrectly put me in.


ok

Hey I was boxing your argument as like a literalist. As I recall I had an impression from PU are not religious?- and since some of your arguments resembled a lampoon of literalism, that is why I characterized them as such. I then assumed that was your intent. To hear arguments against literalism and cherry-picking that do not require literalism or cherry-picking to support. Which I provided. I apologize if you thought I was trying to make personal accusations.

Alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N46mIHEGHN0

this guy speaks brilliantly as others have said pretty much the only flaw you can find with this guy is he does not make even more videos.

just makes the point brilliantly.

I have watched two of his videos and I found more than that one flaw.

nonsense he makes very good points often hes one of my favorite youtube bloggers finally someone not afraid to say it like it is. if he ever runs for a political position i will vote for him.

many people argue for free speech etc but It is Islam which over the past few years has led me to question more then ever if free speech is a good idea or not.

people may wonder what I mean by that but to make it clearer I will just say I am definitely not a Muslim.

People who say we should not offend others offend me.

So, that should be the end of that.

An intelligent poster like you claims this, but to what end? What about Holocaust denial, does this type of conversation offend you?

Its not though, Catholics such as myself, Pope Francis, and more, do not agree with the violence, but we also do not agree with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Asked by a French reporter to compare freedom of religion and freedom of expression as human rights, Pope Francis linked his answer to the Jan. 7 attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, apparently in retaliation for the newspaper’s publication of cartoons mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

“Let’s go to Paris, let’s speak clearly,” the pope said. “One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God.”

The pope said freedom of expression was a “fundamental human right” like freedom of religion, but one that must be exercised “without giving offense.”

Offering a hypothetical example that referred to the Vatican’s planner of papal trips, who was standing beside him as he spoke, the pope said: “It’s true, one cannot react violently, but if Dr. (Alberto) Gasbarri, a great friend, says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch. But it’s normal, it’s normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”

The pope said those who “make fun or toy with other people’s religions, these people provoke, and there can happen what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he said something against my mother. That is, there is a limit. Every religion has its dignity

https://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2015/0...of-expression/

Also, Catholic League President Bill Donohue was on CNN yesterday suggesting that hes proud not to be Charlie Hebdo. I'm in agreement with this view, I'm proud not to be Charlie Hebdo, I'm proud not to represent hatred of others.

The pope is wrong.

Fake liberals. All these fake ass liberals out there talking all that yang about "not wanting to offend anyone", then all of a sudden a few brothas get shot and now everyone wants to march and hold candle-light vigils and support blasphemous cartoonists.

Yeah, we REALLY dislike holocaust deniers and the Westboro Baptist church, but we don't go out and murder them. Something's gotta give.

The liberals are usually right on most things, they are totally wrong on this one.

1. It is a little wrong to mock someone else's religion.

2. It is a huge inexcusable wrong to murder them for it.

3. It is a very large wrong to in any way try to excuse the murders as being anything but a heinous crime.

The first applies to the comics at Charlie Hebdo. The second applies to the murderers who attacked their offices. The third applies to anyone who rallies in support of the killers or says something along the lines of "I do not support the murders but" followed by some comment about drones or insults or virtually anything. Unfortunately it appears that comment three seems to apply to most Muslims getting any time in the press. Until the population of Muslims in class 3 above drops to a fraction as small as the most extreme Islamists, the religion is suspect in my mind.

What's wrong to criticize or do something against a religion, when that religion makes the rules about what is critical?

Nothing wrong with criticizing. I said "mocking". I think it is a small wrong to mock people. It's hurtful and often counterproductive. The reaction tends to be emotion rather than thought.

But again, I said "a little wrong". Is that the point you want to argue over? There are two points that are far more significant in my post that might be worth commenting on first, rather than nitpicking whether mocking attacks are fully justified or can be considered slightly questionable.

people dont realize the danger we face they will take over the world and they consider any game that could be gambled on a sin. note what i said carefully its not just games where money is staked that are a sin its games where money could be staked they debate if chess is a sin. not only can we kiss good bye to poker when they take over anyone who played it who they found will be stoned to death or something similar.

forget sports monopoly chess risk any board game etc.

You start your post by pointing out those people are false liberals, but end it as if they encompass all liberals.