Yes, it is such a tired old story. Genocide: Waa waa waa. (Sarcasm, just in case that's not ridiculously obvious)
Tell me how, when, and where the holocaust has been exaggerated.
Hey, by the way, when you make a statement like, "The Jews are..." it's a generalization. I'm sure that some Jews see themselves as better than others because of being "the chosen people" but I have never met one with that type of attitude. Keep in mind, too, that not all Jews are fundamentalists, and that even those who are do not necessarily see the "chosen people" concept the same way you're implying.
Yes, it is such a tired old story. Genocide: Waa waa waa.
Tell me how, when, and where the holocaust has been exaggerated.
Hey, by the way, when you make a statement like, "The Jews are..." it's a generalization. I'm sure that some Jews see themselves as better than others because of being "the chosen people" but I have never met one with that type of attitude. Keep in mind, too, that not all Jews are fundamentalists, and that even those who are do not necessarily see the "chosen people" concept the same way you're inferring.
I may be making a mistake here, but I'm confused. If you aren't concerned that the muslims in America are radical extremists, why are you worried that they're going to "take over"? What is the harm in peaceful, constitution-accepting muslims becoming a bigger group in the US?
I have friends who I consider pretty great who are atheists, so I'm with you here. And I'd be kind of ticked if they all had to move. I only know like ONE guy who is an atheist who I'd be okay with moving to Australia or somewhere, but that's because he's a jerk, not because he's an atheist. x]
...Well, I doubt that you actually support this, Joe, because it's obviously a horrible idea, so I'll argue the other points in the description. First of all, there have been plenty of wars waged by religious people. I seem to recall a hundred year long war taking place among pretty religious people. And what about the crusades? PEOPLE, not ATHEISTS, are capable of atrocities. Atheism is not the problem. Tell me how many atheists have made wars, and I'm pretty sure I can show you at least an equal number of religious people who have done the same thing. Also, how are "atheists" using up resources making war weaponry? The US makes weapons, and it is a country probably made up of more Christians than anyone else(I haven't looked at any statistics lately, but it's clear that we are not anything close to a nation solely of atheists).
Of course, this is Joe I'm talking to, so it's definitely a possibility that you're being sarcastic/mocking someone elses arguments about religious people/trying to piss people off. x]
Is there some similar debate that I haven't seen regarding religious people? 'Cause this kind of sounds like a response to attacks on religious people, but I could be wrong.
I know that there are terrorists in the Middle East, but I also know that not everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist. I'm saying that every human being deserves the right to a fair trial. Why is it okay to torture and detain a man from the Middle East without a trial? He's a human being with the same rights as an American. Not the same legal rights, but the same natural rights.
It sounds like you're saying that because some people in the Middle East torture Americans, Americans should be allowed to torture ANYONE in the Middle East, even someone not proven to have had any part of torturing us. I'm talking about terrorism SUSPECTS, not CONVICTS. As I said before, I'm not sure I'm okay with torturing anyone at all, but I know that it's not okay to torture those who may be innocent.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/
This man was tortured and isolated without a trial or even a charge. That's not okay.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense, does it? haha. At first I was going to say that the Bible never actually says Jesus had long hair, but I heard just now that some historical documents may say that. If that's the case, then that does seem to be a contradiction. But you should probably verify that Jesus actually did have long hair, because I don't have a historical source, and the Bible never actually says his hair was long.
As far as I understand, this verse has to do with the culture of the New Testament times. And I think I've read "nature" translated as "your natures", which I suppose would mean that the culture of that time would support this whole hair rule.
See, from what I can gather(Although I have read this passage a while back, I looked it up on Biblegateway so I could know what I was talking about), this passage is establishing a role of woman as being somewhat under man, which of course I cannot agree with. It doesn't make woman a totally useless entity, since it goes on to say that neither sex is independent of the other, and that man comes from woman now, just as woman came from man(in the creation story). But it does still seem like this and other passages in the Bible say that woman is to be submitted to man, although not to the extent that many people have taken it. I'm not saying I agree with the amount of misogyny in there of course, just that the NT does seem to acknowledge that women are people, even if they are considered people who are to be under the authority of men. Bottom line: This passage, as far as I can tell, is one of several that shows misogyny in the Bible, but it should be acknowledged that the NT is not AS misogynistic as it has been taken to be. Sorry, that was kind of a little feminist tangent. ;]
Let me ask a question: Should torturing American suspects of crimes be legal? Although I'm not sure I would support torturing anyone, it is atrocious to torture someone who may not have even done anything wrong. If someone did this to Americans, we'd all be going through the roof. Why is it different because it's people in the Middle East?
