I cannot recall any Biblical verse which required women to be silent in Christian churches. That was tradition, not a requirement of the religion itself.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35, it is quite clear.
The Old Testament is the book of the Jews, whereas the New Testament is the book of the Christians.
Last I checked, it was still being used by Christians from all denominations. So whether it was intended for the Jews, or the Christians, it is, was and I warrant will always be used by Christians. So, since Christians are likely to learn from the Old Testament, and they do, it seems right for people like myself to criticise it.
The New Testament does not call for the stoning of homosexuals nor of harlots. Most of the problems caused by Christians have their origin in a misinterpretation of the importance of the Old Testament on modern day, New Testament life.
Matthew 15:4, Jesus makes it quite clear that he has no qualms in upholding some of the more unsavoury Old Testament rulings. And are you not to follow in his footstep?
And so, is it not all for a 'guise of greater credence'?
To an extent that makes life either very, very hard or impossible. I'd say yes, confidently.
Whats your point? The fact of the matter is those products are sourced from cattle. A dietary vegan might only boycott animal products in their diet, but what kind of cop-out is that? The point of issue is in killing animals for the benefit of man, is it not? In which case ethical vegans are the only real vegans, other are just vegetarian. But, as the picture shows, being an ethical vegan would be very, very difficult.
If an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, what does an entire extended family for an eye do?
A Christian shall not look at what gives his claims a greater guise of credence, for in his mind he is already right; rather, he shall look for what he perceives as being truth...
Last I understood we had stopped stoning the gays, and the 'harlots', we'd stopped having women silenced in churches and whatnot. If that was not for a 'guise of greater credence', then what was it? An error in God's word, or those, being imbued with the holy spirit, who took note on what the word of God was, or is?
Or maybe, as I suggested; it's all political.
Do you believe in the Abrahamic God, if so, why? You seem to show enough contempt for the idea; which you only know through word of mouth and the Bible.
A totally free market is dangerous. In my opinion, mixed markets are the best option.
Your view on militarism is refreshing. Its good to see other people who look to innovation and whatnot as being a primary concern for humanity. I've got similar views regarding the ethics of it, too.
Then you do not follow the word of God, and in so, are not actually Christian. In fact, if you've never persecuted a gay or a women who had sex prior to marriage, well then thats just not Christian. Surely you don't fear the punishments of a world so temporary? You'd have the glory of eternal life to look forward to for doing God's bidding.
My understanding is that if Free Will is a successful rebuttal then God is malevolent.
For reasons that should be totally obvious, and which I would assume have been thoroughly fleshed out by others involved.
Why is that? Surely it could only be beneficial to the religious, specifically those who share the faith, or roots of said faith, with some party here, on Earth. Of course, other religious parties would be massively discredited (unless the new race's religion is without a deity) in such an event, although anything Abrahamic would benefit from having any other Abrahamic religion discovered elsewhere, just to a lesser extent.
Yes, I would re-evaluate my position. But only after I had looked into their belief system. It is reasonable to assume that, since we were capable of conceiving religion, deities and whatnot here on Earth (I'd argue as a political tool), then it is perfectly conceivable to imagine that an alien race could do the same, without any outside influence.
