Raider5678

Context is quite obvious, as almost anyone on this forum would argue. If you take only a portion of what is said and drop the rest of the section in order to portray a subject in a different light, it's taking it out of context. You can add more context to mine, and it'll support what I said. You add more context to the Thinking Atheists contradictions, and it contradicts him. If you believe you should be allowed to take only snippets of the bible and say they're contradictory, that's a problem on your part. Not the bibles.

But he took it out of context, and then said it was a contradiction. That's not face value, that's deceit. And it's not me putting a spin on it, it's me literally just including the verses around it.

If you google "budda golden rule" guess what you get?

Correct, I didn't notice Moon said that.

Haha, fair enough.

As am I. Heres a portion of Matthew 15: 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” Essentially, God's word said you were supposed to help take care of your mother and father. But the Pharisees(The "bad guys" to be short) decided to add a line to that, which basically stated: "If you could give it to us the Pharisees instead, you're not to help your mother and father." The Pharisees were greedy and were going against God's word which cared less about people paying the priests money, and more about them using it for good. Now if you look at Matthew 10: 35-37 alone, it seems to contradict this. Yet, if you include 34 - 39, you get this: 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. As you can see, it wasn't that he was saying you are to turn against your mother and father. He was saying that you are to put God before your mother and father and that because people believe in God their families will forsake them. Even if their mother and father forsake them, they can still honor them. Hopefully, that explains it a little to you. If you take out the God bit, that's like taking the entire idea of religion. However, if you insist. Islam: Kill all infidels to inherit the world. Buddhists: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Greek mythology said there was multiple gods, Christianity said there is but one god. Islam says Allah is God with characteristics that are a stark contrast to what Buddhists say is a god. Just a few.....

Not really. Most of the religions contradict. So how can they all be correct?

Yet, it's still possible one religion is correct....

There is a rather simple solution to this alleged contradiction. On the third day of the Creation Week God made certain types of plants: “grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree” (Genesis 1:11). Each of these terms translates specific Hebrew terms for grass (deshe’), the seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and the fruit trees (ets pariy). Beginning with the fourth verse of Genesis 2, the writer zooms in on the events of the sixth day. God made Adam (v. 7), the Garden of Eden along with the plants therein (specifically mentioned are the fruit trees, vs. 8–9), and Eve (v. 22). What about the plants described in verse 5? Why weren’t those created on Day Three when God made the other plants? The context provides the answer. Verses 5 and 6 provide a description of what the world was like prior to the creation of man. Two specific types of plants are translated from specific Hebrew terms: “plant of the field” (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field” (eseb hassadeh). Hebrew scholar Mark Futato defines these terms as “wild shrubs of the steppe” and “cultivated grain” respectively. This verse is preparing the reader for what is going to happen next in the narrative. The herbs of the field were not around because Adam had not been created yet, so there was no one to till or cultivate the ground. The “wild shrubs of the steppe” are plants that often have thorns, and these thorns would not have been present until after the Curse. While announcing the Curse, God said to Adam, “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17–19, emphasis added). As a result of the Curse, Adam would no longer have it easy. Instead of eating the abundance of fruit from the trees in the garden, he would need to till the ground and grow crops for food.3 This would be hard work because the ground was now going to produce thorns and thistles.

I've realized the contradictions highlighted in there are literally all false. I have a basic understanding of the Bible, and can point out some of these are seriously idiotic. Take any of them you want from the list and I'll explain it to you.

Yes. 2 = 1 is false. If you take x from both sides, you get: 2 = 0 So it should be proving 2 = 0, not 2 = 1.

I honestly have no clue how I haven't seen all these before.

Exactly, this is not a discussion.

Because these are discussions:

I'll tell you this now, it's about as factual as this: commercial link removed by moderator Both books contain factual information, that I guarantee you were taken out of context. Think about it. The Author had inside information. Very clearly, the author is not exactly a Trump supporter. Do you really think that they'd supply every single piece of information? The book is written by a human. Therefore, without a shadow of a doubt, it's looking through a lens that they've created. That person could be one of the most honest people on the planet, and I'd still doubt it if someone told me it was absolutely factual and definitely not biased. That being said, I'd read it, absolutely. I'd be wary of the things said inside of it though. Edit: If you dig deep enough into anyone's past, you'll virtually always be "shocked".

Fear not! Very little discussion is actually taking place.

No. But can you prove that the "possible risk" happens often enough to outweigh any potential benefits? Since we're identifying possible risks, surely we can identify possible benefits. Teacher shoots an armed gunman. There's a possible benefit. Let's say the estimated death toll would be 20 kids if the teacher wouldn't have shot the person, and this happened just once a year. Then, to outweigh the benefit there would have to be around 20 kids killed by firearm incidents due to teachers being armed. Which, in my opinion, should be very easy to figure out if it's because of teachers being armed. So, let's look at the evidence since this is a science forum. As of now, there are 18 states that allow teachers to carry weapons if given permission by the school. California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachutes, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Hawaii, and Oregon. Nowhere are teachers forced to carry weapons, just for reference. So, what are the statistics from these states on the number of kids killed on accident/purpose due to teachers being allowed to be armed?

Yes, I probably am. But if it's not a prediction, then why does it matter? There are a lot of things that are possible risks.

Considering Texas allows teachers to be armed, and the current predictions are that armed teachers will be snapping left and right, shooting all the students, is there any evidence to back this up? As in, has it happened in Texas or any other place that allows teachers to be armed? Another prediction is that students will grab the guns and shoot other students, is there any evidence to say that's happened? As in has it happened before? How does Texas compare in school shootings to other states?

All I see is letters. I'm not that adept to translate, could you perhaps try again to post it?

I was thinking more along the lines of doing it with water in space.

Huh alright. Out of curiosity, would low pressure water require less electricity to use electrolysis? Does water pressure affect the efficiency of the process?

Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted. If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

I don't. No. That sounds like speculation, something that we can't ever prove. It's not. And, as far as I know, I haven't argued against gun control measures in this thread. Nor had I said teachers should be armed. Again, I didn't try to defend the rights of anyone as far as I know.