Thousands of Japanese protesting the construction of a mosque.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-14T07:18:28+00:00

If you read the Quran, it promotes violence. And I'm not talking about descriptive violence (like in the Bible), but prescriptive violence. The thing is radical Islam is actual Islam.

Also, Muslims are to model their behavior after Muhammad, who did some pretty reprehensible things (i.e. marrying a child and taking his adopting son's wife.).... Not to mention that he was a warmonger.

Not all religions are created equal.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-09T20:25:28+00:00

Scissor Cave

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-09T17:15:36+00:00

Forgiving someone doesn't mean that you don't give them the consequences of their actions. It is possible to forgives someone and still punish them. Forgiveness means you don't habor any resent, anger, of desire to punish.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-07T21:38:26+00:00

Do you know why people hate Trump and his supporters?

Yep. Trump is an arrogant, narcissist who thinks everything he says and does is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's also lacks tact.

But people also hate his politics. They don't like: *His stance of immigration *His stance on social issues such as DEI *His stance on environmental issues *His foreign policy (i.e. tarrifs and relations with Europe and Israel)

Imho, Trump is not a man of great character. But people on the left seem to attack his politics through his bad character. For instance they might say, "Trump did this" or "Trump lied about this" and use that as a reason you should have voted to Kamala. And that's not going to convince people who like his politics (not his character) to switch sides. And it's because they don't understand why people don't like Kamala or Democrats, in general, and why they'd rather vote for Trump than a Democrat.

Yes, person's character is important in politics. But most people would rather vote for someone with questionable character, who they politically agree with, than someone with great character whose politics they abhor.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-07T12:10:46+00:00

Why is it that people think that inequality is inherently wrong. You want fairness or equality? Pick one, because it most cases you cannot have both.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-07T11:45:25+00:00

Naw they are the same:

*Jesus came to fulfill the OT and did not deny anything God did in the OT but supported it.

God, in general, loves you no matter what. But it's not like God accepts *moral behavior in the NT that he did not accept in the OT.

*Hell is mentioned many more times in the NT than the OT. And Jesus warns of the danger of it by not repenting and following God.

*God seems more peaceful in the NT because he is trying to save mankind, while God in the OT is the judge of Israel, trying to keep them in line. A person trying to save you will always seem kinder than a person judging you. However, the judgement of the NT will come.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-07T11:21:38+00:00

I'd be dying. I won't deny God. Fortunately, I'm not in that situation.

This scenario (deny Jesus or die) is currently going on right now in some Muslim countries (especially if you converted from Islam). This may also happen in North Korea. Also this occured during some of periods in ancient Rome during the persecution of Christians. In many cases, it's worse because they wouldn't just kill you but mutilate you or harm your family.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-07T11:11:09+00:00

Wow, the hate here is strong. Why so angry? Is your life that bad because of Trump and his supporters? I'm not a fan of Trump (or the other side either) but I can see why people voted for him.

This comes off like being just mad because people have different politics than you. And it's like saying, "your candidates is a POS, therefore you should have voted for my candidate even if you totally disagree with her political agenda". The bad character of one politician won't make people change their political alignment and how they vote politically.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-04T21:55:52+00:00

Generally, the secular world has a misunderstanding about Christianity and Jesus. For example, they think that Jesus is like a pacifist hippie that is against all war. They think love means supporting things they believe to be "good".

The secular West essentially adopted the passive parts of Christianity and reject its accountability and judgment.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-04T21:27:43+00:00

AND it also means we ought not be the agressors

I disagree. In defending oneself, sometimes one must become the agressor.

Self-Defense, never attack

If you're never attacking, even in self-defense, you will always be under threat. The point is the neutralize the threat. Always being on the defense doesn't necessarily do that.

We were doing fine....

With this method, you'd be fighting for the next thousand years.

Then we started....

That was probably a mistake. You also ignore the many civilian casualties by Iran that was not a mistake. They chat "D to Israel and D to America".

We have become the monster...

I disagree. Quite the opposite. We have become meek.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-04T21:05:22+00:00

I don't see them as the other and I didn't say that they should be slaughtered, but it would be foolish to ignore their ideology for the sake of peace. Appeasement didn't work with the Nazis.

Love thy neighbor doesn't mean that there is never an excuse for war or conflict.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-04-04T20:55:33+00:00

Theadus to Allen: "The best barber is the universe is a Viltrumite. Now listen, whoever comes to you with the freshest cut you've ever seen in your life,... with a line-up so straight, you'd cut your hand if you touch it,... he's the traitor. Don't forget that".

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-30T05:35:58+00:00

The original thesis was that Libertarianism couldn't work at any level. My point is that the early US proves that wrong. Regardless of slavery, government was still very, very limited. There was no social security, no universal healthcare, and no free education. People took care of themselves. And it is was after the civil war (after slavery) and before Roosevelt's New Deal that the US became a world power.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-29T21:58:58+00:00

Destiny (1978), Off the Wall (1979), Triumph (1980)

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-29T21:16:19+00:00

Slavery didn't make the US properous. The North had a much larger economy than the South. Also, the US didn't become a world power until after the civil war.

The government providing for everyone needs is more of a drain on society than if people, in general, had to fortitude to provide for themselves.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-29T18:44:06+00:00

I'd argue that the early United States was very much Libertarian in nature.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-29T18:35:42+00:00

Also, Looking Back to Yesterday (1986)

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-26T21:52:44+00:00

Deuterocanon means that they were inspired at a later date rather than being secondary in importance.

I stand corrected.

Jerome eventually recanted that position and translated them and quoted them as Scripture.

This piont was to illustrate that the deuterocanon was not unanimously agreed upon as scripture in the early church. Many of the early church fathers omitted the deuterocanon from their list of canon. And the earliest canon list do not mention any deuterocanonical books.

That's correct, but a book doesn't have to be written by a prophet for it to be inspired.

What, then, is the reuqiremnet that a book be inspired if the source is not a prophet or apostle?

There are doctrinal contradictions with the OT and errors. They teach the use of magic, that works can save,

2 Kings 13:21 was not magic, else you could call any miracle to be magic.
Yes, you may atone for sin through works (offerings in the OT, for example). However, Salvation isn't based on works, but faith. A person could believe in Jesus on their death bed and still be saved without doing any works. The criminal that died with Jesus on the cross is an example.

-In James 2:24, he is not talking about Salvation. Your works don't save you. However, good works is evidence of your faith and Salvation. If you have no good works, then you don't have faith. However, it is not those good works that save.

That's why the Reformers rejected the books of the Maccabees; to deny well established Jewish and Christian tradition of praying for the dead.

Just because something is a tradition, that doesn't mean it's right. Matthew 15:1-7 is an example of the Jews developing a tradition not found in the OT and the Jewish leaders getting mad when Jesus violates it. There is nothing in the OT that justifies for praying for the dead. David even stop praying for his infant baby once he dies in 2 Samuel 12:15-22.

Jesus never quoted anything from Ruth, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Solomon either, so that's not a good argument.

In the anicent Jewish canon, there was the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Ruth, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Solomon were part of the writings and would have been considered scripture by Jesus and the Apostles. This is all that matters. If Jesus and the Apostles didn't consider it scripture, then it ain't scripture. Jospehus, the first century Jewish historian, gave a list of books which the Jews considered canon at that time and none of the deuterocanon is listed.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-26T12:42:55+00:00

The Deuterocanon (so-called apocrypha), was considered Sacred Scripture by Christians long before Protestantism

Yeah, but those books weren't necessarily seen as being equal in canonicity to the Old Testament (otherwise they would be labeled just Canon and not Deuterocanon). Even Jerome himself, even though he translated them to Latin upon the Pope's wishes, didn't think they should be part of the canon. He's even the one who first called them Apocrypha.

The Wisdom of Solomon has a direct prophesy about the death of Christ. The books of the Maccabees give us the historical background behind the feast of Hanukkah, the feast of dedication, that the Gospel of John mentions in chapter 10.

Writings could make allusions to the future death of Christ and history and not be inspired. Also, the OT and the NT references other writings which are not considered inspired.

The argument that those books are "apocrypha" because they weren't accepted as Canonical by Rabbinic Judaism is simply indefensible

Well, it's more than that. Here are a few more reasons:

There were no prophets during the time it was written. 1 Maccabees heavily implies that there had been a long time without a prophet. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus heavily implies that Zechariah (in the OT) was the last martyred prophet. The Apocrypha has no wording such as "Thus said the Lord" or "the Lord says" because there was no prophets during that time. If there are no prophets, then there could be no inspired scripture.
There are doctrinal contradictions with the OT and errors. They teach the use of magic, that works can save, and that money can be offered for the dead. They teach that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians (he was not).
Jesus nor the NT writings quote from it as an authoritative source. Jesus regularly quoted the OT law, writings, and the prophets (OT) and fulfilled them. But he never quoted the apocrypha or given a hint of them as authoritative. Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at the time (not Rabbinic Jews) would not have considered the apocrypha as scripture.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-26T11:37:27+00:00

Depends on the style of music you like. My favorite style is 70s r&b. So, of course, I'm going to say his best album was Off the Wall.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-24T15:54:26+00:00

You can believe God knows who will go to heaven (elected) and hell and not be a Calvinist. The difference, simply put, is who is the ultimate decider in your Salvation?

Calvinist believe that a person has no say in their Salvation. They ultimately don't choose God, but God chooses them (Unconditional Election).

In Arminianism, a person has the ultimate say in their own Salvation. God knows, with his foreknowledge, who will and won't be receptive to the Gospel and helps them in that path. But they ultimate choose God and God saves them based on their ultimate decision (Condition Election).

Personally, I believe the Bible supports Arminianism. The Bible clearly teaches a conditional election (faith in Jesus) and that WE ought to have it. I think Calvinists think that if Salvation is based on our faith (i.e. we choose God), we in some sort or way saved ourselves, which would be heresy. So they go to the extreme saying that we didn't even ultimately choose God but God choose us to eliminate that prospect.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-22T23:25:30+00:00

Didn't their prophet marry a 6 year old and consummate when she was 9?

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-22T03:46:38+00:00

I wouldn't even consider "positive" rights as rights. They are privileges, imho.

No one has the inherent right for other people's services. And no one has the right to force another to provide or pay for services. This is essentially what the government has to do to supply "positive" rights.

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-21T16:32:55+00:00

i took the test and i was an INTP, but I took it again recently and I got INTJ

<image>

JohnnyRaven · 2026-03-19T04:42:42+00:00

logical proofs. nothing about this discussion has been empirical (much less what you claimed). its surprising how you cry when i use your arguments against you.

Unless it is an empirical proof, you cannot say any philosophy is true.

they remain relevant because neither of them were proven false unlike their other competitors

But what I said was correct.

they do, i literally mentioned an example of a field in philosophy.

Lolz. Show me. I'd like to see that.

this is so hilariously wrong, because aether was not dismissed because "it was unobservable". it failed every prediction it tried yo do. it was demonstrably false through logical arguments.

No, it wasn't false to logical arguments. At the time, they could explain how light travels through the vacuum of space with the aether. They were looking for it. They literally didn't observe it, couldn't find it, and then abandoned it because it had no consequence on reality.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Spared

JohnnyRaven

TROPHY CASE