kryptonianCodeMonkey

It's actually exactly this quote that they claim supports the argument that the coming of Jesus overrides the old laws. Not that they are eliminated, but that they are "fulfilled" by/through him. This is often interpreted to mean that where he specifies, they are changed or replaced through him. Such as declaring all foods clean, change from the vengeful "eye for an eye" to the pacifist "turn the other cheek", expanded adultery to include lustful thoughts, etc.

I'm not arguing in favor of this interpretation because it's all fiction anyway. But that is the common Canon.

The love one another stuff is specifically and basically exclusively a feature of the New Testament, as are all of the passages listed here. Old Testament God was much more pro religion-based genocide and enslavement. But most Christians will tell you that the New Testament/Jesus revised the old biblical laws and messages. So any "good" Christian should be leaning on it for moral guidance, instead of the books that promote vengeance, slavery, incest, rape, murder, maiming/mutilation, etc.

Well that's what I was saying, IDK how much a nuisance it actually is going to be in practice here. If it is a relatively brief record of chanting at a reasonable volume in daytime hours, that's fine. Not functionally different than a busker with an amp playing music on the street in term of noise pollution. If it is uncomfortably loud for nearby residents, fully audible from a mile away or going off in the middle of the night, then that goes beyond expression and into disturbing the peace. I know the chants are loud and disruptive (by design) in many Muslim countries. I'm not sure if they are trying to do the exact same here or if they are taking it a bit easier in this case.

I'm not defending either religion. I said elsewhere in the thread that I think the Bible and the Quran are full of barbarism and unfit to be a moral guide for anyone. I just love to point out the hypocrisy of American Christians that deem other faiths 'weird' and 'menacing' without acknowledging their own similar flaws just because they have normalized and contextualized their religion and fail to do it for others.

I cant say that I really care about public expression, religious or otherwise, so long as it is not a nuisance (unless it is protest and that nuisance is the point). I dont know how loud the public prayer calls are or at what hours it runs, so I cant really say if it meets that level of nuisance or not. Religion isn't my jam, and I dont want it forced upon me in terms of policy and law. Theocracy is a fucking nightmare. As you said, church and state should be separate; they shouldnt even share borders. But everyone has as much right to express their religion in public as we do to critique it. That's fine by me, man.

The point wasn't to shit on Catholics. It was meant to demonstrate and mock how framing otherwise basically true facts in a certain way can turn what would otherwise be considered "normal" church history and religious activity into something more menacing. This is often used to vilify non-normalized religions, cultures, etc.

I only pretend it was before the new testatment wich by jesus word cancel the old one.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" -Jesus

He added to, iterated on, yes, even changed some laws, but he did not "cancel" the old testament.

Omg [...]

I think both books are full of barbarism (with particular emphasis on the old testament in the Bible's case, though not exclusively) and I don't respect either one as a guide for morality or way of life. You're rhe one specifically shitting on the Quran and then pretending half the Bible doesn't count. Jesus as a model was a pretty good dude and I wish more emulated him. That in no way makes the Bible, as a whole, a good basis for morality. Be like Jesus, book not necessary.

Funny discounting the old testament with antisemitism while Catholicism is absolutely full of doctrine with no basis in either testament at all. Limbo being a notable example, funnily enough, along with the authority and divinity of the Pope/Holy See, the immaculate birth of Mary, canonized saints, etc. But, sure, pretend like half of your holy book doesn't matter for Catholics, but hold every word of the Quran against every Muslim without an ounce of self-awareness.

Keep up the pedantry and ironic bigotry, dude. Keep on pretending that Catholocism/The Bible doesn't actively support religious murder, slavery, rape, incest, etc, same as the Islam/Quran. Fine by me.

Catholic as far as I know is the only religion where non believer aren't damned to hell.

So, I did exaggerate a bit sort of. Under Catholism, the virtuous non-beliver and unbaptised innocents go to Limbo, which is not exactly Hell. But Limbo is not a happy place either. It is like an offshoot of hell, minus the explicit pain and punishment of actual hell. It's residents are described as suffering by their separation from God.

Also Catholics are most definitely not the only religion that doesnt condemn non-believer to hell or the equivalent. There are plenty of religions without even a concept of hell or an analogous eternal punishment, so that's simply not the case.

The pope doesn't have influence over leader around the world.

Horseshit. He doesn't have control, but to pretend that he has no influence is at best ignorant and at worst dishonest.

I mean he ask for the end of war in Gaza or ukraine and look how it goes.

So because violent leaders don't follow his directives, that means his influence is null?

They never hold scientific progress

They have historically been patrons and stewards of the sciences. However there are moments in history where conflict between doctrine and scientific discovery have led to the church using its overwhelming power to suppress the science and condemn its discoverer(s). Galileo and his Heliocentric model is obviously the most notable of such cases.

Meanwhile Muslim [...】

See, you misunderstood the point. My point was about how easy it is to frame facts in a way that makes what would otherwise be seen as normal religious activities and history to us make a religion seem abnormal and menacing in comparison. This was a critique of that framing, not of the Catholic church. You then got super defensive and then doubled down on this framing against Muslims.

Catholicism is fine. Silly but fine. Islam is fine. Silly but fine. More or less all religions are silly but fine until fundamentalists, bigots, jihadists (Muslim or otherwise), theocrats, or or any other prick that uses religion to push their terrible fucking ideas onto others or to justify hurting others gets involved. Islamic states are a problem, no doubt. But frankly any religious theocracy is, and for the exact same reasons.

I hear that Muslims think that anyone that is not blessed in their religion, even infants, will go to hell. They have a single religious leader that has absolute control over their theocratic state and has influence over leaders from around the world (historically, even power over them). They have a history of holy wars, torture of those of other faith, and holding back any knowledge and scientific progress that challenges their doctrine. They adorn their holy places with devices of torture and execution. And they practice ritualistic cannibalism of a holy man regularly, even feeding it to their children.

Oh sorry... that's Catholics.

A person with a sense of shame might find this actually kind of insulting

It is an ideology for selfish amoral oppotunists