NationStates Jolt Archive

I am getting moderately fed up of the number of people on here who when anyone criticises Islam for something that is done in its name immidately then say "Christians are no better! Crusades" and then expect that their point is proven. Firstly, it is easily demonstrateable that the Crusades were far more about territory and political unity than faith, and secondly there is an obvious diffrence between when a faith is perverted to do evil things and when a faith encorages people to do evil things. The fact is that Islam, unlike Chrisitianity has these things enscribed into it. The Shraia and the Hadiths are often filled with exceptionally intollerant and evil things that it encourages people to do. One of these is being shown at the moment, the possible execution of Abdul Rahman for converting from being a Muslim to a Christian. That is part of Islamic Sharia law, which was in part decreed by Mohammad. The Bible doesnt have any active dogma which encorages this kind of behaviour (active dogma meaning not the Old Covenant). The Crusades were not an example of people taking the Bible and saying this enocrages us to go fight these people. It was a small group of powerful people deciding what was in their interest and then manipulating religion as a pretext. However in the case of the recent Islamist causes, they could be easily shown they are following their faith. I agree its far from conclusive, and its not the view taken buy the majoirty of Muslims. Many Muslims would not accept the Sharia law. But it seems that many would and those who do arnt perverting their faith by doing it. There is a distinct diffrence between following your faith in doing an evil action and perverting it to do one.

I am not sure of the factual accuracy of all your statements, but I definitely agree with the principle underlying it; the existence of a dichotomy between following and perverting a religion.

You give disclaimers to christian texts, saying "not actively followed', but some people do follow those texts and use them as justification for hateful acts. I don't dispute that these aren't your average christians, how come you have a hard time giving the same benifit to those that follow Islam?

You give disclaimers to christian texts, saying "not actively followed', but some people do follow those texts and use them as justification for hateful acts. I don't dispute that these aren't your average christians, how come you have a hard time giving the same benifit to those that follow Islam?

Because the Bible itself specifies why that isnt active dogma any more. The same isnt true of Islam. And its not as if its a minority in Islam. In Afgnanistan the majority of the public support Rahman's execution.

Because the Bible itself specifies why that isnt active dogma any more. Where? Even if it is true it has no bearing on my statement.In Afgnanistan the majority of the public support Rahman's execution.And in South Dakota most Christians think anyone getting an abortion should be imprisoned. Do they represent all Christianity?

So, you believe that judging by recent "Islamist causes" and the opinion that they're following their religion....does that mean that the Muslims who stand against the actions of these radicals aren't following that same religion? Are they going directly against their religion by sticking to the peaceful tennets that Islam aspires to?

If you're sticking up for the Christians as a Christian, then I'm ashamed to be grouped into the same apparent crowd as you. Your entire argument seems to be that you consider it unfair that non-Christians treat us with cynicism and closed-mindedness, but I see no difference in how you just presented your anti-Islam argument. Look at it this way -- you can't put all Muslims into the same box of set beliefs any more than you can with all Christians. Put three Christians from three denominations into a room and let them argue theology -- you'll end up with at least five opinions. Why is it that we're allowed to hold ourselves to that standard, but the rest of the major organized religions in the world are allowed to be subjected to the stereotype that many Christians become enraged over?

i think youre excusing your own religion while holding islam to account for the same sorts of thing you are excusing your relgion for.

the crusades werent about religion. well if they arent, then neither was 9/11 and neither are the suicide bombings in israel. those are about personal prestige and political power.

yes you can easily pull out examples of moslems who use their religion as an excuse to do bad things. the truth is that we do the same all the time. george bush says that GOD told him to invade iraq. you and i might repudiate that but then so might millions of moslems repudiate the notion that allah wanted the wtc to fall.

there have been plenty of deaths due to christian religious wars. there are plenty of deaths due to christian cult practices. there are plenty of deaths due to different christian sects fighting each other. YOU decide that that isnt religiously motivated or correct, *I* say that it is as religously correct as anything done in the moslem world.

Adriatica, you don't have to go back to the Crusades. You can go back to, oh 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3199212.stm) for instance, to show how some Christians are just as bad (and I'm sure I could find some even more recent if I want--Pat Robertson is always good for some hate speech).

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has declined to criticise a senior army officer who told audiences the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan.

Evangelical Christian Lieutenant-General William G Boykin was also quoted as saying a Muslim warlord in Somalia had an "idol" for a God....

An American newspaper found him addressing church congregations wearing his uniform.

He told audiences that terrorists hated America because it was a nation of Christian believers and that the enemy in the war on terrorism was Satan.

In one speech, he recalled a Muslim fighter in Somalia who said he had the protection of Allah against US forces.

"Well you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his," said Lt Gen Boykin. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
Now shut up about it. Your side has at least as many douchebags as the other side does.

Now shut up about it. Your side has at least as many douchebags as the other side does.
Yeah, because, obviously one General carries as much weight as thousands of violent fanatics. Provided that the General is really, really fat; and the fanatics are on the Atkins Diet, which must be the case.

What about the statements regarding non-Christians being sentenced to eternal, agonizing torture by the loving and compassionate deity?

Superstition

The angry mob chasing after the guy with a disfiguring deformity with torches and pitchforks ready to kill the "monster" those are religious types. Those are your Christians Muslims and Jews. The ones who don't follow after fairy tails don't join paraniod angry mobs.

The ones who don't follow after fairy tails don't join paraniod angry mobs.
You don't have to be religious to follow fairy tales. Millions died or were mutilated (castration, etc) as a result of eugenics (and, not just the Holocaust, either; eugenics was a staple of Western thought in the late 19th and early 20th century) and the pursuit of a perfect race. The fairy tales laid about Communist Utopias, cooked up by deranged old men in the 19th century, led to the death of millions under Stalin and Lenin.

Yeah, because, obviously one General carries as much weight as thousands of violent fanatics. Provided that the General is really, really fat; and the fanatics are on the Atkins Diet, which must be the case.
did you want an answer to this post?

it seems like you might be serious within your usual joking style.

did you want an answer to this post?
I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy inherent in el Nazzos comments. If he were to answer it with a more substantiated argument, then I would have no choice but to masturbate furiously in the corner. Otherwise, what sort of answer could someone provide?
it seems like you might be serious within your usual joking style.
I am always deadly serious: these are the Internets, miss, and around these parts one can never take things too personally.

I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy inherent in el Nazzos comments. If he were to answer it with a more substantiated argument, then I would have no choice but to masturbate furiously in the corner. Otherwise, what sort of answer could someone provide?

I am always deadly serious: these are the Internets, miss, and around these parts one can never take things too personally.
within the context of the thread it is perfectly legitimate to point out powerful people in the christian community who find that killing infidels for jesus is religiously correct.

There is a distinct diffrence between following your faith in doing an evil action and perverting it to do one.

Sure...but it's not just Muslims or Christians. It can be anybody. People use all sorts of rationalizations for doing terrible things to people. Religion is a good one because then many people will not only say, "Oh, okay," they might even jump on the bandwagon!

within the context of the thread it is perfectly legitimate to point out powerful people in the christian community who find that killing infidels for jesus is religiously correct.
But pointing out that one particular powerful man believes that killing for Jesus is correct proves nothing. The argument posed by the OP is that the prime motivator for Arab terrorists is religion, whereas most Westerners are fighting for secular reasons.

But pointing out that one particular powerful man believes that killing for Jesus is correct proves nothing. The argument posed by the OP is that the prime motivator for Arab terrorists is religion, whereas most Westerners are fighting for secular reasons.
i tried reading the op a few times and still ended up skipping stuff but i think you have a wrong interpretation of adriatica's thesis. *points to the post above yours*

he isnt positing a numbers game where more moslems than christians are willing to do violence in the name of religion but that islam itself advocates violence and christianity doesnt

nazz pointed out a man in power who would seem to disagree with adriatica and thus prove his thesis wrong. plenty of christians find religious justification for violence.

i tried reading the op a few times and still ended up skipping stuff but i think you have a wrong interpretation of adriatica's thesis. *points to the post above yours*
Yeah, I think I got the wrong jist of it too, and while I'm willing to quibble about stats, I've got better things to do (like set my testicles on fire) then play scriptual games this evening.

i tried reading the op a few times and still ended up skipping stuff but i think you have a wrong interpretation of adriatica's thesis. *points to the post above yours*

he isnt positing a numbers game where more moslems than christians are willing to do violence in the name of religion but that islam itself advocates violence and christianity doesnt

nazz pointed out a man in power who would seem to disagree with adriatica and thus prove his thesis wrong. plenty of christians find religious justification for violence.
I mentioned Boykin because he's a general, but I could just as easily have pointed out Bush's speechwriter in the early days post 9/11 who referred to the move toward Afghanistan as a Crusade, as though he had no clue the alarm bells that would set off. Plus, if you want psycho religious leaders, well we could go Sistani=Robertson, Sadr=Dobson, and on down the line. I stand by my earlier statement--there are plenty of douchebags on both sides, and you don't have to go back to the Crusades to find christian ones, which is what Adriatica posited in his first fucking sentence.

Satisfied?

I mentioned Boykin because he's a general, but I could just as easily have pointed out Bush's speechwriter in the early days post 9/11 who referred to the move toward Afghanistan as a Crusade, as though he had no clue the alarm bells that would set off. Plus, if you want psycho religious leaders, well we could go Sistani=Robertson, Sadr=Dobson, and on down the line. I stand by my earlier statement--there are plenty of douchebags on both sides, and you don't have to go back to the Crusades to find christian ones, which is what Adriatica posited in his first fucking sentence.

Satisfied?
i was satisfied with your original example

did you think i disagreed with you?

I mentioned Boykin because he's a general, but I could just as easily have pointed out Bush's speechwriter in the early days post 9/11 who referred to the move toward Afghanistan as a Crusade, as though he had no clue the alarm bells that would set off. Plus, if you want psycho religious leaders, well we could go Sistani=Robertson, Sadr=Dobson, and on down the line. I stand by my earlier statement--there are plenty of douchebags on both sides, and you don't have to go back to the Crusades to find christian ones, which is what Adriatica posited in his first fucking sentence.
The numbers game is irrelevant, as Ash pointed out. What matters is scripture, and that is a bone I don't touch on the week ends.

i was satisfied with your original example

did you think i disagreed with you?
Sorry--meant that for Fiddles.

here is the deal as i percieve it with Islam, they are where christianity was 300 years ago, they have just missed their enlightenment, or its late. givem time and theyll kill allah like the west killed its god in the 19th century

Hey neat ... another "Let's all hate Muslims" thread.

Awesome.

We just don't see enough of these.

Oh, wait ... lemme take a picture ... never know when we're going to have an opportunity like this again.

Because the Bible itself specifies why that isnt active dogma any more. The same isnt true of Islam. And its not as if its a minority in Islam. In Afgnanistan the majority of the public support Rahman's execution.
So all we should concentrate on is what Christians read, not what they do? It doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians agree with and/or give money to lunatics like Robertson and Dobson, just so long as the violence they advocate isn't specifically described in the Bible?

This is the big clear line you're drawing to show how much better your religion is than theirs?

What matters is scripture, and that is a bone I don't touch on the week ends.
Well, it's good to have a standard of measure for your weekends:

I would have no choice but to masturbate furiously in the corner.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10646651&postcount=14

Because the Bible itself specifies why that isnt active dogma any more.

That is an interpretation of Bible text - not a fact. Many people disagree with you - and think you will burn in Hell just for suggesting it.

That is an interpretation of Bible text - not a fact. Many people disagree with you - and think you will burn in Hell just for suggesting it.
Just for the fun of fanning flames ... wasn't Jesus a practicing Jew, and his beef was with certain people of power and not the faith?

So all we should concentrate on is what Christians read, not what they do? It doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians agree with and/or give money to lunatics like Robertson and Dobson, just so long as the violence they advocate isn't specifically described in the Bible?

This is the big clear line you're drawing to show how much better your religion is than theirs?

You shouldnt judge an ideology by what its followers do. You should judge it by what it says. And the Sharia law actually says that what they are doing to Rahman is correct. Like I said, there is a massive diffrence between following a faith and perverting it. The Chrisitans who lead the European nations into the crusades were perverting it. The government in Afghanistan are following it.

Hey neat ... another "Let's all hate Muslims" thread.

Awesome.

We just don't see enough of these.

Oh, wait ... lemme take a picture ... never know when we're going to have an opportunity like this again.

Are you actually going to offer some debate? Its as if no one can criticise Islam or the actions of Islamic governments without being called a racist. Hey guess what! There is a massive diffrence between following a faith and perverting it. If people pervert a faith it is the people who are at fault. If they are actually following it, it says more about the faith than the people. And the Sharia and Hadiths are full of the short of thing which makes it right for Abdul Rahman to be executed.

That is an interpretation of Bible text - not a fact. Many people disagree with you - and think you will burn in Hell just for suggesting it.

I sincerely doubt it. There isn't a Church in the world that still tries to follow all of the old covenant laws to the letter. Jesus himself says that he came here to fufill the law, that we would not be slaves to it any more.

I sincerely doubt it. There isn't a Church in the world that still tries to follow all of the old covenant laws to the letter. Jesus himself says that he came here to fufill the law, that we would not be slaves to it any more.
Let's just put your comments in context. You are an evangelical. You believe that your faith is the only true one. Your comments are therefore trying to find some way of saying Christianity = good, Islam = bad, dressed up as pseudo-intellectualism.

And you wonder why people ignore them?

Let's just put your comments in context. You are an evangelical. You believe that your faith is the only true one. Your comments are therefore trying to find some way of saying Christianity = good, Islam = bad, dressed up as pseudo-intellectualism.

And you wonder why people ignore them?

It isnt "psuedo-intellectualism" it is reallity

If you dont follow a belief system, but claim to and twist its teaching to your own ends, your actions do not reflect that belief system, but your own desires and needs.

However if you do follow a belief system and put its actions in place to the letter, what you do reflects the values and beliefs of that belief system.

The former says more about you whereas the latter says more about the belief your following.

It isnt "psuedo-intellectualism" it is reallity

If you dont follow a belief system, but claim to and twist its teaching to your own ends, your actions do not reflect that belief system, but your own desires and needs.

However if you do follow a belief system and put its actions in place to the letter, what you do reflects the values and beliefs of that belief system.

The former says more about you whereas the latter says more about the belief your following.
So again, it comes back to you trying to say Christian = good, Islam = bad.

So again, it comes back to you trying to say Christian = good, Islam = bad.

Again you miss the point. The question is why. It is not that simple. Are you just going to ignore the logic of what I say because of who is saying it. It is obvious. If you twist what someone says and does it is you what your saying reflects. Where as if you acually follow what someone else says and does it is them you are reflecting.

Again you miss the point. The question is why. It is not that simple. Are you just going to ignore the logic of what I say because of who is saying it. It is obvious. If you twist what someone says and does it is you what your saying reflects. Where as if you acually follow what someone else says and does it is them you are reflecting.
I think it's important to know where the ulterior motives of the person claiming the 'logic' lie. In this case, it is a desire to rubbish Islam and convert people to Christianity. Unfortunately for you, it does neither; people are not so foolish as to believe that all of Islam is evil because of things that are written; nor do they accept your arguments that the Bible doesn't contain 'evil' things because you say it doesn't. Your logic is flawed, your motives suspect. Defend your own faith, but trying to rubbish others makes you as bad as the people on here you always claim to be so annoyed with when they rubbish yours.

It isnt "psuedo-intellectualism"

Correct. There's nothing even pseudo-intellectual about your hypothesis. To use your example, the Pope called for the Crusades. The Pope is God's voice on Earth. Going on the Crusades was very much following the religion.

If you dont follow a belief system, but claim to and twist its teaching to your own ends, your actions do not reflect that belief system, but your own desires and needs.

However if you do follow a belief system and put its actions in place to the letter, what you do reflects the values and beliefs of that belief system.

The former says more about you whereas the latter says more about the belief your following.

Correct, apart from one small detail: the beliefsystems are open to interpretation. Fred Phelps being a good example: he believes (or so he claims) that his actions conform to the will of the Lord; while many Christians disagree with him. Who the person doing the twisting is is therefor unclear - one can even say there is no twisting involved. Just different ways to read and interpret the same text.

However, big things like a holy book saying "kill all unbelievers" can indeed be used to judge a religion - to a degree. Context stays important: suppose unbelievers were previously defined as "people that like to plunder, maim and rape" for instance.

Religion = My fairy tale is better than your fairy tale.

Are you actually going to offer some debate?

Nope! I've debated this to death. I hate repeating myself. If you can't use the search function, the terrorists win.

Its as if no one can criticise Islam or the actions of Islamic governments without being called a racist.

Mmmm ... delicious. *takes another picture* I hope it shows in that one where I called anyone a racist.

Hey guess what!

Chicken butt! Hehehe ... i love that joke.

There is a massive diffrence between following a faith and perverting it.

Well no kiddin'! Who knew?

If people pervert a faith it is the people who are at fault.

Yes, very good.

If they are actually following it, it says more about the faith than the people.

Agreed.

And the Sharia and Hadiths are full of the short of thing which makes it right for Abdul Rahman to be executed.

And you've studied this so indepthly and are so sure that the people who wish to put Abdul Rahman to death are doing right by the Islamic faith that you can point out to me exactly where in Qu'ran his death is commanded. You can also point out to the crowd exactly which hadiths make putting him to death okie dokie and don't, in any way, contradict Qu'ran and, thus, make them false hadith? You can do this without googling "jihadwatch" and copy/pasting the same old, tired, worn out, and completely debunked drivel, right?

*gets camera ready*

You shouldnt judge an ideology by what its followers do. You should judge it by what it says.
That's just about the biggest load of self-absorbed, self-justifying bullshit I've ever read, and around here, that's a tall order to fill. It's also factually incorrect, as a significant tenet of Christianity is that "all scripture is inspired of God" and therefore, there's no separating yourself from the bloody and vengeful God of the Old testament, nor is there any separation from the misogyny of paul in the New Testament.

And you've studied this so indepthly and are so sure that the people who wish to put Abdul Rahman to death are doing right by the Islamic faith that you can point out to me exactly where in Qu'ran his death is commanded. You can also point out to the crowd exactly which hadiths make putting him to death okie dokie and don't, in any way, contradict Qu'ran and, thus, make them false hadith? You can do this without googling "jihadwatch" and copy/pasting the same old, tired, worn out, and completely debunked drivel, right?

*gets camera ready*

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fire. They swear by God that they said nothing. Yet they uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it. They sought to do what they could not attain. Yet they had no reason to be spiteful except perhaps because God and His apostle had enriched them through His bounty. If they repent, it will indeed be better for them, but if they give no heed, God will sternly punish them, both in this world and in the world to come. They shall have none on this earth to protect or help them

The punishment by death in the case of Apoatasy has been unanimously agreed on by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence

"All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed."

Apoasty is a hudud offence


It seems here a large body of legal opinion on Islamic jurisprudence agrees with me

Correct. There's nothing even pseudo-intellectual about your hypothesis. To use your example, the Pope called for the Crusades. The Pope is God's voice on Earth. Going on the Crusades was very much following the religion.

Please find the Biblical support for any of the following

- The notion that the Pope is Gods voice on Earth
- The details regarding the selection of the Pope

You shouldnt judge an ideology by what its followers do. You should judge it by what it says. And the Sharia law actually says that what they are doing to Rahman is correct. Like I said, there is a massive diffrence between following a faith and perverting it. The Chrisitans who lead the European nations into the crusades were perverting it. The government in Afghanistan are following it.
You can't be serious. No matter how many wars have been fought claiming Christian ideals, no matter how many accused witches, heretics and unbelievers have been killed in the past, no matter how many people have their civil rights attacked and taken away today because they don't conform to some so-called Christians' religious rules (gay rights, women's reproductive rights), no matter how much bigotry and conflict is carried on by people waving Bibles over their heads and claiming they speak for Jesus, I shouldn't say that Christianity has been corrupted to the point of dangerousness? I should just turn to the Bible and say, well, although it does celebrate massacres and instructs me to kill witches and stone people to death and so on, it doesn't actually say exactly the same words that these crazy people are saying, so I guess none of that matters and it's all good?

Actions speak louder than words, Adriatica. It's an old saying for a reason.

Please find the Biblical support for any of the following

- The notion that the Pope is Gods voice on Earth
- The details regarding the selection of the Pope
What particular branch of Christianity are you, Adriatica? I'm just curious as to the specific brand of holier-than-thou you subscribe to.

What particular branch of Christianity are you, Adriatica? I'm just curious as to the specific brand of holier-than-thou you subscribe to.
Yes, I'd like to know this, too, just out of curiosity. It's the one question Adriatica has never answered to date.

I promise I'm not gearing up to dogpile on his church. It makes no difference to me, but I just like to understand where my fellow debaters are coming from.

Yes, I'd like to know this, too, just out of curiosity. It's the one question Adriatica has never answered to date.

I promise I'm not gearing up to dogpile on his church. It makes no difference to me, but I just like to understand where my fellow debaters are coming from.
Oh, I am, because no matter what particular brand of Christianity you follow, there's some hypocrisy in your past, and likely in your present. That's a big part of the reason why Adriatica is indulging in this mental masturbation about "what does the doctrine say, not what do the followers practice" bullshit.

Oh, I am, because no matter what particular brand of Christianity you follow, there's some hypocrisy in your past, and likely in your present. That's a big part of the reason why Adriatica is indulging in this mental masturbation about "what does the doctrine say, not what do the followers practice" bullshit.
Oh? I am a Liberal Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England. Feel free to tell me all about my hypocracy.

Condemning all Christians for the hypocracy of the past is like calling all young Germans Nazis.

Oh? I am a Liberal Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England. Feel free to tell me all about my hypocracy.

Condemning all Christians for the hypocracy of the past is like calling all young Germans Nazis.
Bullshit, and way to pull out the Nazi card. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out in the earliest part of this thread, there's more than enough Christian hypocrisy-wankery to go around today without having to delve into the past. Answer that, and then we'll get to your personal mental masturbation.

Bullshit, and way to pull out the Nazi card. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out in the earliest part of this thread, there's more than enough Christian hypocrisy-wankery to go around today without having to delve into the past. Answer that, and then we'll get to your personal mental masturbation.
Simply saying 'bullshit' doesn't dismiss an argument.

I'm interested in my 'hypocracy,' because, quite frankly, you are willing to place me in little groups even though you clearly have no idea what I even believe. Tell me how this is different to what the OP in this thread is trying to do with Muslims?

Oh, I am, because no matter what particular brand of Christianity you follow, there's some hypocrisy in your past, and likely in your present. That's a big part of the reason why Adriatica is indulging in this mental masturbation about "what does the doctrine say, not what do the followers practice" bullshit.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've known a few sincere, non-internally-contradictory Christians. Of course, none of them would ever even dream of doing what Adriatica does here. I don't think such statements could even form inside their brains.

I take a slightly different, possibly even more cynical :eek: view of Adriatica's agenda. This is just my personal belief based on my own personal observations of Adriatica's writings and the words and actions of people similar to him. I think that Adriatica starts with the personal desire to dictate to others -- to be on the dictating team, as it were -- and for him, religion is just a vehicle for doing that. Look how he insists that everyone should adopt the Bible as a model for life, at the same time that he twists and edits it every time it fails to match his agenda. Look how coy he is about defining his own position. In another thread, he told me that he regularly attends three different churches but declined to name the denomination(s). Why? Frankly, I think he's hedging his bet, in case he names a church that also doesn't 100% match his agenda. In the end, it's all about him.

It doesn't really matter what church he belongs to, because that's not what puts these ideas into his head. He brings that to the table himself.

Simply saying 'bullshit' doesn't dismiss an argument.

I'm interested in my 'hypocracy,' because, quite frankly, you are willing to place me in little groups even though you clearly have no idea what I even believe. Tell me how this is different to what the OP in this thread is trying to do with Muslims?
For starters, let me apologize. I assumed I was replying to Adriatica and didn't stop to look to make sure, so my tone was harsher than it should have been.

Here's my larger point. There's no way for any Christian church to avoid inner conflict and to some extent, hypocrisy, because there's no hard and fast Christian dogma to begin with. Any study of the early church will acknowledge that dissension and schism was more common than unitary thinking, even on the most basic dogmatic level, and that continues to this day--if Christianity were so clear, then there wouldn't be thousands of sects all claiming some sort of divine mandate.

The inner contradictions in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, are the cause of a lot of this, and if you put any truck in the writings of the early church which were deemed non-canonical, then the problem gets even worse. Factor in that church leaders have, over the centuries, interpreted scripture selectively to benefit themselves or their sect, emphasized one portion over another, and you have a system built for hypocrisy and contradiction.

I don't know as much about Islam, but I do know the basics of the schism that occurred early on between the Shi'a and the Sunni, and it seems to me to be of similar stuff as the early christian church.

Religion is opiate for the masses. :mad:

Religion is *always* absued, as it's sole purpose is to control the masses and keep them from thinking on their own. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

For starters, let me apologize. I assumed I was replying to Adriatica and didn't stop to look to make sure, so my tone was harsher than it should have been.

Here's my larger point. There's no way for any Christian church to avoid inner conflict and to some extent, hypocrisy, because there's no hard and fast Christian dogma to begin with. Any study of the early church will acknowledge that dissension and schism was more common than unitary thinking, even on the most basic dogmatic level, and that continues to this day--if Christianity were so clear, then there wouldn't be thousands of sects all claiming some sort of divine mandate.

The inner contradictions in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, are the cause of a lot of this, and if you put any truck in the writings of the early church which were deemed non-canonical, then the problem gets even worse. Factor in that church leaders have, over the centuries, interpreted scripture selectively to benefit themselves or their sect, emphasized one portion over another, and you have a system built for hypocrisy and contradiction.

I don't know as much about Islam, but I do know the basics of the schism that occurred early on between the Shi'a and the Sunni, and it seems to me to be of similar stuff as the early christian church.
But there is a central Christian doctrine, one that holds the Church together no matter what; and that is that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

From this starting point, Christians have gone off in many, many different ways. The reason I gave you the 'specific type' of Christian that I am above in addition to my Church is because even that Church is split into at least three major factions. But through all of these, that central doctrine is still there.

I completely disagree with Adriatica. People like that are trying to convert people to Christianity by rubbishing Islam. This is an absurd tactic that does more damage to the Church than good. My thinking on God, the Church and life is completely different. Primarily, I am a Universalist. This essentially means that I believe that God forgives all, no matter what; all people go to Heaven, and God's love for all cannot be diminished by mere mortal actions.

As such, I have many moral views and feel strongly about many issues; I will campaign for what I feel is right, and do my best to live a life that follows this morals as closely as possible. I do not condemn others to Hell for living differently, however. Many people on the evangelical side of the Church counter this with 'that's not Biblical' or 'but if everyone goes to Heaven, what's the point of being a Christian?' To the latter I question their motives; are they simply a Christian to try and gain favour with God? Surely the very question implies that we somehow lose something by trying to be close to God in this life as well as the next?

As to the former point, that it is 'not Biblical;' to me, the Bible is just one source of knowledge about God. It cannot be used as the only source of 'God's word,' because, frankly, it is too easy to see why this is not the case. I therefore try to understand God through the use of reason and rationality. If that's 'not Biblical,' well, God shouldn't have given me a brain if he didn't want me to use it.

Answer me one question and I will become an evangelical: why would God create us the way we are and then punish us for being that way? What kind of God creates a people to worship him and punishes them if they don't? To me, that is a Nazi God, not a loving God, and I do not believe that the evangelical church has a strong answer to those questions.

And there you have a brief summary of my beliefs, whether you wanted it or not. :p

*snip*
More or less how I believe as well, except I do not believe in assigning God a specific personified form. I believe it is genderless to begin with, and may well not even be good, but merely neutral. Also, I focus mostly on Christ's ideas and teachings themselves, as opposed to the Old Testament, which I see as more historically valuable, and teachings by Paul and so on, which contradict Christ. I like Catholicism the most, despite its rigidity in some matters. You have to study the Bible in context, and not as one document suspended in a vacuum of space.

Now, whilst Adriatica may be mistaken in some ways, I by no means accept anyone's proposition here that all Christians are hypocrites due to the actions of past Christians, or present ones who conduct themselves like fools. As with any religion.

But there is a central Christian doctrine, one that holds the Church together no matter what; and that is that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.Even there you're mistaken. There are many, many Christian sects that argue that there is no trinity, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct beings. There are some which date back to the earliest days of the christian church that even question the divinity of Christ while on earth. There were bloody wars fought in the first three centuries post-Jesus over that very issue, and most, but not all, of the people who questioned the divinity of Christ were killed by their supposed brothers. (The trinity is not absolutely supported by scripture, either, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

From this starting point, Christians have gone off in many, many different ways. The reason I gave you the 'specific type' of Christian that I am above in addition to my Church is because even that Church is split into at least three major factions. But through all of these, that central doctrine is still there.

I completely disagree with Adriatica. People like that are trying to convert people to Christianity by rubbishing Islam. This is an absurd tactic that does more damage to the Church than good. My thinking on God, the Church and life is completely different. Primarily, I am a Universalist. This essentially means that I believe that God forgives all, no matter what; all people go to Heaven, and God's love for all cannot be diminished by mere mortal actions.

As such, I have many moral views and feel strongly about many issues; I will campaign for what I feel is right, and do my best to live a life that follows this morals as closely as possible. I do not condemn others to Hell for living differently, however. Many people on the evangelical side of the Church counter this with 'that's not Biblical' or 'but if everyone goes to Heaven, what's the point of being a Christian?' To the latter I question their motives; are they simply a Christian to try and gain favour with God? Surely the very question implies that we somehow lose something by trying to be close to God in this life as well as the next?

As to the former point, that it is 'not Biblical;' to me, the Bible is just one source of knowledge about God. It cannot be used as the only source of 'God's word,' because, frankly, it is too easy to see why this is not the case. I therefore try to understand God through the use of reason and rationality. If that's 'not Biblical,' well, God shouldn't have given me a brain if he didn't want me to use it.

Answer me one question and I will become an evangelical: why would God create us the way we are and then punish us for being that way? What kind of God creates a people to worship him and punishes them if they don't? To me, that is a Nazi God, not a loving God, and I do not believe that the evangelical church has a strong answer to those questions.

And there you have a brief summary of my beliefs, whether you wanted it or not. :p
I'm glad for the summary, and again, I apologize for the harsh tone earlier.

I'm glad for the summary, and again, I apologize for the harsh tone earlier.
Easy mistake to make, no hard feelings, don't worry. :)

Actions speak louder than words, Adriatica. It's an old saying for a reason.

And its ture. But actions are not good for judging ideologies. Your entire premise there is flawed because actions speek louder than words and you use peoples actions to judge people. To judge an ideology you need to judge what that ideology says not what the people in it do. If you look at what the people in it do and you find it contradicts what the ideology says then they are clearly not following their ideology. The ideology itself is a set of beliefs and values. It isnt a series of peoples actions.

And its ture. But actions are not good for judging ideologies. Your entire premise there is flawed because actions speek louder than words and you use peoples actions to judge people. To judge an ideology you need to judge what that ideology says not what the people in it do. If you look at what the people in it do and you find it contradicts what the ideology says then they are clearly not following their ideology. The ideology itself is a set of beliefs and values. It isnt a series of peoples actions.
So, essentially, all I need to do is write something down on paper; then, I'm allowed to do whatever I like because it's ok! It's not my ideology.

Answer me one question and I will become an evangelical: why would God create us the way we are and then punish us for being that way? What kind of God creates a people to worship him and punishes them if they don't? To me, that is a Nazi God, not a loving God, and I do not believe that the evangelical church has a strong answer to those questions.


It does have a very strong answer to this particular question. The answer is this.

Free will

Why do you think God gave us free will. Well suppose you created a robot that may as well be human in all the physical atributes. The only non human part about it was its Brain, which could be programmed by you. If you then programed it to love you, would it be real love. The answer is no. Why? Because in order to love you require an element of choice. God loves everyone. Notice how it rains on both the Christian and non Chrisitian. How bad things happen to us all, good and bad. And if you think more bad things happen to Good people look at Jesus. He was the best person and had what some would argue (in a material sense) a very rubbish life. God does not want a race of people to worship him. Worship isnt what God demands of us. If it were, Christians would lead very ineffectual lives, living in Churchs singing and praising all day. God asks of us is that we love him as a father. And a child demonstrates its love for a father by obeying what he asks him to do. Not because the father is an evil dictatorial figure, but because the father loves the child and wants what is best for him. God doesnt prevent us from having anything good for us.

<snip>
As such, I have many moral views and feel strongly about many issues; I will campaign for what I feel is right, and do my best to live a life that follows this morals as closely as possible. I do not condemn others to Hell for living differently, however. Many people on the evangelical side of the Church counter this with 'that's not Biblical' or 'but if everyone goes to Heaven, what's the point of being a Christian?' To the latter I question their motives; are they simply a Christian to try and gain favour with God? Surely the very question implies that we somehow lose something by trying to be close to God in this life as well as the next?
<snip>
I come at this from the perspective of a total outsider. I'm an animist. My concepts of what a "god" is, what "divine" means and so on, and especially my idea about humanity's spiritual condition, are different from all the major monotheistic religions.

Because of this, I am not in a position to parse out in detail all the technical differences between monotheistic religions or between denominations within those religions. I can't judge whether monotheists are being "good" versions of whatever they claim to be. I can only judge their actions -- and I tend to focus on their actions that affect me. Unfortunately, most of those affects are negative, and to me, it just adds insult to injury to listen to them insist that they are all about peace and tolerance and forgiveness (as if I've done anything that needs forgiving from them) while at the same time they sow conflict against people like me, in politics, law, public rhetoric, their schools, etc.

I bolded the line from your post above because, to me, this captures the essence of the problem -- "If everyone goes to heaven, what's the point of being a Christian?" All this conflict and judgmentalism isn't about religion or spirituality at all. It's about privilege. They don't want to "save" everyone, because if non-Christians aren't evil, if non-Christians aren't doomed to hell, then how is it better and more special to be a Christian? And if being a Christian isn't better and more special, then why bother doing it? According to this view, heaven is a privilege and only the best people qualify. This is nothing but an elitist ego-trip that really has nothing to do with religion; it's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this kind of attitude, no matter what religion the person claims to be following.

*snip*
And if my children reject me, I shall still love them. A father might not agree with everything the child does, but he should always be strong in his love. If not, then he is that dictatorial figure refusing to surrender control over the childs life.

And its ture. But actions are not good for judging ideologies. Your entire premise there is flawed because actions speek louder than words and you use peoples actions to judge people. To judge an ideology you need to judge what that ideology says not what the people in it do. If you look at what the people in it do and you find it contradicts what the ideology says then they are clearly not following their ideology. The ideology itself is a set of beliefs and values. It isnt a series of peoples actions.
Uh, yeah they are. Because I don't care about your ideology. I only care about what you do, not your excuse for doing it. I judge you, not your god. Get it?

Yes. There is a difference.

Ned Flanders is following his religion.

Pat Robertson is abusing it.

If Jesus came into Pat Robertson's church, he'd start kicking over tables just like he did to those people profitting off religion in the bible.

The republicans are also abusing it to, by claiming that whatever they prefer to do in their own interests and by their own biases is the exact path perscribed by Jesus in the bible, even when they don't always even follow the ten commandments, and certainly don't follow the principles of 'love thy neighbor'.

They're also perennial panderers, which Jesus most certainly would not condone.

So, essentially, all I need to do is write something down on paper; then, I'm allowed to do whatever I like because it's ok! It's not my ideology.

You still dont understand. It being an ideolgoical action does not mean it is exempt from criticism. But in those cases both the person and the ideology that advocate the action can be criticised

If a Christian does something that goes against Christianty, obviouly it is him you criticise if you believe the action is bad

If a Chrisitan does something that is advocated by Christianity and you beleieve its bad then you can criticise both the faith and the individual. But it is not fair to criticse the faith for an action if the action goes against the faith.

You still dont understand. It being an ideolgoical action does not mean it is exempt from criticism. But in those cases both the person and the ideology that advocate the action can be criticised

If a Christian does something that goes against Christianty, obviouly it is him you criticise if you believe the action is bad

If a Chrisitan does something that is advocated by Christianity and you beleieve its bad then you can criticise both the faith and the individual. But it is not fair to criticse the faith for an action if the action goes against the faith.
I understand all too well. Again, it comes back to your ulterior motives. You are trying to say "look! My Holy Book is better than their Holy Book. Become a Christian!"

You still dont understand. It being an ideolgoical action does not mean it is exempt from criticism. But in those cases both the person and the ideology that advocate the action can be criticised

If a Christian does something that goes against Christianty, obviouly it is him you criticise if you believe the action is bad

If a Chrisitan does something that is advocated by Christianity and you beleieve its bad then you can criticise both the faith and the individual. But it is not fair to criticse the faith for an action if the action goes against the faith.
Again, as I said to Philosopy, the problem is that there is no single Christian ideology. There are thousands of them, each with their own interpretations of what they consider holy writ. And it's not like this is something new either--there were schisms and dissension in the earliest christian churches, schisms that ended in bloodshed. So you can't say "let's judge the christian ideology and not the practitioners" because there is no single christian ideology to judge. Learn some early church history, for fuck's sake.

It does have a very strong answer to this particular question. The answer is this.

Free will

Why do you think God gave us free will. Well suppose you created a robot that may as well be human in all the physical atributes. The only non human part about it was its Brain, which could be programmed by you. If you then programed it to love you, would it be real love. The answer is no. Why? Because in order to love you require an element of choice. God loves everyone. Notice how it rains on both the Christian and non Chrisitian. How bad things happen to us all, good and bad. And if you think more bad things happen to Good people look at Jesus. He was the best person and had what some would argue (in a material sense) a very rubbish life. God does not want a race of people to worship him. Worship isnt what God demands of us. If it were, Christians would lead very ineffectual lives, living in Churchs singing and praising all day. God asks of us is that we love him as a father. And a child demonstrates its love for a father by obeying what he asks him to do. Not because the father is an evil dictatorial figure, but because the father loves the child and wants what is best for him. God doesnt prevent us from having anything good for us.
In this post you are trying tell us that "free will" = "obedience." Are you on crack -- or do you think we are? Or is it just that you read 1984 and now you think Newspeak is a fabulous new tool for forcing your agenda on society? Well, sorry, A, I read it too. That trick won't work with me.

Again, as I said to Philosopy, the problem is that there is no single Christian ideology. There are thousands of them, each with their own interpretations of what they consider holy writ. And it's not like this is something new either--there were schisms and dissension in the earliest christian churches, schisms that ended in bloodshed. So you can't say "let's judge the christian ideology and not the practitioners" because there is no single christian ideology to judge. Learn some early church history, for fuck's sake.
So why not judge on a case-by-case basis then? By denominations. And learn to distinguish what a faith says from its followers actions. Sure, if some Christian ideologies are twisted, then judge them accordingly. Don't accuse all of Christian ideology though. Same with any religion.

Uh, yeah they are. Because I don't care about your ideology. I only care about what you do, not your excuse for doing it. I judge you, not your god. Get it?
Which is what he is arguing essentially. :)

I come at this from the perspective of a total outsider. I'm an animist. My concepts of what a "god" is, what "divine" means and so on, and especially my idea about humanity's spiritual condition, are different from all the major monotheistic religions.

Whilst I am essentially Christian, I am also somewhat agnostic towards God's nature. I also believe reincarnation as a means of reaching Heaven is totally possible.

And if my children reject me, I shall still love them. A father might not agree with everything the child does, but he should always be strong in his love. If not, then he is that dictatorial figure refusing to surrender control over the childs life.

He is always strong in his love. God gives us an entire lifetime and shows us at every possible oppotunity his love so that we may embrace him back.

Which is what he is arguing essentially. :)
Well, then this entire thread is meaningless, because he is claiming precisely that the ideology of Islam is bad while the ideology of Christianity is good.

Any bad action of a Muslim, he claims to be in accordance with their ideology. Any bad action of a Christian, he claims to be against their ideology. And now he wants to claim that it's impossible to judge ideologies? Well, then he can quit criticizing Islam as an ideology and close this damned thread and stop wasting everyone's time.

In this post you are trying tell us that "free will" = "obedience." Are you on crack -- or do you think we are? Or is it just that you read 1984 and now you think Newspeak is a fabulous new tool for forcing your agenda on society? Well, sorry, A, I read it too. That trick won't work with me.

No. I'm not saying free will equals obedience. What I am saying is that God did not want a race of mindless slaves. He wanted a race of thinking, intellegent, empatatice people who would choose to love him.

It seems here a large body of legal opinion on Islamic jurisprudence agrees with me

And, yet, 4:90 begins "Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people..."

Well my goodness. Leave the unbelievers alone if they're not fighting you. Seems the Hadith you've quoted contradict that bit.

Nice picking and choosing, but I knew you would. Predictable as sunrise.

*takes picture* Smile pretty, now.

Anyway, back to the topic. We're talking apostacy, not just run of the mill unbelievers. 4:89 (from your own quote) begins "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve" or, as Yusuf Ali translated it, "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do" isn't about apostates, it's about non-Muslims demanding you to reject Islam.

Try again.

Find me in Qur'an where it says to kill a Muslim who rejects Islam. I shall wait. No hadith can be true unless it is backed by Qur'an. So, until you find me where it gives the right to kill apostates, all your hadith are belong to us.

So why not judge on a case-by-case basis then? By denominations. And learn to distinguish what a faith says from its followers actions. Sure, if some Christian ideologies are twisted, then judge them accordingly. Don't accuse all of Christian ideology though. Same with any religion.
Again, as I said above, the problem is that even what is accepted as holy writ is filled with contradictions, and the problem gets worse if you're including church writings deemed non-canonical by the group that gained supremacy, the Catholic Church. Because there's no single Christian ideology, there's really no way to determine what's twisted and what isn't.

You're working from the base belief that there's a single, pure, "true" christian ideology and that if you examine churches on a case by case basis, you may be able to discover where they've gone wrong. What I'm saying is that any basic study of the early church will show that there was confusion and dissension from the very start, and that there never was a pure strain of Christianity to begin with. It's always been an amalgamation of competing worldviews and goals, and after about 300 years or so, the Catholics came out dominant. But that's due to politics, not due to any belief system.

Well, then this entire thread is meaningless, because he is claiming precisely that the ideology of Islam is bad while the ideology of Christianity is good.

Any bad action of a Muslim, he claims to be in accordance with their ideology. Any bad action of a Christian, he claims to be against their ideology. And now he wants to claim that it's impossible to judge ideologies? Well, then he can quit criticizing Islam as an ideology and close this damned thread and stop wasting everyone's time.
He may not be quite right on that (I haven't got in-depth enough knowledge to criticise Islamic ideology to verify/counter his claims), yet his base view is essentially correct; that ideology and actions of followers should be judged separately.

So why not judge on a case-by-case basis then? By denominations. And learn to distinguish what a faith says from its followers actions. Sure, if some Christian ideologies are twisted, then judge them accordingly. Don't accuse all of Christian ideology though. Same with any religion.
Case by case needs to be even more precise than that.

Knowing denominations is only helpful for distinguishing doctrine from the personal opinion of the speaker and why one Christian or whatever may disagree with another.

Even within denominations, there are individuals who bring in the elitist, egotistical attitude I complain about, and individuals who do not. Being a Methodist or Lutheran or Catholic or whathaveyou is not how I determine if the speaker is going to by my ally or my enemy.

all your hadith are belong to us.
I love you, dude, in a completely heterosexual way. :D

Again, as I said above, the problem is that even what is accepted as holy writ is filled with contradictions, and the problem gets worse if you're including church writings deemed non-canonical by the group that gained supremacy, the Catholic Church. Because there's no single Christian ideology, there's really no way to determine what's twisted and what isn't.

You're working from the base belief that there's a single, pure, "true" christian ideology and that if you examine churches on a case by case basis, you may be able to discover where they've gone wrong. What I'm saying is that any basic study of the early church will show that there was confusion and dissension from the very start, and that there never was a pure strain of Christianity to begin with. It's always been an amalgamation of competing worldviews and goals, and after about 300 years or so, the Catholics came out dominant. But that's due to politics, not due to any belief system.
And I am aware of all of this. I am not even advocating seeing how each Church went wrong, as you say. What I am saying is that Christianity is indeed broken apart, and that if you are going to judge it, judge the sayings of each denominational ideology in separation to how its followers act. Pretty much the same for any religion. I am treating the denominations as little sub-religions, you see. I believe all Christian churches are off the mark by the way.

Well, then this entire thread is meaningless, because he is claiming precisely that the ideology of Islam is bad while the ideology of Christianity is good.

Any bad action of a Muslim, he claims to be in accordance with their ideology. Any bad action of a Christian, he claims to be against their ideology. And now he wants to claim that it's impossible to judge ideologies? Well, then he can quit criticizing Islam as an ideology and close this damned thread and stop wasting everyone's time.

I don't claim its impossible to judge ideologies. What I am saying is if someone claims an action is linked with their ideology you have to look at the ideology to see if it does support their actions. For example, the recent case of Abdul Rahman. I've provided proof that Islamic law supports what they are doing to him

No. I'm not saying free will equals obedience. What I am saying is that God did not want a race of mindless slaves. He wanted a race of thinking, intellegent, empatatice people who would choose to love him.
Then why do you advocate creating laws that would force even non-believers to obey the rules of your religion, whether they choose to or not?

Clearly obedience is more important to you, as you would lke to limit our right to exercise our free will.

Case by case needs to be even more precise than that.

Knowing denominations is only helpful for distinguishing doctrine from the personal opinion of the speaker and why one Christian or whatever may disagree with another.

Even within denominations, there are individuals who bring in the elitist, egotistical attitude I complain about, and individuals who do not. Being a Methodist or Lutheran or Catholic or whathaveyou is not how I determine if the speaker is going to by my ally or my enemy.
Actions of individuals vs. written ideology. Still a distinction. You are affirming what I say; judge the individual separately to the ideology they allegedly ascribe to.

I love you, dude, in a completely heterosexual way. :D

Awwww. *hetero flufflies*

Could it be that this stupid rethoric will have to sound, will have to be heard for a billion years? Is it possible that the world will follow these ignorants into a world where ignorant armies clash by night?

For crying out loud. The Christian Bible says "stone witches, homosexuals, etc". It supported slavery. It supported killing people from other nationalities, JUST LIKE WHAT AL QAEDA DID. What the Catholic Church is doing in Africa by denying them condoms is murder, too. And, guess what: ALL SUPPORTED by the nice Christian Bible. Every. Single. Action.

I summon to the bench the spirits of everyone that Christian Religion hurt, let them speak through me now.

I'm an occultist. I will not forget Salem, no matter what you do.
I'm gay. I will not forget Fred Phelps, and Bush's anti-marriage ammendment ideas, no matter what you do.
I'm muslim. I will not forget the crusades no matter what you do.
I'm an African with AIDS. I will not forget the lack of condoms, no matter what you do.
I'm a writer. I will not forget my books being burned, no matter what you do.
I'm an Indian. I will not forget my people being decimated in the name of the nice Christian God, no matter what you do.
I'm a woman. I will not forget being called a witch and burned to death, no matter what you do.

Every single one of these things found justification in the Bible. Burning non-believers, invading other countries, taking control of other's reproductive freedoms, assuming heretics should burn. Yet you claim Islam is the only bad religion? That this was done by "a few bad apples", but that Islam is only bad apples. You can't have it both ways. I refuse doublethinking. Intolerance is also written in the Bible. That's simply because both books are old. Both of them belong to a period in which killing the Other was acceptable.

Bin Laden also assumes his religion is the only good one, and that Christianity is bad. Yet, here you are, acting like him and claiming moral high ground. On what base? Occultists have problems in schools to this day because of Christian principals. Gays have problems to this day because of Christian politicians. African people are dying RIGHT NOW, AS WE SPEAK, because of a Christian policy. Women get the blame for being raped to this day because of Christian ideologies. And you claim it's the work of a "few bad apples"? Well, in that case, so is 9-11. What will it be?

So all we should concentrate on is what Christians read, not what they do? It doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians agree with and/or give money to lunatics like Robertson and Dobson, just so long as the violence they advocate isn't specifically described in the Bible?

This is the big clear line you're drawing to show how much better your religion is than theirs?

Were you dropped on your head as a child, thats his whole point in a sence because you cant blame religous teachings and ideals for any deaths which were caused by christians. Many people are however, usually when people point out how the islamic teachings actually do encourage killings of infidels and taking over the world etc, believe that its the actual christian teachings itself that is encouraging people to do this.

*SNIP*
It also allowed for violence against other Christians. Oh, and a lot of what you mention is the fault of Old Testament ideology and idiotic followers. Jesus Himself advocates tolerance. Most of the New Testament is benign (and yes, I am aware of Paul's idiocy). The Crusaders were not following the Bible when they acted, they were following the Church's interpretation of it and the commands of the Church itself. Like any other religion, they were perverting texts. The Old Testament characterises Judaism moreso than it does Christianity (gee, Christ may just be the central figure of the latter...or I am dreaming). This is where people conveniently forget the New Testament.

It also allowed for violence against other Christians. Oh, and a lot of what you mention is the fault of Old Testament ideology and idiotic followers. Jesus Himself advocates tolerance. Most of the New Testament is benign. The Crusaders were not following the Bible when they acted, they were following the Church's interpretation of it and the commands of the Church itself. Like any other religion, they were perverting texts.

Ahhh, so you also admit that, LIKE ANY OTHER RELIGION, they were perverting texts. I agree. Bin Laden also perverts texts. Yet here we see a nice Christian claiming the Christians that do these things pervert texts, but that Bin Laden doesn't. That is doublethinking.

As I understand it, the OP is saying: fucked-up fanatic Christians are abusing their religion, but fucked-up fanatic Muslims are following it, therefore Christianity is good and Islam is bad and why does no one agree with me!

Blarharhar.

As I understand it, the OP is saying: fucked-up fanatic Christians are abusing their religion, but fucked-up fanatic Muslims are following it, therefore Christianity is good and Islam is bad and why does no one agree with me!

Blarharhar.

Thank you, Santa Barbara, have a cookie. *Tosses cookie to Santa Barbara*

As for "why does no one agree", that's simply because we weren't raised to doublethink.

Ahhh, so you also admit that, LIKE ANY OTHER RELIGION, they were perverting texts. I agree. Bin Laden also perverts texts. Yet here we see a nice Christian claiming the Christians that do these things pervert texts, but that Bin Laden doesn't. That is doublethinking.
I admit it readily, because that is my belief. I never said otherwise. Now, I am not sure if what Bin Laden is doing is or isn't perverting texts because I know too little of Islam to judge, although I am pretty sure it is. I am just trying to make clear the difference between ideology and individual actions.

I admit it readily, because that is my belief. I never said otherwise. Now, I am not sure if what Bin Laden is doing is or isn't perverting texts because I know too little of Islam to judge, although I am pretty sure it is.

As an occultist, such as myself, one tends to have a fair knowledge of theology. So I'll state that, yes, Bin Laden is perverting texts.

Now, I have to go study. Please, do go on humiliating Adriatica for me. Thank you.

He may not be quite right on that (I haven't got in-depth enough knowledge to criticise Islamic ideology to verify/counter his claims), yet his base view is essentially correct; that ideology and actions of followers should be judged separately.
You either missed or ignored the point of my statement. Let's try it this way:

I say ice cream is yummy if it's chocolate because chocolate is good for you but it's disgusting if it's vanilla because vanilla ice cream makes you fat.

You point out that chocolate ice cream makes people fat, too.

I say that has nothing to do with it being chocolate; vanilla is inherently fattening, whereas chocolate ice cream is only fattening if it's adulterated. Am I or am I not using flavor as the means of distinguising good ice cream from bad? Am I not connecting fattening-ness (i.e. a negative quality) to flavor by claiming that vanilla is inherently fattening while chocolate is not?

This is precisely what Adriatica is doing with Christianity vs. Islam. If we carry the analogy futher:

You call me on my unsupported assumptions by pointing out that the fat is in the ice cream, not the flavor (i.e., the negative quality is in the actions of the believer, not the ideology of the religion).

I counter this by claiming that you can't judge the fattening-ness of an ice cream by its flavor. Have I or have I not just contradicted myself?

So has Adriatica by first judging religious ideologies and then claiming that it's not legitimate to do that.

I happen to think that it is pointless to judge ideologies. I only care about actions. The action I'm judging here is Adriatica's action of hypocritically twisting his own argument in an attempt to prove that his religion is better that someone else's. I am calling him on that.

I happen to think that it is pointless to judge ideologies. I only care about actions. The action I'm judging here is Adriatica's action of hypocritically twisting his own argument in an attempt to prove that his religion is better that someone else's. I am calling him on that.
I know. My point wasn't specifically related to you to begin with. I was supporting his view that ideology and actions are separate. With this I agree. I also agree that it is pointless to judge ideologies because they are objects in reality. You can judge their contents, but even so this is of limited value if the way they are acted on differs. I never said I disagree with you on his hypocrisy.

I don't claim its impossible to judge ideologies. What I am saying is if someone claims an action is linked with their ideology you have to look at the ideology to see if it does support their actions. For example, the recent case of Abdul Rahman. I've provided proof that Islamic law supports what they are doing to him
And I say that your religion's ideology is exactly the same. It supports violence and bad actions to the exact same degree that Islam does -- which is to say it is just as corrupted by false believers in exactly the same ways. Both history and current news support my statement. Nothing supports yours. Your claim that Christianity is inherently better, nicer, whatever, than Islam is, therefore, false.

As an outsider, I have no stake in declaring either of these religions to be better than the other. I have nothing to defend here. I believe I am in a good position to call you on this.

Thank you, Santa Barbara, have a cookie. *Tosses cookie to Santa Barbara*


Yay! Cookie!

You either missed or ignored the point of my statement. Let's try it this way:

I say ice cream is yummy if it's chocolate because chocolate is good for you but it's disgusting if it's vanilla because vanilla ice cream makes you fat.

You point out that chocolate ice cream makes people fat, too.

I say that has nothing to do with it being chocolate; vanilla is inherently fattening, whereas chocolate ice cream is only fattening if it's adulterated. Am I or am I not using flavor as the means of distinguising good ice cream from bad? Am I not connecting fattening-ness (i.e. a negative quality) to flavor by claiming that vanilla is inherently fattening while chocolate is not?

This is precisely what Adriatica is doing with Christianity vs. Islam. If we carry the analogy futher:

You call me on my unsupported assumptions by pointing out that the fat is in the ice cream, not the flavor (i.e., the negative quality is in the actions of the believer, not the ideology of the religion).

I counter this by claiming that you can't judge the fattening-ness of an ice cream by its flavor. Have I or have I not just contradicted myself?

So has Adriatica by first judging religious ideologies and then claiming that it's not legitimate to do that.

I happen to think that it is pointless to judge ideologies. I only care about actions. The action I'm judging here is Adriatica's action of hypocritically twisting his own argument in an attempt to prove that his religion is better that someone else's. I am calling him on that.

I say ice cream is yummy and goes well with cookies. Do you refute, HERETIC?!


This is what religion threads always come down to. Ice cream and cookies.

For crying out loud. The Christian Bible says "stone witches, homosexuals, etc". It supported slavery. It supported killing people from other nationalities, JUST LIKE WHAT AL QAEDA DID. What the Catholic Church is doing in Africa by denying them condoms is murder, too. And, guess what: ALL SUPPORTED by the nice Christian Bible. Every. Single. Action.

Wrong. Most of those actions you quote if they are in the Bible are in the Old Testement. The New Testement explains why we are no longrer "slaves to the law". You have to be more than simplistic about this. You have to look in detail.


I summon to the bench the spirits of everyone that Christian Religion hurt, let them speak through me now.

I'm an occultist. I will not forget Salem, no matter what you do.
I'm gay. I will not forget Fred Phelps, and Bush's anti-marriage ammendment ideas, no matter what you do.
I'm muslim. I will not forget the crusades no matter what you do.
I'm an African with AIDS. I will not forget the lack of condoms, no matter what you do.
I'm a writer. I will not forget my books being burned, no matter what you do.
I'm an Indian. I will not forget my people being decimated in the name of the nice Christian God, no matter what you do.
I'm a woman. I will not forget being called a witch and burned to death, no matter what you do.

Very good. Now find me the speicfic biblical justifications for them and I will see if they are actually part of active dogma or not. Most of those cases are people twisting faith, not following it. There is the diffrence.


Every single one of these things found justification in the Bible. Burning non-believers, invading other countries, taking control of other's reproductive freedoms, assuming heretics should burn. Yet you claim Islam is the only bad religion? That this was done by "a few bad apples", but that Islam is only bad apples. You can't have it both ways. I refuse doublethinking. Intolerance is also written in the Bible. That's simply because both books are old. Both of them belong to a period in which killing the Other was acceptable.

I'd like to see these justifications you speek of. Chances are most of them are from the parts of the Bible that dont bind on us any more. And why dont they bind on us. Because the Bible explains why. Jesus came to fufill the law. We are no longer slaves to the OT system of highly strict laws etc. We live under Gods spirit as our law because Jesus fufilled the old law.


Bin Laden also assumes his religion is the only good one, and that Christianity is bad. Yet, here you are, acting like him and claiming moral high ground. On what base? Occultists have problems in schools to this day because of Christian principals. Gays have problems to this day because of Christian politicians. African people are dying RIGHT NOW, AS WE SPEAK, because of a Christian policy. Women get the blame for being raped to this day because of Christian ideologies. And you claim it's the work of a "few bad apples"? Well, in that case, so is 9-11. What will it be?

Firstly, I'd like to see where in the Bible women are blamed for being raped. I'd also like to see where the Bible opposes contreception (I'm not a Catholic). My point is that most of those things are the result of twists of the Bible. But I dont think the Bib laden attacks are the result of a twisting of the verse "Slay them where you find them". But like I said, if that is inactive dogma I'd like to hear more about it.

I know. My point wasn't specifically related to you to begin with. I was supporting his view that ideology and actions are separate. With this I agree. I also agree that it is pointless to judge ideologies because they are objects in reality. You can judge their contents, but even so this is of limited value if the way they are acted on differs. I never said I disagree with you on his hypocrisy.
Good, now that we've got that cleared up, let's quit quibbling with each other and concentrate on the juicy prey -- uh, I mean, debating the topic. ;)

Yay! Cookie!



I say ice cream is yummy and goes well with cookies. Do you refute, HERETIC?!


This is what religion threads always come down to. Ice cream and cookies.
Ice cream and cookies... I'VE FOUND JESUS!!! He's waiting for me at the store. Later. :D

Wrong. Most of those actions you quote if they are in the Bible are in the Old Testement. The New Testement explains why we are no longrer "slaves to the law". You have to be more than simplistic about this. You have to look in detail.
Exactly. The New Testament differs from the Old in a number of regards. Now, I am not supporting your stance, but I do not think that Heikoku was right in their critique of the Bible.

Wrong. Most of those actions you quote if they are in the Bible are in the Old Testement. The New Testement explains why we are no longrer "slaves to the law". You have to be more than simplistic about this. You have to look in detail.



Very good. Now find me the speicfic biblical justifications for them and I will see if they are actually part of active dogma or not. Most of those cases are people twisting faith, not following it. There is the diffrence.



I'd like to see these justifications you speek of. Chances are most of them are from the parts of the Bible that dont bind on us any more. And why dont they bind on us. Because the Bible explains why. Jesus came to fufill the law. We are no longer slaves to the OT system of highly strict laws etc. We live under Gods spirit as our law because Jesus fufilled the old law.



Firstly, I'd like to see where in the Bible women are blamed for being raped. I'd also like to see where the Bible opposes contreception (I'm not a Catholic). My point is that most of those things are the result of twists of the Bible. But I dont think the Bib laden attacks are the result of a twisting of the verse "Slay them where you find them". But like I said, if that is inactive dogma I'd like to hear more about it.
Your description of the Bible reminds me of document specifications books issued by the US Navy.

Once upon a time, I was a proofreader for a technical publisher that produced operation and maintenance manuals for the DOD -- you know, How to Fix a Busted Submarine, that kind of thing. Each branch of the military had its own rules for how they wanted their books to look. The Air Force only cared that the text matched the diagrams. The Army wanted everything to a 5th grade reading level (:eek: ). But the Navy (ah, the Navy) had "spec books" in which were detailed absolutely everything from preferred spellings to the precise measurements of margins and so forth. To approve the books for publication, they would send "spec specialists" who actually sat in our offices measuring margins and line spaces with rulers (I'm not kidding).

The thing was, there were two spec books that differed from each other. Within each of these spec books, there were "supercedences" which were changes to the specs added later. But the Navy liked to hedge its bets, so they never actually deleted the old text; they just added dated supercedences in chronological order at the back of the books. And of course, because things change over time, the supercedences themselves were superceded by later supercedences -- without anything ever being actually deleted, of course.

So when we got a work order for a book for the Navy, it came with detailed instructions on which spec book to use (sometimes both for different parts of a multi-volume project) and which supercedences out of each book to use (they almost never used the most recent versions, either, and every work order was unique to whichever admiral had ordered the book). It was so much fun, and it was all mine because I was the designated in-house Navy spec person.

So every time, I read the phrase "inactive dogma" or some similar nonsense that you use to parse out precisely which parts and versions of the Bible you want to use for any given argument, I just have to laugh the bitter laugh of a person suffering flashbacks.

Exactly. The New Testament differs from the Old in a number of regards. Now, I am not supporting your stance, but I do not think that Heikoku was right in their critique of the Bible.

Oh, but I wasn't criticizing the Bible. I was pointing out, rather, that Adriatica is doing a fine job at doublethink here by claiming that one approves and the other doesn't. I can misinterpret the Bible and use it to claim it justifies anything. Any Muslim you find will also point out Adriatica's... "misinterpretations" (and I use the comma because anyone can use any book to justify any point of view) in quoting the Quran. Apostasy, for instance, is not "becoming from another religion", it's "becoming from another religion AND attacking Muslims based on it". Unless he's claiming that, while Islam is a violent religion, the one BILLION muslims that do NOT advocate violence aren't, in which case, muslims are better people than Christians, many of whom STILL FOLLOW the Old Testament and DO advocate violence. The point here being that, in this case, Muslims would be twisting their religion for the BETTER, ergo their culture is a better one.

Adriatica, face it. Your ideas crumble in the face of evidence. You lost.

Oh, and before you claim "they all hate us", I'll remind you of the expression "vocal minority". If you insist, I'll rub that nice Christian Fred Phelps in your face, and you'll be unable to claim vocal minority either.

Arguing is a test of intellect. Prove it? Who won, fool?

Oh, but I wasn't criticizing the Bible.
No problem then. :)

The point here being that, in this case, Muslims would be twisting their religion for the BETTER, ergo their culture is a better one.
As would be that of any group of religious practitioners who did so. Now, for those Muslims who twist their religion for the worse, I cannot say much in favour of them, neither can I for those Christians who choose to do so.

No problem then. :)


As would be that of any group of religious practitioners who did so. Now, for those Muslims who twist their religion for the worse, I cannot say much in favour of them, neither can I for those Christians who choose to do so.

You see, Adriatica is claiming that muslims that blow up buildings are following the Quran (they aren't, and I just gave one example of Adriatica's handpicked misinterpretations) while Christians that burn people to death aren't following the Bible (they aren't either, but claiming one is and the other isn't is doublethinking). Even assuming that piece of work that's Adriatica had a point, it'd blow up on his face. It'd mean that most Muslims twist their religion for the BETTER while many (more than the number of terrorist Islamics) Christians do it for the WORSE. So, even assuming he was right, his statement would blow up on his face.

For crying out loud, how can someone be so stupid is beyond me.

Find me in Qur'an where it says to kill a Muslim who rejects Islam. I shall wait.

... and still I wait ...

... and still I wait ...
Planning on waiting the whole day? The poster is offline. :p

... and still I wait ...

And you will keep on waiting. Because Adriatica handpicked his interpretations to drive home his utter lack of a point, and, like a good fundamentalist christian that he is, expects people to accept what he says as fact without evidence to back it up.

But, anyways, you need a friend to wait with you. *Hands Keruvalia a puppy*

Planning on waiting the whole day? The poster is offline. :p

Aww, man! This is no fun! Who am I gonna utterly humiliate for my pleasure now?? :(

Planning on waiting the whole day? The poster is offline. :p

:D

Nope ... just checking back from time to time.

expects people to accept what he says as fact without evidence to back it up.

Boy did he ever come to the wrong forum then. He should try the forums at ihumpjesus.com

But, anyways, you need a friend to wait with you. *Hands Keruvalia a puppy*

Hooray! Puppies!

Well, there you have it. Adriatica let the thread go, which is argumentative to "I lost and won't admit it, I'd rather try to have people forget my humiliation by simply leaving the thread out in the open."...

You lose.