NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)

If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

Um, yeah. Who wouldn't?

Um, yeah. Who wouldn't?

I must admit, that a while ago i probably wouldn't even though I claimed to be Religiously neutral. Im also sure that a number of people wouldn't.

Are you a true defender of religious equality?

Yes, and i'd go as far as saying that i'm a defender of all equality...after all we are all equal.

^Bump^ Maybe i should have posted this in the evening.

^Bump^ Maybe i should have posted this in the evening.
The 'cool' thing to be these days is an atheist Christian bashing Muslim lover. Dare to criticise this norm and you're just a whinging Christian. Just learn to ignore it. :)

"The amish are fundamentalists too, but they don't hijack carriages at needlepoint." -Robin Williams.

"What would Buddha do? Nothing. What does a buddhist terrorist do? Pours gasoline over themselves in the middle of the street. Foosh. Self-barbecue. Other people killing eachother in the name of religion go, 'What the fuck are you doing???'
'Making you deal with your shit!' " -Robin Williams

I hate all religious extremists equally. I criticize both Muslim extremists and Christian extremists all the time.

Are you a true defender of religious equality?

No. Because, quite frankly, most modern major religions are fucking shithouse.

"The amish are fundamentalists too, but they don't hijack carriages at needlepoint." -Robin Williams.

"What would Buddha do? Nothing. What does a buddhist terrorist do? Pours gasoline over themselves in the middle of the street. Foosh. Self-barbecue. Other people killing eachother in the name of religion go, 'What the fuck are you doing???'
'Making you deal with your shit!' " -Robin Williams
Now this is Lunatic Goofballs. Don't ignore him. I find he brings insights into the human mind that equals anything that Descartes or Hume has to offer.

I treat all religions equally. I'm indifferent as to if any of them continue to exist. And I'm not like one of these people you get who say "oh yeh, I don't like organised religion, but the Eastern ones are okay," I once called the Dalai Lama a prat to his face*!

*Well... his face on the TV...

"The amish are fundamentalists too, but they don't hijack carriages at needlepoint." -Robin Williams.

"What would Buddha do? Nothing. What does a buddhist terrorist do? Pours gasoline over themselves in the middle of the street. Foosh. Self-barbecue. Other people killing eachother in the name of religion go, 'What the fuck are you doing???'
'Making you deal with your shit!' " -Robin Williams
And this is why Robin Williams is awesome.

^Bump^ Maybe i should have posted this in the evening.

Maybe you shouldn't have posted this at all :(

Now this is Lunatic Goofballs. Don't ignore him. I find he brings insights into the human mind that equals anything that Descartes or Hume has to offer.

I know minds. I've been playing with them all my life. :)

Religious equality?

Spiritual equality.

You can believe whatever the heck you like about spirituality, but Religion also includes political and social aspects, and I will judge those by their own merits and failings.

I am in no way a proponent of religious equality. If I were, I would need to allow the sacrifice of babies and the killing of Blacks and the bombing of abortion centers. The list goes on.

Religious equality?

Spiritual equality.

You can believe whatever the heck you like about spirituality, but Religion also includes political and social aspects, and I will judge those by their own merits and failings.

It's not really about what religion you prefer, more about how you treat religious people.

There is no religious eqality. Calvinism is true, with all its followers the Elect, and all other religions are on the path to hell.

There is no religious eqality. Calvinism is true, with all its followers the Elect, and all other religions are on the path to hell.

Well, at least I'm safe (http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9980000/9985085.jpg)

Instead of interpreting such feelings (if they exist) as an attack on Christianity, I think you should view them as Westerners expecting more from a Western religion. Yes, it's antiquated and more than a little political incorrect, but I'm sure each one of us in the West expects a higher level of restraint from "our religion" than we do from others.

Does that make sense? I'm sure there are some folks out there who just hate Christianity (probably due to pushy parents/relatives dragging them to church as a child) but I think that the majority simply expect more out of our culture.

Well, at least I'm safe (http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9980000/9985085.jpg)

Hellbound.

Instead of interpreting such feelings (if they exist) as an attack on Christianity, I think you should view them as Westerners expecting more from a Western religion. Yes, it's antiquated and more than a little political incorrect, but I'm sure each one of us in the West expects a higher level of restraint from "our religion" than we do from others.

Does that make sense? I'm sure there are some folks out there who just hate Christianity (probably due to pushy parents/relatives dragging them to church as a child) but I think that the majority simply expect more out of our culture.

Thats true, but i do find it hypocritical when so many people claim that they treat all religions with an equal amount of respect.

Hellbound.

"It's your hell, you burn in it."
Sorry, tis people like you give your religion a bad name.
I can handle people thinking I'm going to hell, but who respect others' viewpoints enough to actually debate. The ones like you are just annoying, and deserving of zero respect.

Get a (2nd :p) life.

Well, at least I'm safe (http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9980000/9985085.jpg)
Calvin & Hobbes = t3h pwnage

"It's your hell, you burn in it."
Sorry, tis people like you give your religion a bad name.
I can handle people thinking I'm going to hell, but who respect others' viewpoints enough to actually debate. The ones like you are just annoying, and deserving of zero respect.

Get a (2nd :p) life.

It's humanity's hell. We'll all burn in it unless we follow the points.

It's not really about what religion you prefer, more about how you treat religious people.
I will treat a religious person according to his or her own merits and attitudes too. However, if you think that women are second class citizens, I will think considerably more poorly of you than I would otherwise, just as I will if you think homosexual people are second-class humans, and if you openly proclaim such ideas then I will assume they are a fair reflection on your personal opinion. Isn't that reasonable?

Sorry, not going to pretend I believe in religious equality until they all equally value human life...including their own.

Damn those snakehandling Baptists.:p

It's humanity's hell. We'll all burn in it unless we follow the points.

We are all burning in it already!! Does this life feel like heaven to any of you?

We are all burning in it already!! Does this life feel like heaven to any of you?

This is life. Why would it be like heaven? The faithful are tested, and seperated from the unbelievers.

We are all burning in it already!! Does this life feel like heaven to any of you?
I'm quite happy, thank you. :)

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)
I have and always have defended peoples rights to believe in anything they damn well pleased in their personal life

I just dont defend peoples rights to use said unprovable supposition to controll my life

Well, at least I'm safe (http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9980000/9985085.jpg)

YAY! :D

This is life. Why would it be like heaven? The faithful are tested, and seperated from the unbelievers.
If god knows all including peoples choices why bother with the test?

How can so many people criticize people for thinking that their religion is superior to another religion, when they don't think religions are equal anyway.

I'm quite happy, thank you. :)

Glad to here it, i am too. But i still see room for improvment, world news is hardly cheery!!

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)

I'll always argue the evils of following any religion that says it's ok to marginalize or kill others. Which means unless you're a Buddhist I think your religion sucks.

How can so many people criticize people for thinking that their religion is superior to another religion, when they don't think religions are equal anyway.
We criticize them because in the end they have no bassis for belief ... no reall difference beyond the stories

Some are more creative the others, but thats about it.

I can see the point in thinking atheism or theism is better then the other, but arguing between religions is like arguing what water is wetter when you cant feel the watter directly to start with

I am a true believer in religious tolerance. After all it's not the religion, in my point of view, does not completethe thought process of hate it's all in the way people are taught, raised, and molded by their society.

We criticize them because in the end they have no bassis for belief ... no reall difference beyond the stories
You know as well as I that we wouldn't have a problem with it if it was just about stories. The different problems we have with different religions are the unethical aspects of their respective political and social repercussions.

We criticize them because in the end they have no bassis for belief ... no reall difference beyond the stories

Some are more creative the others, but thats about it.

I can see the point in thinking atheism or theism is better then the other, but arguing between religions is like arguing what water is wetter when you cant feel the watter directly to start with

I always see people get endlessly slandered for saying Christianity is better then Islam and sometimes the otherway round. However what right do they have to criticize people for thinking one religion is better when they don't think each religion is equal. Im not talking about criticizing belief in General, that is a different matter.

I'll always argue the evils of following any religion that says it's ok to marginalize or kill others. Which means unless you're a Buddhist I think your religion sucks.

Thanks! I am, amongst other things, a Buddhist.

Not sure main relegions actually ok the killing of others though. Humans have a darkness within them (some people call it Satan) which will enable us to commit horiffic acts in the name of anything. We also have a great light side (god?) that we can use for the greatest acts of compassion towards each other...
...as they say, the chioce is yours...

You know as well as I that we wouldn't have a problem with it if it was just about stories. The different problems we have with different religions are the unethical aspects of their respective political and social repercussions.
I agree that I addressed earlier about not wanting their unfounded personal beliefs to fuck with my life

It's humanity's hell. We'll all burn in it unless we follow the points.

But which one do I choose then? Whose hell should I choose not to burn in? Which hell is worst and which heaven best, since there are myriad forms of each?

There is no religious eqality. Calvinism is true, with all its followers the Elect, and all other religions are on the path to hell.

You need to tone it down. I'm a Calvinist and I believe that it should guide all parts of your life.

But I think you are turning more people away than you're helping. Try a more friendly tone. :)

Which begs the question, are all religions equal?

I always see people get endlessly slandered for saying Christianity is better then Islam and sometimes the otherway round. However what right do they have to criticize people for thinking one religion is better when they don't think each religion is equal. Im not talking about criticizing belief in General, that is a different matter.
Ahhh I see I misunderstood

Personally I see most of the religions as so simmilar it is funny, though they do have unequal reprocussions

Just for the record, if your against religious equality, then you are against the religious hatred bill.

Which begs the question, are all religions equal?
As a belief ... yes. But their impacts are most defiantly not equal

This is life. Why would it be like heaven? The faithful are tested, and seperated from the unbelievers.

Methinks any respectable God would be perfectly capable of separating out unbelievers without testing them.

But which one do I choose then? Whose hell should I choose not to burn in? Which hell is worst and which heaven best, since there are myriad forms of each?


Good question!! For a good answer try this... there are not myrid forms of each, just a myrid of peoples veiws of them.

Heaven and hell are the same for all of us.

Methinks any respectable God would be perfectly capable of separating out unbelievers without testing them.
Which is what I asked right after that lol

Why would an all knowing being have to test what he already knows

Seems like un needed pain on the subjects parts

Methinks any respectable God would be perfectly capable of separating out unbelievers without testing them.

Would a respectable god make unbelievers, knowing they would suffer for eternity simply for being what they were?

Thats true, but i do find it hypocritical when so many people claim that they treat all religions with an equal amount of respect.

Of course it is. In this world hypocrisy is almost a given. But the reason (or, more likely, the justification) for the hypocrisy is what's important to look at.

Perhaps it serves a purpose? Perhaps being harder on ourselves than on others is a tenet that is in line with the Biblical "judge not others" line of thought. Of course, that only works if think about it from a cultural and not individual perspective. ;)

It's humanity's hell. We'll all burn in it unless we follow the points.

Are Arminian's Hell-bound? (Arminian not Armenian)

The answer is "no."

If you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior as presented by Scripture and confess that with your mouth, you are saved. If they don't agree with the finer points of theology, because they don't believe Scripture teaches it of course, then they are still Christians.

There is no religious eqality. Calvinism is true, with all its followers the Elect, and all other religions are on the path to hell.

Lol! I never realized there was a cult of Calvinism.

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)
I would rebuke anyone trying to get rid of anybody.

You need to tone it down. I'm a Calvinist and I believe that it should guide all parts of your life.

But I think you are turning more people away than you're helping. Try a more friendly tone. :)

Calvinists go for double predestination, right? Or was that just in the early days?
I really can't get my head round the different types. Surely either tis predestined or tisn't?

I would rebuke anyone trying to get rid of anybody.

Good point well made!!:)

No. I am not a defender of religious equality. No more than I am a defender of equality amongst people.

Different religions are just that, different, and as such I will treat them differently. If the followers of a religion respect my rights to hold my beleifes, then I will extend this same right to them, if however they come on like Christ is Lord and start telling me what I have to believe, that I am damned if I don't do as they say, then I have no tolerance at al for them.

I am highly critical of prosetylizing religions of all types, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Cthulu. I am equally highly tolerant of all peaceful and respectful religions, independant of what it is they believe.

Treat religions as they deserve to be treated in your opinion.

Lol! I never realized there was a cult of Calvinism.

There are only those who understand and those who understand little in Calvinism. S/he obviously understands little. God help him/her. S/he is totally off base in application.

Good question!! For a good answer try this... there are not myrid forms of each, just a myrid of peoples veiws of them.

Heaven and hell are the same for all of us.

's a point. Or neither exists at all, of course.

Would a respectable god make unbelievers, knowing they would suffer for eternity simply for being what they were?

That's where the free will argument always comes in; so anticipating it...
Why would God create people so flawed as to choose evil? Surely God could make people who would choose good, then give them the choice. Their will is still free.

Not sure main relegions actually ok the killing of others though. Humans have a darkness within them (some people call it Satan) which will enable us to commit horiffic acts in the name of anything. We also have a great light side (god?) that we can use for the greatest acts of compassion towards each other...
...as they say, the chioce is yours...
Are Light and Darkness the only choices? It is my general opinion that both are simply ways of preventing others from seeing the chaotic aspects of ourselves.

Some people move towards the darkness. They hide themselves in the shadows, performing their deeds unseen and covering their tracks with clever deceit and lies.

Some prefer the light. They go on committing the same deeds but, rather than hiding it, try to prevent anyone from seeing them by blinding them with other acts of apparent altruism or political allegiance.

More often than not, people use both.

To me, there is only ever one option; the path of Transparency. To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created.

Are Light and Darkness the only choices? It is my general opinion that both are simply ways of preventing others from seeing the chaotic aspects of ourselves.

Some people move towards the darkness. They hide themselves in the shadows, performing their deeds unseen and covering their tracks with clever deceit and lies.

Some prefer the light. They go on committing the same deeds but, rather than hiding it, try to prevent anyone from seeing them by blinding them with other acts of apparent altruism or political allegiance.

More often than not, people use both.

To me, there is only ever one option; the path of Transparency. To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created.

I like stroboscopic effects because it makes it look like I'm teleporting when I move. :)

There are only those who understand and those who understand little in Calvinism. S/he obviously understands little. God help him/her. S/he is totally off base in application.

Tis an interesting denomination, not least for it's historical role in the Reformation....it has been claimed that Lutheran(/Zwinglian) Reformed churches had reached their high water mark, and to keep Europe split on religious lines required the more hardline, militant Calvinism.

I like stroboscopic effects because it makes it look like I'm teleporting when I move. :)
Try it in front of a mirror. That looks even cooler. :D

Calvinists go for double predestination, right? Or was that just in the early days?
I really can't get my head round the different types. Surely either tis predestined or tisn't?

Some Calvinists beleive in predestination. But that's only because they haven't become angry enough to leave the Reformed Tradition and we haven't become angry enough to throw them out.

Every Christian has some doctrine of predestination: the word is used in Scripture.

Calvin's definition (which was also Luther's and St. Augustine's definition) was that God changed the nature of those persons who He chose so that they would turn to Him. The others He leaves alone. Because they will never come to God on their own, they perish.

Double or hyperpredestination is that God changes the nature of those He chooses to save so they will come to Him and He changes the nature of those He does not choose to save so that they reject Him.

The problem lies in whether He changes the reprobate (the person He does not choose to save) or not.

Are Light and Darkness the only choices? It is my general opinion that both are simply ways of preventing others from seeing the chaotic aspects of ourselves.

Some people move towards the darkness. They hide themselves in the shadows, performing their deeds unseen and covering their tracks with clever deceit and lies.

Some prefer the light. They go on committing the same deeds but, rather than hiding it, try to prevent anyone from seeing them by blinding them with other acts of apparent altruism or political allegiance.

More often than not, people use both.

To me, there is only ever one option; the path of Transparency. To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created.

I nominate this for Pseud's Corner in Private Eye :D

To me, there is only ever one option; the path of Transparency. To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created.

Which funnily enough, is one of the main goals of christianity. You must accept your humbleness and put yourself last before everyone else, except that you are not perfect etc.. Not that im trying to convert you or anything.

I would be happy getting rid of all religions.

But I think the tendency to argue with someone who says "we should get rid of Islam" is the fact that they are the official enemy, with little representation here (in the U.S. anyway). You get plenty of viewpoints on the Christian religion here, and can see the wide spectrum of individuals Christianity can create. You see them and talk to them everyday. But since there are few Muslims in this country, I would argue with the person to make sure they don't turn the "getting rid of Islam" comment into something racist and unrepresentative of the arab world.

My understanding of the world is that most arabs, and people, are relatively moderate. Extremists like GW Bush and Bin Laden ruin the world for everybody.

So, in conclusion, you devil-advocate more in Islam's favor to keep paranoia and fear/war-mongering from escalating out of control.

But really, both Islam and Christianity do a great deal of harm in the world.

Some Calvinists beleive in predestination. But that's only because they haven't become angry enough to leave the Reformed Tradition and we haven't become angry enough to throw them out.

Every Christian has some doctrine of predestination: the word is used in Scripture.

Calvin's definition (which was also Luther's and St. Augustine's definition) was that God changed the nature of those persons who He chose so that they would turn to Him. The others He leaves alone. Because they will never come to God on their own, they perish.

Double or hyperpredestination is that God changes the nature of those He chooses to save so they will come to Him and He changes the nature of those He does not choose to save so that they reject Him.

The problem lies in whether He changes the reprobate (the person He does not choose to save) or not.

Interesting...so the million-dollar question is, why does God choose those that he does? And why would the all-merciful, all-loving God described in parts of the Bible only choose some people?

While I consider all superstition absurd & undesirable, I have no intention of deciding what people should or shouldn't think or believe in - as long as you're not trying to force your beliefs & rules on others.

I consider fundamentalism to be one of the most dangerous human conditions, exactly because it is all about forcefully imposing itself on others. Fundamentalists have no regard for anything but their own fundamentalist ideology, and far too many are not only prepared to criminalize all but their own ideology, they're prepared to kill & maim in its name.

Obviously they aren't defenders of religious equality.


That said, if people feel the need to vent their religious beliefs, they should be prepared to discuss their faith.

Are Light and Darkness the only choices? It is my general opinion that both are simply ways of preventing others from seeing the chaotic aspects of ourselves.

Some people move towards the darkness. They hide themselves in the shadows, performing their deeds unseen and covering their tracks with clever deceit and lies.

Some prefer the light. They go on committing the same deeds but, rather than hiding it, try to prevent anyone from seeing them by blinding them with other acts of apparent altruism or political allegiance.

More often than not, people use both.

To me, there is only ever one option; the path of Transparency. To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created.

I'd say the light you discribe i would still call darkness!! The light i mean is what you call tranparancey, a completly honest picture of our true self.

And your right "To accept one's weaknesses and to wear them openly, without hindrance, is the only way we can overcome the barrier of mistrust that the other two have created"

So well said.

Tis an interesting denomination, not least for it's historical role in the Reformation....it has been claimed that Lutheran(/Zwinglian) Reformed churches had reached their high water mark, and to keep Europe split on religious lines required the more hardline, militant Calvinism.

Not so. I don't know much about Zwingli's attitude, but Luther was militant. I have no problem with Christ is Lord's zeal. Only with his/her lack of tact in spreading the Gospel.

's a point. Or neither exists at all, of course.

I don't think thet really exist, other than as a construct of our minds.....but thtas a whole different kettle of ball parks

Interesting...so the million-dollar question is, why does God choose those that he does? And why would the all-merciful, all-loving God described in parts of the Bible only choose some people?

The question isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?"

The question is "Why does God save anyone?"

And I don't know why He chose me over someone else. I can think of no reason what so ever. It is surely not because of anything I did, am doing, or will do.

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)
I wouldn't rebuke any poster who said the world would be better off without Islam or Christianity or any other religion, because I happen to agree. On the other hand, I would disagree with anybody who suggested that we should get rid of CHRISTIANS or MUSLIMS or any other group of religious believers, because I don't think killing believers is going to decrease the amount of religious fanaticism in the world. Most religious fundamentalists draw strength from that sort of thing, as a matter of fact.

Not so. I don't know much about Zwingli's attitude, but Luther was militant. I have no problem with Christ is Lord's zeal. Only with his/her lack of tact in spreading the Gospel.

Luther himself was militant, but those who adopted his creed were often moderates, more concerned by the Church's temporal power than its theology.
I think we both have the same problem with Christ is Lord then, if from a different perspective.

While I consider all superstition absurd & undesirable, I have no intention of deciding what people should or shouldn't think or believe in - as long as you're not trying to force your beliefs & rules on others.

I consider fundamentalism to be one of the most dangerous human conditions, exactly because it is all about forcefully imposing itself on others. Fundamentalists have no regard for anything but their own fundamentalist ideology, and far too many are not only prepared to criminalize all but their own ideology, they're prepared to kill & maim in its name.



Another thing is, fundamentalists don't just exist in Religion. Your being forced to abide by certain politics just by living in a certain country, the USA probably would have never existed if the leaders didn't wan't to force their politics on the rest of America. You are always having beliefs forced on you, in school and in the media.

Luther himself was militant, but those who adopted his creed were often moderates, more concerned by the Church's temporal power than its theology.
I think we both have the same problem with Christ is Lord then, if from a different perspective.

May I ask what your theological persuasion is then?

The question isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?"

The question is "Why does God save anyone?"

And I don't know why He chose me over someone else. I can think of no reason what so ever. It is surely not because of anything I did, am doing, or will do.

Ok, if that's the question, the subsidiary question still holds; of if this one why not another. And I've never heard an answer to it.

May I ask what your theological persuasion is then?

Moderate agnostic. And now I have to get a train, so fun as this is I gtg.

As a Muslim but more importantly as a Human I believe that no one has the right to kill someone or later claim they did it so in name of God or country.
Whatever such a killer claims is not important, as far as I know and everyone must know no religion preaches killing.
But there are people that do, asking and ordering other people to do so in the name of anything, religion or nationality sometimes both.
We must just hang those kind of war preachers,fanatics and bloodlusters high in the gallows to show people how deeply we hate hate :cool: Put their severed heads on pikes and walk the world hand to hand and show it to everyone that all religions can exist in peace without those ......f.ckers. :eek:
Then we can sit in peace and have a cup of tea, talk over things in a civilized manner.

Another thing is, fundamentalists don't just exist in Religion. Your being forced to abide by certain politics just by living in a certain country, the USA probably would have never existed if the leaders didn't wan't to force their politics on the rest of America. You are always having beliefs forced on you, in school and in the media.There's a difference between having to submit to the mechanics of your chosen society, and being forced to submit to the ideology of the society you happen to be a part of.

In the former, you're able to challenge the mehcanisms of the society & work to change them. In fact, you're expected to. That's how such societies grow coherent & avoid oppressing their individual parts.
In the latter, you can either submit, or attempt to flee.

I nominate this for Pseud's Corner in Private Eye :D
Ooh, neat. You're welcome to the £10 if you want it. ^^;
Which funnily enough, is one of the main goals of christianity. You must accept your humbleness and put yourself last before everyone else, except that you are not perfect etc.. Not that im trying to convert you or anything.
Christianity itself has always seemed to me to horribly abuse the Light. It forms charities, runs rehabilitation schemes, helps out in community events and so on, which are all great things to do, but does them all under what is both a spiritually and politically evangelical agenda, and I simply can't accept that.

That's not the same as Christians, of course. I know many who will help out with the world for its own sake. But that's what Christianity as an organisation is essentially all about; doing good in order to promote itself. And sorry, but I'll have nothing to do with that, thanks.

I'd say the light you discribe i would still call darkness!! The light i mean is what you call tranparancey, a completly honest picture of our true self.
I understand why you say that, but I think it's a distinction worth making. Whenever you hear about people talking about light and dark as concepts, it is almost always about "my good side versus their bad side" and trying to win people over. If you think about it, the analogy to blinding them with light makes sense; it's certainly not an aspect of darkness to be able to inspire others.

Gotta go! Talk to you all later! :)

Luther himself was militant, but those who adopted his creed were often moderates, more concerned by the Church's temporal power than its theology.
I think we both have the same problem with Christ is Lord then, if from a different perspective.No he wasn't. He was majorly pissed off at corruption and how the church handled things, but didn't necessarily advocate splitting off and forming a new religion. In fact, he condemned the peasants during the Peasant Wars that rose up after hearing his criticism of the church.

I generally think that religions are mere characterizations of spirituality. In other words, I don't think looking at Muslims as Muslims, Christians as Christians, etc. I certainly don't think government should have any problem with anyone believing anything. All I ask is that everyone play by the rules (i.e. don't kill, steal or destroy). Terrorists steal, kill, and destroy, no matter their religion, spiritual journey or cause, and must be dealt with.

Beyond that, believe what you want. I am not so arrogant as to assume that fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion are wrong. The limitations that should be imposed mainly have to do with interfering with the free will and choice of others. I have no problem with someone telling someone else they're going to hell; the resulting ill-will that person has created towards his faith is punishment enough.

Does that make me a defender of religious equality? It should. It's not society's fault that some people think that killing babies, running planes into buildings, or bombing abortion clinics will be rewarded in heaven (Don't the abortion clinic bombers recognize that, if they kill a pregnant woman, they're killing the fetus too? :headbang:). But, if your faith doesn't involve any of those things, you're good with me.

No he wasn't. He was majorly pissed off at corruption and how the church handled things, but didn't necessarily advocate splitting off and forming a new religion. In fact, he condemned the peasants during the Peasant Wars that rose up after hearing his criticism of the church.

Also wrote a book called, "The Jews and Their Lies."

Nice guy.

Brave in many ways, but had some wacky viewpoints.

I've criticised fundamentalists of all religions many times, and there actually have been threads on here saying we should get rid of Christianity, i did rebuke them. Just as i would a thread saying we should get rid of Islam.

But that's what Christianity as an organisation is essentially all about; doing good in order to promote itself.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Christianity is not an organisation; it's a religion. Not all Christians are part of a religious organisation. About doing good in order to promote oneself, talk for yourself maybe and not for every Christian, particularly if you're not one. Respect others, if you want to be respected...

There are good people and bad people, not good people and Christians.

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)

Tell me the last time "Fundamentalist" Christians went on a killing spree.

And no, the crusades weren't fundamental christians. The catholic church might be considered CHristian, but barely.

No, Fred Phelps is not Christian either.

Tell me the last time "Fundamentalist" Christians went on a killing spree.

Why, they killed my aunt just yesterday and ate her body. It's true...she got better.

Tell me the last time "Fundamentalist" Christians went on a killing spree.

I did a quick Google and came up with this in less than 15 seconds:

"A militant fundamentalist Christian group, the Army of God claimed responsibility FEB-24 for recent bombings in Atlanta GA of an abortion clinic and a gay/lesbian nightclub. A group called by this name has been known to the FBI; they have circulated bomb-making manuals which advocate how to blow up abortion clinics. The letter described the bombs' design and set up a mechanism by which future claims of responsibility could be confirmed for upcoming bombings. They threatened total war against the federal government and promised to attack gays, lesbians, their organizations and supporters in the future."

Reuters News Agency, 1997-FEB-24; Associated Press, 1997-FEB-26


No, Fred Phelps is not Christian either.
Hey look, folks it's the Not Real Christians Brigade! They're marching right alongside the Right Honorable League of No True Scottsmen!

Ok so heres the situation.

Say some idiot posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Islam, most of you would probably rebuke that statement and debate with him. Showing his flaws saying: you shouldn't condem all muslims with the act of a few thousand etc etc..

Ok so say someone posted in the forums saying that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him? Im sure that some of you may calmly debate with him, but would you criticize him in the same way that you would criticize the post about islam. Probably but maybe not.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)
I defend social equality and the legal rights that go with it as core principles and apply them to every human being on the planet regardless of religion or anything else -- along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."

But while I want to see everyone in the world enjoy the same equality and rights that I want for myself, at the same time, I resent and resist any attempts to push me around or lecture me, no matter who does it or why or on what subject.

And I will blow the whistle on anyone who tries to sneakily impose their religious beliefs on me by rewriting the laws of my country to match their religious scriptures.

And if anyone commits a crime and then tries to claim they did it for their religion, I ask who gives a motherfuck why they blew up that bomb? All I need to know is that they were the ones who did it, and that's the basis for a conviction. Motive? Not interested. Excuse? Really not interested.

So, the bottom line is, people have the right to take themselves to hell in any handbasket they like; murderers are murderers, regardless of their excuses; and I will fight like hell to defend any religious person's right to try to proselytize me, and then once his right is secure, if he tries to do it, I'll tell him to go fuck himself. This applies to all religions, all political groups, just about everybody, really.

I'm no defender of religious equality, and I'll never pretend to be one.

I don't hate political islam for its claim that it has a religious revelation.

I hate political islam for its claim of a concurrent claim to political revelation.

Any muslim who endorses such claims ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi ) is, as far as I am concernced, just another Valid Military Target.

Ok so heres the situation.

Ok now lets say that Christian Fundamentalists kept on commiting severe terrorist acts, killing the same amount of people that Islam terrorism has killed today. At this time, a poster said that we must get rid of Christianity. Would you rebuke him and criticize him in the same way that you would with the post about islam? Or would you reply with "no shit" or etc.. (Im sorry to say but i have actually seen this often even in this situation). If you would defend Christianity in the same way with Islam saying that you can't condem the whole of Christianity with the act of a few thousand etc.. only then you would truly regard religions as equal and be religiously neutral as many claim to be.

(This is in no way an attack on Islam)

I actually go further than religious equality. I point out the flaws in all belief systems, regardless of whether that belief system is religious or not. I have also defended the merits of those same belief systems, religious or not.

I actually go further than religious equality. I point out the flaws in all belief systems, regardless of whether that belief system is religious or not. I have also defended the merits of those same belief systems, religious or not.

It ain't about systems - it's about the individuals who act ( out of their interpretation of those systems ) ...

I actually go further than religious equality. I point out the flaws in all belief systems, regardless of whether that belief system is religious or not. I have also defended the merits of those same belief systems, religious or not.

It ain't about systems - it's about the individuals who act ( out of their interpretation of those systems ) ...
Which is why I consider debating the merits of those systems ( including my own ) as rather irrelevant.

It ain't about systems - it's about the individuals who act ( out of their interpretation of those systems ) ...

Fair enough. I also point out the mistakes of those who hold to all belief systems regardless of which belief system the person or group of persons in question has.

I'm not religiousified. I believe in Christ. I have my personal relationship with God. But I am not a catholic or a member of any protestant denomination. Although .. by some online definitions and "tests" I seem to fit mostly into the evangelical. Someone on here a while ago described what they believed in, and what they said was very similar to my beliefs, and they stated that they was pagan. I'm not going to call myself a pagan, but I might very well be. I know I'm different.. I feel that religion works more towards seperating us than anything else. It's a very complicated issue. I can't type near as fast as I think.. .. I've done lost what I thought. Probably best, very heavy subject.

I am not a defender of religion at all.

You have the same set of rights that I and everyone else has, if your religion requires a new or greater set of rights, tough for you.

No he wasn't. He was majorly pissed off at corruption and how the church handled things, but didn't necessarily advocate splitting off and forming a new religion. In fact, he condemned the peasants during the Peasant Wars that rose up after hearing his criticism of the church.

Luther only condemned the peasants because they undermined his chances with the princes; he realised he needed the princes' support if he was to do better than the Lollards and Hussites.

Ok i believe in live and let live just so long as you dont impose your beliefs onto others (some of my friends are sikh, hindu, muslim,) and thats fine.

Where racism creeps in is where extremists take a book like the bible which says, for example that gays are evil (which is rubbish) or one of the more extreme translations of the Koran which says that all other races are a sin and take it at face value and try to impose these facts on other people

If we want to live in a multicultural society like Britain then we need to learn.

Tell me the last time "Fundamentalist" Christians went on a killing spree.

And no, the crusades weren't fundamental christians. The catholic church might be considered CHristian, but barely.

No, Fred Phelps is not Christian either.

The Catholic Church is, for most Christians, the definition of Christianity. So to say it's "barely" Christian, is arrogance of the highest order. After all, what makes you better able to judge what is Christian than most Christians?

I think all religions are equally ridiculous. But I wouldn't advocate getting rid of them, they make for great entertainment.

I would try to isolate violent extremists of any religion in one place away from sensible people and let them work out their angst on each other - possibly for reality TV.

The Catholic Church is, for most Christians, the definition of Christianity. So to say it's "barely" Christian, is arrogance of the highest order. After all, what makes you better able to judge what is Christian than most Christians?Nah, everybody knows the Catholics are Scotsmen :p