NationStates Jolt Archive

My2 cents: I am a Christian.. and as most US christians I am in no way related to these bad human beings.. Families are being bombed.. and these "Christians" want the War to keep going.. they want the blood to keep flowing..

Pastors urging the US government not to restrain Israel.

BBC News, Washington
19 July 2006 11:38 GMT
More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel.

"For the first time in the history of Christianity in America, Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians," he said.

The event was planned months ago, and is not a direct response to the ongoing violence in the region.

They see God's word being played out on their television sets

Timothy Shah, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

But the military conflict "certainly makes our meeting more significant," Pastor Hagee said.

The thousands of Christians in Washington will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm

I don't mind.

"Giving" Christianity a bad name?

Honey, Christianity has had a bad name for a millennium now...

This has got to do with this whole "Israel must stand, it says so in the Bible, or we'll all die!" thing, doesn't it.

Silly Christians. If they wanna believe, let them. They just gotta be careful to keep international politics and their beliefs apart.

*shakes head*

stupid christian fundalmentalists.

I don't know why people are so scared to just come out and say it: the right-wing evangelicals are a doomsday cult. They are LOOKING FORWARD to the destruction of the Earth. They are trying to bring on the Rapture as quickly as possible.

It's so funny that the right wing accuses the left wing of being anti-American, when the simple reality is that the right wing is actively courting the very group which is hoping the hardest for the literal destruction of this country.

I'm not surprised

and it doesnt GIVE it a bad names, it adds to the existing one.

His[John Hagee's] latest book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, interprets the Bible to predict that Russian and Arab armies will invade Israel and be destroyed by God.

This will set up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West, led by the anti-Christ, who will be the head of the European Union, Pastor Hagee writes.

That final battle between East and West - at Armageddon, an actual place in Israel - will precipitate the second coming of Christ, he concludes.

It is not clear how many evangelicals believe literally in those type of prophecies.

hes an idiot, but whats worse is that people believe him!

Yes, these guys are giving other christians nad names.
However, if you allow these nutjobs to represent you......you deserve it.

LOL Christianity has a terrible name! Look back over the history and development of Christianity. Loads of stuff was taken from the Torra (Jewish Bible yes?), dressed up in a hat and called something else. Christianity has a history of intolerance, brutality and hilarity thrown in for good measure.

Christianity has a history of intolerance, brutality and hilarity thrown in for good measure.
So does Islam, so I guess pointing fingers will get us nowhere.

I don't know why people are so scared to just come out and say it: the right-wing evangelicals are a doomsday cult.

Christianity itself is a doomsday cult. It's a religion that heralds the return of its monotheism-bending deity as the event that brings upon a doomsday for the entire world. It's a religion that waits, and wants, for that to happen, as it's a "good" thing.

This has got to do with this whole "Israel must stand, it says so in the Bible, or we'll all die!" thing, doesn't it.

I was under the impression that Israel was not meant to be created yet.

Pffft, right-wing "american" christians...

Then you talk ill of we catholics. Those so-called christians...They are a bunch of nutcases, in any case.

It says it was planned before the conflict started, although, you all should take that into account.

So does Islam, so I guess pointing fingers will get us nowhere.
Sure it will: I point my finger square at superstitious cults. I personally promise you that the amount of bullshit on this planet will decrease exponentially if we get rid of them all.

Don't believe me? Okay, fair enough. Let's put my theory to the test. You help me wipe superstition off the face of the Earth, and if it doesn't accomplish anything then I owe you a Coke. :)

hes an idiot, but whats worse is that people believe him!
Every Sunday morning on community television here in Brisbane there is a show on called "Tomorrow's World" (http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/), in which they use the Bible to predict the future of the direct heirs of the Chosen People (namely the US, Britain and Australia...they never seem to mention Canada).

In that they usually choose the EU as "The Beast" which gets a mention in the Bible. Not sure why though. But then, I'd love to serve the anti-christ if he's chosen by the heads of European governments! :D

I don't know why people are so scared to just come out and say it: the right-wing evangelicals are a doomsday cult. They are LOOKING FORWARD to the destruction of the Earth. They are trying to bring on the Rapture as quickly as possible.

It's so funny that the right wing accuses the left wing of being anti-American, when the simple reality is that the right wing is actively courting the very group which is hoping the hardest for the literal destruction of this country.

Oh know! A small minority of right wing christians support Israel in a war against the Hezbollah. That must automaticly mean that all right wing christians want the destruction of the earth and that all right wing people are christians! :rolleyes:

Oh know! A small minority of right wing christians support Israel in a war against the Hezbollah. That must automaticly mean that all right wing christians want the destruction of the earth and that all right wing people are christians! :rolleyes:
Reading comprehension, people. It's your friend.

Read the post that you quoted from me. Look carefully: do you see the word "Christian" anywhere? Hmm. Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?

Every Sunday morning on community television here in Brisbane there is a show on called "Tomorrow's World" (http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/), in which they use the Bible to predict the future of the direct heirs of the Chosen People (namely the US, Britain and Australia...they never seem to mention Canada).

In that they usually choose the EU as "The Beast" which gets a mention in the Bible. Not sure why though. But then, I'd love to serve the anti-christ if he's chosen by the heads of European governments! :D

lol, maybe they think ice hockey is not godly enough. Do people actually watch that programme seriously, not just for a laugh, if they do thay get a slap upside the head

Reading comprehension, people. It's your friend.

Read the post that you quoted from me. Look carefully: do you see the word "Christian" anywhere? Hmm. Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?

A large portion of Christianity is evangelical, and you also used the term right wing.

A large portion of Christianity is evangelical, and you also used the term right wing.

Try using the first as a substantive and the second as an adjective. Then put the latter before the former one, juxtaposing them.

See how those pesky grammatical relationships suddenly narrow the meaning? And how reading is done in that context?

Apparently not.

My2 cents: I am a Christian.. and as most US christians I am in no way related to these bad human beings..

For a "Christian" the majority of your posts on this forum have been really pro-militant Islam over the past year. I believe that you're about as Christian as those "Christians" who want Israel to keep bombing people.

The alternative, as we may see, to Israel bombing Hezbollah and blowing them up, is Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel with impunity and blowing up Jews. Or, penultimately, the destruction of the state of Israel and, by the words of Hezbollah, the genocide of every last Jew.

I'm sure you're well aware of that, and probably support that.

This is a war. If I were looking for a "side" to support, I would ask myself which "side" wants to kill Christians when they're done killing each other.

That would be Hezbollah, who massacred Christians after the Israelis left Lebanon the last time.

Try using the first as a substantive and the second as an adjective. Then put the latter before the former one, juxtaposing them.

See how those pesky grammatical relationships suddenly narrow the meaning? And how reading is done in that context?

Apparently not.
See, and that's how it's done. :)

Unusual source my ass. Brits must not get TBN. Evangelical christians like Benny Hinn, John Hagey, Hal Lindsay, Jack Van Impe, etc. are always pushing for this sort of thing. Even when a "middle east crisis" was going on in the 80's and 90's, the evangelicals would get a chubby and dedicate a week to apocolyptic literature. AKA Revelation. Things will calm down and their fix will be gone and they'll be in distress till the next middle east fight. Nothing new at all.

So does Islam, so I guess pointing fingers will get us nowhere.


I'm not pointing fingers. I know Islam does but thats not what the title of this thread is. I am simply illustrating that Christianity always has had a bad name and has not just gained one becasue of a few Pastors in the US.

One has to wonder why a bunch of Christian pastors is so happy Israel is bombing a country where 40% of the people are also Christians. You'd think at the very least they'd be supportive of their fellow Christians.

"Giving" Christianity a bad name?

Honey, Christianity has had a bad name for a millennium now...Yeah but.. pastors should not ask for the Blood to keep flowing.

See, and that's how it's done. :)

Most of christianity is right wing evangelical, and to say that all right wing evangelicals want the destruction of the earth is obsurd.

One has to wonder why a bunch of Christian pastors is so happy Israel is bombing a country where 40% of the people are also Christians. You'd think at the very least they'd be supportive of their fellow Christians.
Maybe they remember how many Christians that Hezbollah massacred after the Israelis left Lebanon the last time.

...Errr...

What ever happened to "live and let live", and "all men are brothers"? In fact, what ever happened to the peace, love and charity that Jesus (Who if I remember correctly, is who these guys claim to be acting on behalf of), taught to his diciples?

Christianity was supposed to be a religion of compassion...It is something that I have always believed in. But things like this do make me wonder if the message hasn't been perverted from the very beginning.

Maybe they remember how many Christians that Hezbollah massacred after the Israelis left Lebanon the last time.I'm not sure having bombs dropped on them is something they're much happier with.

...Errr...

What ever happened to "live and let live", and "all men are brothers"? In fact, what ever happened to the peace, love and charity that Jesus (Who if I remember correctly, is who these guys claim to be acting on behalf of), taught to his diciples?

Christianity was supposed to be a religion of compassion...It is something that I have always believed in. But things like this do make me wonder if the message hasn't been perverted from the very beginning.

Most of the less vocal Christians are better on the love and charity thing.

Most of christianity is right wing evangelical,

Um...not so much...

and to say that all right wing evangelicals want the destruction of the earth is obsurd.
Considering that said belief is specifically spelled out, and is one of the most fundamental tennets of evangelical Christianity, I'm gonna have to go with another "Um...not so much..."

My2 cents: I am a Christian.. and as most US christians I am in no way related to these bad human beings.. Families are being bombed.. and these "Christians" want the War to keep going.. they want the blood to keep flowing..

Misconception that Christians want war. We don't but we also recognize the need for self-defense and that is what Israel is doing. Unlike you, we do know what self-defense is. Yes people die in war, its a sad fact of life, but there isn't anyway around it when your enemy hides behind civilians and places their buildings in densely populated areas.

Most of the less vocal Christians are better on the love and charity thing.

Which I think must be changed.

Humility is a good virtue. But every so often, the humble must make themselves heard for the good of the many.

hes an idiot, but whats worse is that people believe him!

The problem with that is, no one knows who the Anti-Christ is going to be. Frankly, I'm not buying the fact that he'll be the leader of the E.U.

Considering that said belief is specifically spelled out

When? Where?


and is one of the most fundamental tennets of evangelical Christianity


How?

Oh know! A small minority of right wing christians support Israel in a war against the Hezbollah. That must automaticly mean that all right wing christians want the destruction of the earth and that all right wing people are christians! :rolleyes:

Ready!
Fire!
Aim!


Swing and a miss!

Which I think must be changed.

Humility is a good virtue. But every so often, the humble must make themselves heard for the good of the many.

Don't see the same people demanding that of Christians also demanding that of Muslims, do you?

One has to wonder why a bunch of Christian pastors is so happy Israel is bombing a country where 40% of the people are also Christians. You'd think at the very least they'd be supportive of their fellow Christians.

If 65% are muslim, it is impossible to have 40% Christian.

The authoritarian Christian right, trying to screw everyone else over since 1954.

Don't see the same people demanding that of Christians also demanding that of Muslims, do you?

Also, must be changed.

If a religion does not practice what it preaches, it must be reformed. No one can single out one religion without looking at all of the others as well.

If 65% are muslim, it is impossible to have 40% Christian.
Wrong.
39% Christian, 59.7% Muslim.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html

If 65% are muslim, it is impossible to have 40% Christian.Huh, my source said 60% was muslim, and the rest Christian. 100-60 = 40..

I suppose it matters a bit how they're distributed over the country too. Although they'll all bare the burden of rebuilding of their country.

When? Where?



How?
Don't you think maybe you should have read up on such things BEFORE you contradicted me?

Huh, my source said 60% was muslim, and the rest Christian. 100-60 = 40..

I suppose it matters a bit how they're distributed over the country too. Although they'll all bare the burden of rebuilding of their country.
Corneliu is pulling numbers out of a magic hat, it's nothing new.

And the authoritarian Christian right support this because they are ignorant fucks who know jackshit about Lebanon except that it isn't Israel and is thus full of Muslim terrorists. Circular logic ftw.

One has to wonder why a bunch of Christian pastors is so happy Israel is bombing a country where 40% of the people are also Christians. You'd think at the very least they'd be supportive of their fellow Christians.

Maronite and orthodox christians. I really doubt those "american christians" recognize them as true christians. I dont really think they recognize anyone else than them as christians...

Don't you think maybe you should have read up on such things BEFORE you contradicted me?

As far as I'm aware, all evangelicals believe is that the destruction of the earth is inevitable. So do billions of other people. That does not mean that they want it too happen, nor are they going to help this prosess.

Wrong.
39% Christian, 59.7% Muslim.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html

Shi'ite minority at 35% and sunnis at 32%

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291951723&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"For the 1st time in the history of Christianity.." = Giving Christianity a bad name

Ummm you forgot about the Crusades among other things.

Gandhi said it best when speaking on Christianity

'Christ yes, Christians no'.

Those who emulate Christ and call themselves Christians are noble since he was a good person and did good things for people. Most who call themselves Christian however I find do not know anything about the bible and Christ in light of their actions.

Ummm you forgot about the Crusades among other things.

Gandhi said it best when speaking on Christianity

'Christ yes, Christians no'.

Those who emulate Christ and call themselves Christians are noble since he was a good person and did good things for people. Most who call themselves Christian however I find do not know anything about the bible and Christ in light of their actions.

And you do?

Shi'ite minority at 35% and sunnis at 32%

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291951723&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Let's see.
The Jerusalem Post, or the CIA factbook updated 9 days ago. Who to believe, who to believe... Oh, that's right, the fucking CIA factbook.

You will go to any lengths to make sure you arn't wrong won't you?
Quoth the newsarticle:
He estimated the Shi'ite minority at 35 percent of the population, and Sunnis at 32%.

Oh wait, and what else do we get in Mr article?
The CIA estimates them at 59.7% - a figure so exact that it is fair to assume that someone, at least, is interested in a more up-to-date demographic picture.

Sure, you can believe the head of Lebanese studies based in the UK, or you can believe the CIA's studies. I assume you will believe whichever one proves you right in this debate.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm not pointing fingers. I know Islam does but thats not what the title of this thread is. I am simply illustrating that Christianity always has had a bad name and has not just gained one becasue of a few Pastors in the US.

I'd refrain from using the word "always." Why do you think the religion spread so quickly in the later Roman Empire? When disease was ravaging Roman outposts the pagans fled while the Christians stayed behind to help the sick.

I'm not saying Christianity is any better than other religions but I resent the hysteria that leads to people going on Christian bashing rampages. You feel like Christianity has a bad name indeed because of the few pastors and priests who screw up, because these are the stories you hear about. You don't hear about the millions of people who didn't screw up because they followed Christian teachings.

And for the record, I am not even a Christian.

I'd refrain from using the word "always." Why do you think the religion spread so quickly in the later Roman Empire?
Conversion of the emperors to Christianity and their abandonment of a relatively open system of religion proceeded by the banning of Pagan religions and requirement of Christian worship throughout the empire.
Prior to that, crazy commitmit cult that attracted people interested in what was so good people would die for it.

Let's see.
The Jerusalem Post, or the CIA factbook updated 9 days ago. Who to believe, who to believe... Oh, that's right, the fucking CIA factbook.

What, you believe the same organization that said there were WMD in Iraq?

What, you believe the same organization that said there were WMD in Iraq?
Over an article that fucking cites them? Yes.
Oh wait, wasn't it the British spooks that said Iraq had WMDs and the CIA said they didn't? Yeah, that's what I thought.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67020

I don't care to look for more though I know I would find more.

Over an article that fucking cites them? Yes.
Heh.

:)

Over an article that fucking cites them? Yes.

George Tenet: "It's a slam dunk!"

No one knows the percentage of Muslims in Lebanon. There hasn't been a census since 1932.

Estimates for:

Shia: 30-40%
Sunni: Somewhere near 25%
Druze: Around 5%
Maronites: 20%
Greek Orthodox: 5%
Other Christian churches: Around 10%

There is no confirmed number but only estimates and they are all over the charts.

*numbers from Demographics of Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon#Population_Statistics)

What, you believe the same organization that said there were WMD in Iraq?

Well...Christianity isn't the only institution that needs reform.

Maybe we need a sort of...CIA 2...

What I think its odd about this thread is that it isn't Christians who are sending suicide bombers, firing rockets, or dropping bombs from aircraft in this little violent vignette.

It's Muslims and Jews.

The occasional rant of some nutcase is barely heard over there, especially not over the sound of explosions.

No one knows the percentage of Muslims in Lebanon. There hasn't been a census since 1932.

Estimates for:

Shia: 30-40%
Sunni: Somewhere near 25%
Druze: Around 5%
Maronites: 20%
Greek Orthodox: 5%
Other Christian churches: Around 10%

There is no confirmed number but only estimates and they are all over the charts.

*numbers from Demographics of Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon#Population_Statistics)

First you counter with a news article that fucking cites the same statistic I listed from the same source then you counter with a wiki page that cites the fucking CIA factbook. Every single fact on that pages cites CIA's factbook page on Lebanon - every outlink, every reference. Just leave. You fail every time you try.

My2 cents: I am a Christian.. and as most US christians I am in no way related to these bad human beings.. Families are being bombed.. and these "Christians" want the War to keep going.. they want the blood to keep flowing..

Pastors urging the US government not to restrain Israel.

BBC News, Washington
19 July 2006 11:38 GMT
More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel.

"For the first time in the history of Christianity in America, Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians," he said.

The event was planned months ago, and is not a direct response to the ongoing violence in the region.

They see God's word being played out on their television sets

Timothy Shah, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

But the military conflict "certainly makes our meeting more significant," Pastor Hagee said.

The thousands of Christians in Washington will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm


There are Lebanese Christians. In case everyone forgot.

No one knows the percentage of Muslims in Lebanon. There hasn't been a census since 1932.

Oh, look at him squirm! With a wiki, even!

What I think its odd about this thread is that it isn't Christians who are sending suicide bombers, firing rockets, or dropping bombs from aircraft in this little violent vignette.

It's Muslims and Jews.

The occasional rant of some nutcase is barely heard over there, especially not over the sound of explosions.

Aye, this is a very important point.

What I think its odd about this thread is that it isn't Christians who are sending suicide bombers, firing rockets, or dropping bombs from aircraft in this little violent vignette.

It's Muslims and Jews.

The occasional rant of some nutcase is barely heard over there, especially not over the sound of explosions.

It is funny that a thread about a few Christians supporting a particular cause causes so much more of a violent response then all the millions of things which are millions of times worse in the world.

Oh, look at him squirm!
Yeah, I am shaking in my boots at repeatedly being countered by some one using my own source of facts from different websites and calling them different facts.

What I think its odd about this thread is that it isn't Christians who are sending suicide bombers, firing rockets, or dropping bombs from aircraft in this little violent vignette.

I think (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that the subject of this thread was the Christians who seem to condone such actions. I don't believe the thread was condemning Christians for COMMITTING these acts of violence, but rather it was questioning the subset of Christians who ask that no action be taken to restrain said violence.


The occasional rant of some nutcase is barely heard over there, especially not over the sound of explosions.
Depends on where you live, I suppose. In America, we seem to hear the nutcases no matter what is going on. Chalk it up to the "liberal media"?

First you counter with a news article that fucking cites the same statistic I listed from the same source then you counter with a wiki page that cites the fucking CIA factbook. Every single outpage link goes to the CIA's factbook page on Lebanon. Just leave. You fail every time you try.

The Jpost and Wiki say the same thing in regards to the numbers that all numbers are unconfirmed as there has not been a census of the population since 1932.

I also notice that you have trouble reading (that is if you bothered to click the link) Still, there is no single sect constituting a majority of the population by itself. The Shi'a is the largest community, thought in 1990 to be about 35% of the population. Since then, their numbers have increased even more, while other communities have decreased due to emigration, and some sources indicate they may be close to 50% of the population. There is no consensus on this number, and the Shi'a proportion of Lebanon's population is among the most widely disputed figures of Lebanese demographics. The Shi'a has, as the traditionally poorest community, had a high birth rate, and they have had no natural emigration outlet (while most Christians had extensive contacts with Europe, the United States and Latin America; and the Sunnis could easily relocate to any neighbouring Arab country, since they constitute a majority in most of the Arab world).

It is funny that a thread about a few Christians supporting a particular cause causes so much more of a violent response then all the millions of things which are millions of times worse in the world.

You want I should create a thread on the Darfur genocides? Or the ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe? Say the word, and it shall be done, and I can guarantee a "violent" response.

It is funny that a thread about a few Christians supporting a particular cause causes so much more of a violent response then all the millions of things which are millions of times worse in the world.
"Violent response"?!

Wow, you really haven't been around here long, have you? :)

Depends on where you live, I suppose. In America, we seem to hear the nutcases no matter what is going on. Chalk it up to the "liberal media"?

If they're not heard, it's the "liberal media" not being fair. If they are heard, it's the "liberal media" that makes them sound like the idiots that they are and thus don't deserve to be heard in the first place. Never themselves.

Gotta love the "logic."

The Jpost and Wiki say the same thing in regards to the numbers that all numbers are unconfirmed as there has not been a census of the population since 1932.
Thanks Captain Irrelevant.


I also notice that you have trouble reading (that is if you bothered to click the link Still, there is no single sect constituting a majority of the population by itself. The Shi'a is the largest community, thought in 1990 to be about 35% of the population. Since then, their numbers have increased even more, while other communities have decreased due to emigration, and some sources indicate they may be close to 50% of the population. There is no consensus on this number, and the Shi'a proportion of Lebanon's population is among the most widely disputed figures of Lebanese demographics. The Shi'a has, as the traditionally poorest community, had a high birth rate, and they have had no natural emigration outlet (while most Christians had extensive contacts with Europe, the United States and Latin America; and the Sunnis could easily relocate to any neighbouring Arab country, since they constitute a majority in most of the Arab world).
I have trouble reading, you obviously missed the at least three different cites of the CIA factbook in the wiki article and the one in the news article.


You know what I read? I read this:
You see this picture of a duck? It is obviously a duck and I know it is the same picture of a duck you posted, but this is a chicke, a fucking chicken, and if you say it is a duck, you are wrong

My2 cents: I am a Christian.. and as most US christians I am in no way related to these bad human beings.. Families are being bombed.. and these "Christians" want the War to keep going.. they want the blood to keep flowing..

Pastors urging the US government not to restrain Israel.

BBC News, Washington
19 July 2006 11:38 GMT
More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel.

"For the first time in the history of Christianity in America, Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians," he said.

The event was planned months ago, and is not a direct response to the ongoing violence in the region.

They see God's word being played out on their television sets

Timothy Shah, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

But the military conflict "certainly makes our meeting more significant," Pastor Hagee said.

The thousands of Christians in Washington will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm


Seems like radical muslims are not the only ones with an agenda of infidel killing .

Why am not supprised ?

Maronite and orthodox christians. I really doubt those "american christians" recognize them as true christians. I dont really think they recognize anyone else than them as christians...

And you'd be wrong. But thanks for playing.

"Violent response"?!

Wow, you really haven't been around here long, have you? :)

I wasn't talking about this thread specifically, but the majority of threads to do with Christians. And i have been around for over a year. Long enough to see how much anger can be stirred up by threads like that.

I can add that maronite lebanese and arab lebanese people here are pretty abundant, and that they control entire chunks of the local economy, like the clothing and textile industries. They seem to be pretty united in the protests against Israel, although. The maronites and the rest of lebanese christians I know are, although, more than biased against the "extremist" shi of the Lebanon.

Most christians in the Lebanon live to the north of the country, I think...

If they're not heard, it's the "liberal media" not being fair. If they are heard, it's the "liberal media" that makes them sound like the idiots that they are and thus don't deserve to be heard in the first place. Never themselves.

Gotta love the "logic."

"Libruhl medeea! GAH!!!"

...

Forgive me. But every time I hear that phrase it makes my blood boil.

I wasn't talking about this thread specifically, but the majority of threads to do with Christians. And i have been around for over a year. Long enough to see how much anger can be stirred up by threads like that.
Meh. I don't think Christian-related threads are any more heated than the ones about Islam, gay marriage, abortion, or communism vs. capitalism. It's an internet forum; people come here to get pissed off, as often as not.

Thanks Captain Irrelevant.


I have trouble reading, you obviously missed the at least three different cites of the CIA factbook in the wiki article and the one in the news article.


You know what I read? I read this:

Estimates it at 60% yes. Hard to tell if its accurate though for there hasn't been a census since 1932. How do we know that that number is actually accurate?

Meh. I don't think Christian-related threads are any more heated than the ones about Islam, gay marriage, abortion, or communism vs. capitalism. It's an internet forum; people come here to get pissed off, as often as not.

Islam threads normally get heated by contrasting Islam views to christian views. It's mainly christians that are apposed to gay marriage, abortion as well.

I would say communism v capitalism probably doesn't containt as much trolling.

Estimates it at 60% yes. Hard to tell if its accurate though for there hasn't been a census since 1932. How do we know that that number is actually accurate?
I'm not going to argue with some one who has tried to counter me twice with sources that both cited the one source I gave as facts for their information.

Meh. I don't think Christian-related threads are any more heated than the ones about Islam, gay marriage, abortion, or communism vs. capitalism. It's an internet forum; people come here to get pissed off, as often as not.

For instance, one can start a thread on favorite foods, and degenerate into how Italian food is for the weak and should be purged from the Earth.

At least it sometimes stays relevant...

Here is the progression:

1. (Blank) is stupid!
2. Your face is stupid!
3. Your mom is stupid!
4. Your mom's a whore!

*A cookie for anyone who catches the reference.

I don't know why people are so scared to just come out and say it: the right-wing evangelicals are a doomsday cult. They are LOOKING FORWARD to the destruction of the Earth. They are trying to bring on the Rapture as quickly as possible.

It's so funny that the right wing accuses the left wing of being anti-American, when the simple reality is that the right wing is actively courting the very group which is hoping the hardest for the literal destruction of this country.

Since when is Israel hoping for the literal destruction of the US?

I'm not surprised

and it doesnt GIVE it a bad names, it adds to the existing one.

Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah.

I'm not going to argue with some one who has tried to counter me twice with sources that both cited the one source I gave as facts for their information.

That's because you do not know if the number is accurate. Every link I have viewed said the numbers are in dispute. No one knows the exact percentage. I have stated that numerous times and yet you still held to the belief that the numbers are correct when in fact, that they are not and are in dispute.

LOL Christianity has a terrible name! Look back over the history and development of Christianity. Loads of stuff was taken from the Torra (Jewish Bible yes?), dressed up in a hat and called something else. Christianity has a history of intolerance, brutality and hilarity thrown in for good measure.

This is pure bigotry and you should take this back ASAP.

Since when is Israel hoping for the literal destruction of the US?
*Sigh*

Is it time for Bottle's School For Remedial Forum Reading to open its doors again?

That's because you do not know if the number is accurate. Every link I have viewed said the numbers are in dispute.
Then cited the CIA factbook as an example of the assumed numbers.

Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah.
Last I checked, the Vatican did not speak for all Christians.

Christianity itself is a doomsday cult. It's a religion that heralds the return of its monotheism-bending deity as the event that brings upon a doomsday for the entire world. It's a religion that waits, and wants, for that to happen, as it's a "good" thing.

You obviously don't know the meaning of what a cult is. Christianity does not fit into that category whatsoever.

Sure it will: I point my finger square at superstitious cults. I personally promise you that the amount of bullshit on this planet will decrease exponentially if we get rid of them all.

Don't believe me? Okay, fair enough. Let's put my theory to the test. You help me wipe superstition off the face of the Earth, and if it doesn't accomplish anything then I owe you a Coke. :)

This is disgusting, you're openly advocating the killing of Christians.

Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah.

For some reason, the Vatican is not a "christian" institution for these people. The Vatican is the "catholic" powerbase. Ask me why...

When they speak of christians, they are speaking of weird right wing "christian" fundamentalist sects in the USA...

Then cited the CIA factbook as an example of the assumed numbers.

that's much better. See what happens when you can comprehend what is being said :D

Have a good day Teh_pantless_hero.

This is disgusting, you're openly advocating the killing of Christians.

Comrade, comrade! Read again...slowly this time...

You obviously don't know the meaning of what a cult is. Christianity does not fit into that category whatsoever.

Don't listen to him, he believes that a belief of a few is the belief of all of christianity which is completely insane.

You obviously don't know the meaning of what a cult is. Christianity does not fit into that category whatsoever.
cult Audio pronunciation of "cult" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

1.
1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

I would say that all of the above bolded definitions could be applied to Christianity (as well as to pretty much every other major religion) to varying degrees. Some are more subjective, such as how you define "extremist" and "false," but others are pretty obviously applicable. For instance, I think it is quite reasonable to say that Christianity qualifies as "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."

This is disgusting, you're openly advocating the killing of Christians.

she said superstition, not christians, not even superstitious people.

(sorry if I misspelled)

You obviously don't know the meaning of what a cult is. Christianity does not fit into that category whatsoever.
Not any more.

that's much better. See what happens when you can comprehend what is being said

Have a good day Teh_pantless_hero.
Don't come back until you learn you arn't always right and that ignoring facts does not make you correct by default.

Last I checked, the Vatican did not speak for all Christians.

You are right that they don't. The Vatican does not speak for me and I am a Christian.

Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah.
I'm afraid the Vatican has not been the definitive voice of Christianity for 500 years. In situations like these, you cant help hearing those who shout loudest rather than those who make sense.

For some reason, the Vatican is not a "christian" institution for these people. The Vatican is the "catholic" powerbase. Ask me why...

When they speak of christians, they are speaking of weird right wing "christian" fundamentalist sects in the USA...

Yeah..."Officially" speaking Catholics are not Christian...Which I find somewhat offensive... :(

Yeah..."Officially" speaking Catholics are not Christian...Which I find somewhat offensive... :(

Somehow, I do not find that hard to believe. Thank God, I do not think like that.

This is disgusting, you're openly advocating the killing of Christians.
Gosh, you found me out! My belief that superstition is a bad thing directly equates to me wanting to kill all Christians! Just like how my opposition to racism means that I want to slaughter all people who hold racist beliefs!

Except, um, no.

Yeah..."Officially" speaking Catholics are not Christian...Which I find somewhat offensive... :(

In your language, lad. In mine, they, I mean, we catholics, are.

But then again, in your language american means a citizen of the United States of America and in mine means someone who lives in the continent of America, so I am getting used to this kind of thing.

Prior to that, crazy commitmit cult that attracted people interested in what was so good people would die for it.

Apart from the crazy 'commitmit' cult term, I don't see what's wrong with that.

In your language, lad. In mine, they, I mean, we catholics, are.

But then again, in your language american means a citizen of the United States of America and in mine means someone who lives in the continent of America, so I am getting used to this kind of thing.

*slaps self*

...Alright...I think I understand that.

Wait a minute..........yeah.....

Don't listen to him, he believes that a belief of a few is the belief of all of christianity which is completely insane.

Is that right now? I didn't know that a billion Catholics are in the minority of Christianity? You go right ahead believing that.

For instance, I think it is quite reasonable to say that Christianity qualifies as "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."

There is no system or community involved. Christianity is a worldwide religion.

*Sigh*

Is it time for Bottle's School For Remedial Forum Reading to open its doors again?

No thanks, I'd rather be sober.

Religions are just large cults.

Is that right now? I didn't know that a billion Catholics are in the minority of Christianity? You go right ahead believing that.

For an american, mayhaps. Everything is possible, remember that Austria and Australia are the same thing, for instance.

Is that right now? I didn't know that a billion Catholics are in the minority of Christianity? You go right ahead believing that.

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the person you quoted.

There is no system or community involved. Christianity is a worldwide religion.
Just like Scientology.

*Sigh*

Is it time for Bottle's School For Remedial Forum Reading to open its doors again?

I thought I would take you in a different direction since you're suggesting that Christians are openly advocating for the destruction of the US.

Don't listen to him, he believes that a belief of a few is the belief of all of christianity which is completely insane.
Really? Please point out where I stated that.

Just like Scientology.

Except Scientology takes advantage of you and your money. Making it a cult. As well as the fact that it is very secretive and behind closed doors. Also making it more cult like. And the fact that it excludes everyone from it.

I thought I would take you in a different direction since you're suggesting that Christians are openly advocating for the destruction of the US.
FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR GOD, please read my goddam post. Read the post where I talk about who is looking forward to the Rapture. Kindly highlight the word "Christian" whereever it appears.

Really? Please point out where I stated that.

It wasn't you either. Wait let me find it.

Edit: It was banquettan.

Edit 2: And sorry Bottle, i thought it was you who said this "Christianity itself is a doomsday cult. It's a religion that heralds the return of its monotheism-bending deity as the event that brings upon a doomsday for the entire world. It's a religion that waits, and wants, for that to happen, as it's a "good" thing" which is why i thought you were reffering to all of Christianity. (Even though I still disagree that all rightwing evangelical christians want the destruction of the earth also.)

Just like Scientology.
Just so I have this clear: are you drawing parallels between the validity of Christianity and that of Scientology? This seems unnecessarily confrontational...

Except Scientology takes advantage of you and your money. Making it a cult. As well as the fact that it is very secretive and behind closed doors.

Depending on who you ask, that is a precise description of Catholicism. If you ask a Scientologist, their religion is not a cult.


Also making it more cult like. And the fact that it excludes everyone from it.
Scientology doesn't exclude everyone...they actively recruit! Hell, I've been personally approached by Scientologists on two different occasions, and let me assure you that they most certainly didn't want to exclude me. They did everything but drag me off in chains. Almost as bad as the Baptists in my parents' town...

Except Scientology takes advantage of you and your money. Making it a cult. As well as the fact that it is very secretive and behind closed doors. Also making it more cult like. And the fact that it excludes everyone from it.

The definition of "cult" seems to be constantly evolving. Admittedly, some of the actions of a few particular preachers (read: Fred Phelps et al) does seem very cultish.

I will also admit that in the end, the only difference between "cult" and "religion" is whoever is in power.

Just so I have this clear: are you drawing parallels between the validity of Christianity and that of Scientology? This seems unnecessarily confrontational...
Why? Should I show less respect for the beliefs of Scientologists than I do for those of Christians? If so, why?

Just so I have this clear: are you drawing parallels between the validity of Christianity and that of Scientology? This seems unnecessarily confrontational...


Yet completely accurate. Though to be fair the Scientologists don't believe in nearly as many completely loony things as Xians.

Edit 2: And sorry Bottle, i thought it was you who said this "Christianity itself is a doomsday cult. It's a religion that heralds the return of its monotheism-bending deity as the event that brings upon a doomsday for the entire world. It's a religion that waits, and wants, for that to happen, as it's a "good" thing" which is why i thought you were reffering to all of Christianity. (Even though I still disagree that all rightwing evangelical christians want the destruction of the earth also.)
Fair enough. Consider the hatchet burried on that one. :)

Last I checked, the Vatican did not speak for all Christians.

That has nothing to do with people labelling all Christians. If you want to address my comment, at least have something to say instead of just babbling. Catholicism is the largest by far of Christian relgions, so, if people want to speak of the majority, just look at this.

Depending on who you ask, that is a precise description of Catholicism.<snip>
How many Catholics would you expect to give that answer, pray tell?

I will also admit that in the end, the only difference between "cult" and "religion" is whoever is in power.

I heard that the difference between a cult and a religion is that the leader of a cult is a human, but the leader of a religion is God.

Comrade, comrade! Read again...slowly this time...

Really? Don't give me that.

she said superstition, not christians, not even superstitious people.

(sorry if I misspelled)

Yes, and how does he expect to get rid of it? Right!!!

Why? Should I show less respect for the beliefs of Scientologists than I do for those of Christians? If so, why?

Know that it is not my opinion, but I think it has alot to do with how society today views Scientology, which also has alot to do with Tom Cruise' state of mind...

cult Audio pronunciation of "cult" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

1.
1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

I would say that all of the above bolded definitions could be applied to Christianity (as well as to pretty much every other major religion) to varying degrees. Some are more subjective, such as how you define "extremist" and "false," but others are pretty obviously applicable. For instance, I think it is quite reasonable to say that Christianity qualifies as "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."

I see dictionary.com has another user. Good boy. Now, try and prove the points that you are suggesting is a cult. Lotsa luck there.

Yes, and how does he expect to get rid of it? Right!!!

She didn't say anything about that, about how.

I heard that the difference between a cult and a religion is that the leader of a cult is a human, but the leader of a religion is God.


The pope is god? Kooky.

You are right that they don't. The Vatican does not speak for me and I am a Christian.

Again, Bottle's post had nothing to do with my point. Go back and read again.

Depending on who you ask, that is a precise description of Catholicism. If you ask a Scientologist, their religion is not a cult.
If they did they would have to pay more money to get the evil little spirits of aliens killed in a volcano millions of years ago out of their body.

The pope is god? Kooky.

Ahhhhhhhh....no....

I'm afraid the Vatican has not been the definitive voice of Christianity for 500 years. In situations like these, you cant help hearing those who shout loudest rather than those who make sense.

Sounds like politics, those who scream the loudest are looked upon as the majority when they really aren't.

Yet completely accurate. Though to be fair the Scientologists don't believe in nearly as many completely loony things as Xians.
Bottle, as one whose exposure to you in the past has been minimal, I must say that your style seems overtly confrontational. I assume that you are not a Catholic, and you obviously make no attempt to limit the offence your posts obviously cause. I recognise that little makes this style more valid than a less argumentitive one, but can I ask why you feel it is necessary?

The pope is god? Kooky.

I admit that catholocism is slightly more cultish, but the pope is not the leader or starter of the religion, just the manager of the vatican. Which runs the churches.

Gosh, you found me out! My belief that superstition is a bad thing directly equates to me wanting to kill all Christians! Just like how my opposition to racism means that I want to slaughter all people who hold racist beliefs!

Except, um, no.

Its there in black and white. It'll be interesting to see you try and weasel out of it though.;)

That has nothing to do with people labelling all Christians. If you want to address my comment, at least have something to say instead of just babbling. Catholicism is the largest by far of Christian relgions, so, if people want to speak of the majority, just look at this.
Huh? Let me see if I understand what's going on.

We're in a thread about how right-wing evangelical Christians are reacting to the escalating hostilities in the Middle East.

You post the statement, "Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah."

I point out that the Vatican doesn't speak for all of Christianity, with the intended implication that the Vatican doesn't speak for the particular denomination of Christians who are the subject of this thread.

You reply by telling me I'm "babbling."

Look, it doesn't matter if the Vatican speaks for "the majority" of Christians. The simple fact is that the Vatican doesn't speak for the Christians to whom this thread was originally refering, so it really doesn't matter what the Vatican has to say on this subject.

I admit that catholocism is slightly more cultish, but the pope is not the leader or starter of the religion, just the manager of the vatican. Which runs the churches.

Which runs the religion. QED.


Bottle, as one whose exposure to you in the past has been minimal, I must say that your style seems overtly confrontational. I assume that you are not a Catholic, and you obviously make no attempt to limit the offence your posts obviously cause. I recognise that little makes this style more valid than a less argumentitive one, but can I ask why you feel it is necessary?


Wow I'm Bottle now? I'm fairly sure that would mean I'm a schitzo and gender confused then.

Its there in black and white. It'll be interesting to see you try and weasel out of it though.;)
Show me. Show me where I advocate killing a single Christian. If it's in black and white, it shouldn't be hard for you to do.

Its good to see that the uneasy relationship that has existed between Christians and Jews is closing rapidly. I stand with the Christians 100% in what they are doing. I am proud of this country's people.

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the person you quoted.

Sorry, I mistyped.

Which runs the religion. QED.

Nah, the churches just provide the mass.

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR GOD, please read my goddam post. Read the post where I talk about who is looking forward to the Rapture. Kindly highlight the word "Christian" whereever it appears.

No need to swear here buddy. Just because you omit the word Christian when you say evangelical instead. Do you actually think that people don't look upon the 2 as the same thing? Get real bud.

Yet completely accurate. Though to be fair the Scientologists don't believe in nearly as many completely loony things as Xians.

What loony things in your opinion, do you refer?

<snip>Wow I'm Bottle now? I'm fairly sure that would mean I'm a schitzo and gender confused then.
:rolleyes: My Appologies, no offence was meant. However, my question still stands, for you and Bottle.

Nah, the churches just provide the mass.

Provide the mass, the religious indoctrination of very young children, modify their message to match the Vactican talking points.

The Pope is leader of the catholic faith. He's not a god, he's a man. Therefore by your own definition Catholics are part of a vast cult.

Bottle, as one whose exposure to you in the past has been minimal, I must say that your style seems overtly confrontational.

First of all, the person you quoted wasn't me in that last post. Second, I don't know what you mean by "overly confrontational." Nor do I know exactly why that would be a bad thing.


I assume that you are not a Catholic, and you obviously make no attempt to limit the offence your posts obviously cause.

No matter what you say, somebody will be offended by it. I suggest you worry more about being honest and clear in your language, and worry less about trying not to hurt anybody's feelings.

After all, if you criticize the KKK you may be hurting a racist's feelings!

Provide the mass, the religious indoctrination of very young children, modify their message to match the Vactican talking points.


You say indoctrination (sounds evil), i say teaching. You say modify their message, i say has a different interpretation of the Bible.


The Pope is leader of the catholic faith. He's not a god, he's a man. Therefore by your own definition Catholics are part of a vast cult.

Hes the manager of the Vatican, no one is suppost to worship him.

I see dictionary.com has another user. Good boy. Now, try and prove the points that you are suggesting is a cult. Lotsa luck there.
Wait, are you actually asking me to prove that Webster's Dictionary contains accurate definitions of English words?

Provide the mass, the religious indoctrination of very young children, modify their message to match the Vactican talking points.

The Pope is leader of the catholic faith. He's not a god, he's a man. Therefore by your own definition Catholics are part of a vast cult.
Your description of the Mass as "the religious indoctrination of very young children" can be explained in two ways:

1. A bad experience with the Mass, which would be understandable

2. Ignorance of the Mass borne of never attending one. This would be less understandable.

What loony things in your opinion, do you refer?

1) A married couple never had sex in an era where consummating a marriage made it official.
2) Jesus was god's son/god himself.
3) Moses moved a massive amount of water with a wave of his hand.
4) God is seemingly unable to do anything without massive slaughter. Seriously, count the fucking genocides he commited.
5) Every animal in the world, on a dingy. Actually two of them, which is woefully insufficent genetic material to propogate a species.
6) Geocentric universe!
7) Poly/cotton blends are sinful.
8) Shellfish=TEH EVUL!
9) God is all good/all powerful/all knowing/all impotent.

I could go on, but frankly I don't bother debating religion with idjits anymore.

No need to swear here buddy. Just because you omit the word Christian when you say evangelical instead. Do you actually think that people don't look upon the 2 as the same thing? Get real bud.
So YOU make the mistaken assumption that "evangelical" = "all Christians," and this is somehow my fault?

Huh? Let me see if I understand what's going on.

We're in a thread about how right-wing evangelical Christians are reacting to the escalating hostilities in the Middle East.

You post the statement, "Read the Vatican statement about this and you'll read that they condemn Israel for their actions as well as Hezbollah."

I point out that the Vatican doesn't speak for all of Christianity, with the intended implication that the Vatican doesn't speak for the particular denomination of Christians who are the subject of this thread.

You reply by telling me I'm "babbling."

Look, it doesn't matter if the Vatican speaks for "the majority" of Christians. The simple fact is that the Vatican doesn't speak for the Christians to whom this thread was originally refering, so it really doesn't matter what the Vatican has to say on this subject.

Okay, now read this and read this slowly, I was responding to someone else, not you. As well, there were a couple of posts labelling all Christians as doomsday wishers, I therefore put forward my statement which refutes those accusations. So, like I said, your reply didn't have anything to do with what they were accusing and I was refuting, therefore to me, that is babbling.

Your description of the Mass as "the religious indoctrination of very young children" can be explained in two ways:

1. A bad experience with the Mass, which would be understandable


I feel for all Alienated Catholics.

Your description of the Mass as "the religious indoctrination of very young children" can be explained in two ways:

1. A bad experience with the Mass, which would be understandable

2. Ignorance of the Mass borne of never attending one. This would be less understandable.

Actually I was thinking of bible classes they love to send their young to. The ones where they try to explain how Abraham attempting to burn his child was a good test of his faith.

Show me. Show me where I advocate killing a single Christian. If it's in black and white, it shouldn't be hard for you to do.

I've already posted it as a topic in Moderation. If you want to look, go ahead. You know to which I refer but go ahead, be dense.

Wait, are you actually asking me to prove that Webster's Dictionary contains accurate definitions of English words?

Actually, I'm not, all I said was prove that Christianity is a cult. Being dense is no excuse here.

I've already posted it as a topic in Moderation. If you want to look, go ahead. You know to which I refer but go ahead, be dense.

Thats going a little far.

1) A married couple never had sex in an era where consummating a marriage made it official.
2) Jesus was god's son/god himself.
3) Moses moved a massive amount of water with a wave of his hand.
4) God is seemingly unable to do anything without massive slaughter. Seriously, count the fucking genocides he commited.
5) Every animal in the world, on a dingy. Actually two of them, which is woefully insufficent genetic material to propogate a species.
6) Geocentric universe!
7) Poly/cotton blends are sinful.
8) Shellfish=TEH EVUL!
9) God is all good/all powerful/all knowing/all impotent.

I could go on, but frankly I don't bother debating religion with idjits anymore.

Actually, I don't think you could debate something of which you have no knowledge. Next.

Actually I was thinking of bible classes they love to send their young to. The ones where they try to explain how Abraham attempting to burn his child was a good test of his faith.
I guess you didn't go to Catholic Sunday School.

You say indoctrination (sounds evil), i say teaching. You say modify their message, i say has a different interpretation of the Bible.



Hes the manager of the Vatican, no one is suppost to worship him.

in·doc·tri·nate
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

I do apologize for being polysyllabic. I shall endeavor to use only the simplest possible words in future to avoid confusion.

Okay, now read this and read this slowly, I was responding to someone else, not you. As well, there were a couple of posts labelling all Christians as doomsday wishers, I therefore put forward my statement which refutes those accusations. So, like I said, your reply didn't have anything to do with what they were accusing and I was refuting, therefore to me, that is babbling.
Again, let's break this down.

You posted your comment about the Vatican. I replied to it, saying that the Vatican doesn't speak for all Christians.

YOU QUOTED MY REPLY, and posted "That has nothing to do with people labelling all Christians. If you want to address my comment, at least have something to say instead of just babbling. Catholicism is the largest by far of Christian relgions, so, if people want to speak of the majority, just look at this."

I then quoted your reply, and responded to it.

Can we all see that?

So, at what point do my direct replies qualify as "babbling"? And how, exactly, was I to know that you were talking to somebody else, when you were DIRECTLY QUOTING ME in your posts?

Thats going a little far.

I found it to be disgusting to suggest removing Christianity from the planet. I felt this was easily warranted.

First of all, the person you quoted wasn't me in that last post. Second, I don't know what you mean by "overly confrontational." Nor do I know exactly why that would be a bad thing.


No matter what you say, somebody will be offended by it. I suggest you worry more about being honest and clear in your language, and worry less about trying not to hurt anybody's feelings.

After all, if you criticize the KKK you may be hurting a racist's feelings!

Sorry about quoting the wrong person. No offence was meant.

Confronation is, of course, always going to exist when matters of such passion are involved, and I agree that no matter what you say, somebody will be offended by it. However, one needs to be cautious and ensure that ones argument style is not unneccesarily confrontational. We must ensure that confrontation is a undesired yet unavoidable consequence of our means, rather than our intended ends.

1) A married couple never had sex in an era where consummating a marriage made it official.
2) Jesus was god's son/god himself.
3) Moses moved a massive amount of water with a wave of his hand.
4) God is seemingly unable to do anything without massive slaughter. Seriously, count the fucking genocides he commited.
5) Every animal in the world, on a dingy. Actually two of them, which is woefully insufficent genetic material to propogate a species.
6) Geocentric universe!
7) Poly/cotton blends are sinful.
8) Shellfish=TEH EVUL!
9) God is all good/all powerful/all knowing/all impotent.

I could go on, but frankly I don't bother debating religion with idjits anymore.

I guess if you believe that god can do anything, then those things arn't hard to believe. I'm not a christian, but you need to understand God before you understand what he can do.

Actually, I don't think you could debate something of which you have no knowledge. Next.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Have fun.

Again, let's break this down.

You posted your comment about the Vatican. I replied to it, saying that the Vatican doesn't speak for all Christians.

YOU QUOTED MY REPLY, and posted "That has nothing to do with people labelling all Christians. If you want to address my comment, at least have something to say instead of just babbling. Catholicism is the largest by far of Christian relgions, so, if people want to speak of the majority, just look at this."

I then quoted your reply, and responded to it.

Can we all see that?

So, at what point do my direct replies qualify as "babbling"? And how, exactly, was I to know that you were talking to somebody else, when you were DIRECTLY QUOTING ME in your posts?

At what point? Too easy, when you started typing, but I digress. It was babbling because it had nothing to do with the points that were made. I didn't say that Catholicism speaks for all Christians, since you're inferring that by your reply.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Have fun.

Like I said, next.

Actually, I'm not, all I said was prove that Christianity is a cult. Being dense is no excuse here.
I already did. I posted the definition of the word "cult," and highlighted elements that fit Christianity to varying degrees. I clearly stated that some of these will be subjective, since words like "extreme" have subjective meanings, but that doesn't change the fact that the word "cult" could be applied to Christianity as well as it could be to a religion like Scientology.

At what point? Too easy, when you started typing, but I digress. It was babbling because it had nothing to do with the points that were made. I didn't say that Catholicism speaks for all Christians, since you're inferring that by your reply.
Oy. Look, it seems like there was just some massive miscommunication. I'm willing to let it go if you are.

Okay! My points summed up!

Catholics =/= All Christians
All Christians =/= Catholics
Religion should = Peace, love, etc.
Religion should =/= war, hate, etc.
Read posts before replying
Don't get upset at something read on the Internet

And with that, I'm off!

*AFK*

Like I said, next.


That's what I love about religious types. Every time someone points out the absurdity of your believes you just refuse to play anymore.

I already did. I posted the definition of the word "cult," and highlighted elements that fit Christianity to varying degrees. I clearly stated that some of these will be subjective, since words like "extreme" have subjective meanings, but that doesn't change the fact that the word "cult" could be applied to Christianity as well as it could be to a religion like Scientology.

The subjective fact in your case.

Actually I was thinking of bible classes they love to send their young to. The ones where they try to explain how Abraham attempting to burn his child was a good test of his faith.
Your statement demonstrates ignorance of what the mass is. Bible classes are never part of the Mass. Also, while it is definitely true that many Catholics will give that particular interpretation of the passage, to imply that all do is a bit general for a religious denomination of 1 billion people.

That's what I love about religious types. Every time someone points out the absurdity of your believes you just refuse to play anymore.

You see, baseless accusations just don't resonate with me. That's why you can be so easily dismissed.

I've already posted it as a topic in Moderation. If you want to look, go ahead. You know to which I refer but go ahead, be dense.
So you can't point it out?

Your statement demonstrates ignorance of what the mass is. Bible classes are never part of the Mass. Also, while it is definitely true that many Catholics will give that particular interpretation of the passage, to imply that all do is a bit general for a religious denomination of 1 billion people.

Never said they were. Nor implied. Though I do find it amusing for people who take a book to be literal truth ya'll have such a hard time READING.

Sorry about quoting the wrong person. No offence was meant.

Confronation is, of course, always going to exist when matters of such passion are involved, and I agree that no matter what you say, somebody will be offended by it. However, one needs to be cautious and ensure that ones argument style is not unneccesarily confrontational.

What is and is not "necessary" confrontation is purely subjective. You appear to have a lower threshold than I do. Nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of personal opinion, I suppose.

We must ensure that confrontation is a undesired yet unavoidable consequence of our means, rather than our intended ends.
Maybe you must, but I don't happen to follow that school of thought. I don't feel that confrontation is an inherently bad thing.

The subjective fact in your case.
Parts of it, yes. As I stated. Other parts are as objective as one can get, when dealing with a living language. I'd wager that the majority of Christians would say their religion includes "a system or community of religious worship and ritual," and some "formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual."

She didn't say anything about that, about how.
I guess that to a certain kind of person, the only way to eliminate a type of belief is to kill people.

I also want to see racism wiped off the face of the Earth. Funny thing is, though, I don't think this should be accomplished by killing racists. I want to see sexism wiped off the face of the Earth, but I don't want to kill all people who are sexist. I want to see homophobia die out completely, but I don't want to murder homophobes.

Isn't it funny how that works out?

Never said they were. Nor implied. Though I do find it amusing for people who take a book to be literal truth ya'll have such a hard time READING.
Again, quoting Catholic teaching on the subject, but Dei Verbum, the Church's Apostolic Constitution on Divine Revelation published after Vatican II points out that the Bible is not necessarily literally true. I, for one, am vehamently opposed to that particular point of view, but Catholics are Dogmatically free to believe either side or anywhere in between on that matter...

What is and is not "necessary" confrontation is purely subjective. You appear to have a lower threshold than I do. Nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of personal opinion, I suppose.

Maybe you must, but I don't happen to follow that school of thought. I don't feel that confrontation is an inherently bad thing.
Nor do I, but would you acknowledge that confrontation and not the dispersion of ignorance is your end in this particular discussion, or is the discontent you cause simply "collateral damage", as it were?

Again, quoting Catholic teaching on the subject, but Dei Verbum, the Church's Apostolic Constitution on Divine Revelation published after Vatican II points out that the Bible is not necessarily literally true. I, for one, am vehamently opposed to that particular point of view, but Catholics are Dogmatically free to believe either side or anywhere in between on that matter...


So which parts are literally true? Or is the entire thing just as fictional as everyone who's not a christian has known for years?

So which parts are literally true? Or is the entire thing just as fictional as everyone who's not a christian has known for years?

The parts you decide are true. He already explained that...

I guess that to a certain kind of person, the only way to eliminate a type of belief is to kill people.

I also want to see racism wiped off the face of the Earth. Funny thing is, though, I don't think this should be accomplished by killing racists. I want to see sexism wiped off the face of the Earth, but I don't want to kill all people who are sexist. I want to see homophobia die out completely, but I don't want to murder homophobes.

Isn't it funny how that works out?


Is it not deeply fun how the Xians jumped so quickly to killing?

Nor do I, but would you acknowledge that confrontation and not the dispersion of ignorance is your end in this particular discussion, or is the discontent you cause simply "collateral damage", as it were?
Closer to the second, I suppose. Though I also don't consider it my responsibility to "disperse ignorance." I just felt like having a chat with some random yahoos over the 'net. :)

Threads on religion are fun.

So which parts are literally true? Or is the entire thing just as fictional as everyone who's not a christian has known for years?
Literal truth, or inerrancy, is the polar opposite of the statement that the Bible is false. I occupy a more central point of view. Nothing the Bible says can be utterly discounted, you can always find some meaning in any part of the Bible if you look hard enought. However, a person needs to take into account the time in which the Bible was written, the particular sources each of the many authors used, and many other factors. All this combines to my point of view that, Christian or not, you should look at everything the Bible has to say with a sceptical eye.

Admittedly, this gives Christians a very large capacity to "pick and choose" the truth of passages, as I'm sure you'll point out, but I make no secret of the fact that I do that.

The parts you decide are true. He already explained that...

Oh see I was hoping for an explanation that made some sort of sense. Or was infact sane.

Silly I know.

Oh see I was hoping for an explanation that made some sort of sense. Or was infact sane.

Silly I know.

Myself, I prefer insanity over bias, but thats just me.

Closer to the second, I suppose. Though I also don't consider it my responsibility to "disperse ignorance." I just felt like having a chat with some random yahoos over the 'net. :)
Really? I would have thought someone of your passion would make that a very important tennent of his reasons for frequenting this forum. I know I do...

Is it not deeply fun how the Xians jumped so quickly to killing?
The sad thing is, I don't think most of them do. It's just that there is a very loud minority who suffer from a serious case of projection, and those types give the rest a bad name.

It's the same principle you see at work with teenage "atheists," who are so desparate to fit into an alternative culture that they lash out viciously at anybody who seems to be trying to fit in with something. They give the rest of atheism a bad name, and perpetuate the stereotype of the godless as a bunch of Emo-teens.

Oh see I was hoping for an explanation that made some sort of sense. Or was infact sane.

Silly I know.

Actually, the world is that way. We pick and choose what we want to believe, and in what way we believe it.

Scientists and mathematicians, for instance, have to start with a set of postulates before they can proceed with any proof at all.

Postulates are unproven assertions that we accept on faith.

Notice the word "faith".

For instance, you take it on faith that the world you live in is deterministic - in order to go about your daily life. When in fact, science proved long ago that the Universe is essentially non-deterministic (quantum physics).

So you must be insane to think that cause precedes effect.

Really? I would have thought someone of your passion would make that a very important tennent of his reasons for frequenting this forum. I know I do...
Don't get me wrong, it is certainly something I often enjoy doing. It's just that I don't consider it my job or my responsibility to educate people. That's something I may choose to do because it pleases me, but it's not something I feel like I MUST DO at all times.

I also don't see it as my responsibility to explain to Christians why "evangelical" =/= "all Christians," or why "I wish we could get rid of superstition" =/= "I want to kill all Christians." That's for their middle school English teacher to do.

Don't get me wrong, it is certainly something I often enjoy doing. It's just that I don't consider it my job or my responsibility to educate people. That's something I may choose to do because it pleases me, but it's not something I feel like I MUST DO at all times.
You don't feel its a "moral obligation"?

Actually, the world is that way. We pick and choose what we want to believe, and in what way we believe it.

Scientists and mathematicians, for instance, have to start with a set of postulates before they can proceed with any proof at all.

Postulates are unproven assertions that we accept on faith.

Notice the word "faith".

For instance, you take it on faith that the world you live in is deterministic - in order to go about your daily life. When in fact, science proved long ago that the Universe is essentially non-deterministic (quantum physics).

So you must be insane to think that cause precedes effect.


The postulates in mathematics are vastly more consistant than most things that are called "faith". Though you are absolutely correct that unless you personally prove everything you know through experiment you rely on faith to some degree or another.

You don't feel its a "moral obligation"?
I'm not entirely sure that I can believe in "moral obligations."

On an idealistic day, I would probably tell you that it would be best if we all viewed ourselves as "educators" of one another. Whether or not we intend it, people learn from us all the time, even when we're being abrasive or offensive (some might say especially then).

You don't feel its a "moral obligation"?

Morality is relative.

Stupidity cannot be cured. Ignorance can. The ignorant can learn and become less ignorant, the stupid can never become less stupid. To claim a moral obligation to do the impossible would be the very definition of stupid. Or insane.

The postulates in mathematics are vastly more consistant than most things that are called "faith".

Really? I suppose you missed the advent of non-Euclidean geometry and the demise of Newtonian physics.

Or the current confusion over string theory, inflationary theory, or m-brane theory.

Morality is relative.

Stupidity cannot be cured. Ignorance can. The ignorant can learn and become less ignorant, the stupid can never become less stupid. To claim a moral obligation to do the impossible would be the very definition of stupid. Or insane.
What's more, a great many people are offended the moment you challenge their ignorance with fact. Which brings us back to his original question to me, since it forces one to choose: which is more important? To avoid offending people, or to challenge their ignorance?

I'm not entirely sure that I can believe in "moral obligations."

On an idealistic day, I would probably tell you that it would be best if we all viewed ourselves as "educators" of one another. Whether or not we intend it, people learn from us all the time, even when we're being abrasive or offensive (some might say especially then).
Do you not believe in moral obligations for any particular reason?

And I must disagree with you when you suggest we may learn more when people are being abrasive. I find people, especially those fundamentalists most in need of "education", tend to get defensive when they feel their beliefs are being threatened. This is, of course, extreamly entertaining when you just want to get some fundamentalist pissed off, but when your actually trying to teach them something they just "turtle" and dont listen.

Morality is relative.

Stupidity cannot be cured. Ignorance can. The ignorant can learn and become less ignorant, the stupid can never become less stupid. To claim a moral obligation to do the impossible would be the very definition of stupid. Or insane.
The statement that morality is relative is concerns one of the great questions of philosophy, and thus absolute declarations about its truth would be vastly strengtherned by some argument behind them.

And are you calling me stupid?

Really? I suppose you missed the advent of non-Euclidean geometry and the demise of Newtonian physics.

Or the current confusion over string theory, inflationary theory, or m-brane theory.
Perhaps a key difference is the practical application of these areas of "faith"?

For instance, a person who does not believe in evolutionary theory can still be successfully treated with a vaccine that was developed using evolutionary theory. A person who believes the world is flat will not fall off the edge of the world if they try to sail around the globe. A person who does not believe in gravity will nontheless be bound by it.

I'm just spit-balling here, really.

Really? I suppose you missed the advent of non-Euclidean geometry and the demise of Newtonian physics.

Or the current confusion over string theory, inflationary theory, or m-brane theory.
One needs to draw a distinction between the predictions of Maths and those of Physics. A postulate of mathematics would be more adequately demonstrated by the example of Fermat's Theorem until it was proven late last century. This is very different to Newtonian Physics.

Do you not believe in moral obligations for any particular reason?

Subjectively speaking, I'm sure they exist. Objectively speaking? Not so much.


And I must disagree with you when you suggest we may learn more when people are being abrasive. I find people, especially those fundamentalists most in need of "education", tend to get defensive when they feel their beliefs are being threatened. This is, of course, extreamly entertaining when you just want to get some fundamentalist pissed off, but when your actually trying to teach them something they just "turtle" and dont listen.
In my experience, many people "turtle" no matter how gently you try to speak with them.

I happen to learn best from the times when my views conflict with others. If I'm in a room full of people who agree with me, I tend not to encounter as much that is new to me, and I tend not to learn as quickly as when I'm in a room full of people who are prepared to argue every point with me. That's just my style, and I don't suppose everybody works that way, but it's how I work.

The statement that morality is relative is concerns one of the great questions of philosophy, and thus absolute declarations about its truth would be vastly strengtherned by some argument behind them.

And are you calling me stupid?


I haven't yet decided. So far you're just ignorant, which is no great crime, everyone is. Although your persistant misintepreting fairly straight foward and simple sentences and concepts is approaching stupid at an alarming rate.

Subjectively speaking, I'm sure they exist. Objectively speaking? Not so much.<snip>
So really you don't believe in moral obligations because you believe that morality is subjective.

Perhaps a key difference is the practical application of these areas of "faith"?

For instance, a person who does not believe in evolutionary theory can still be successfully treated with a vaccine that was developed using evolutionary theory. A person who believes the world is flat will not fall off the edge of the world if they try to sail around the globe. A person who does not believe in gravity will nontheless be bound by it.

I'm just spit-balling here, really.

I think you are spit-balling. I can be a Pentacostal Christian, and believe in evolution, and believe in a round world, and believe in quantum physics.

Maybe you think my mind is as inflexible as yours. Maybe I'm spit-balling there.

I think you are spit-balling. I can be a Pentacostal Christian, and believe in evolution, and believe in a round world, and believe in quantum physics.

Maybe you think my mind is as inflexible as yours. Maybe I'm spit-balling there.

I agree with that. I'm a catholic that believes in the use of preservatives, for example. I also support homosexual rights and think that Moses didn't opened the red sea...

So really you don't believe in moral obligations because you believe that morality is subjective.

Morality is subjective, no belief is required.

To a Muslim women walking around without a Hijab is immoral, alcohol is immoral. To a Xian both are perfectly moral.

Morality is subjective.

I think you are spit-balling. I can be a Pentacostal Christian, and believe in evolution, and believe in a round world, and believe in quantum physics.

Maybe you think my mind is as inflexible as yours. Maybe I'm spit-balling there.
Wait, no, that's not what I meant at all! I was talking about the different types of "faith" that are being referred to ("faith" in religious things, "faith" that is required for things like math and physics, due to the necessity of assuming materialistic naturalism). I wasn't saying that the one cannot exist with the other.

I was trying to identify a difference between belief in God (for example) and belief in gravity. Both require a set of pre-assumptions that, when you get right down to it, cannot be tested. To be able to test gravity, you have to assume things like cause-and-effect, as well as the idea that what we perceive bears any resemblence to reality. Yet, we identify this kind of "faith" as different from the "faith" in supernatural forces or beings. I think it is right for us to distinguish between the two, since I think they are qualitatively very different, but I'm trying to put my finger on exactly WHY.

I want to clarify, again, that I was not in any way implying or suggesting that religious faith is inherently incompatible with belief in evolutionary theory, gravity, or anything else. I was not in any way meaning to imply that all religious people reject gravity, evolution, equality, or anything else like that.

I haven't yet decided. So far you're just ignorant, which is no great crime, everyone is. Although your persistant misintepreting fairly straight foward and simple sentences and concepts is approaching stupid at an alarming rate.
Intresting...

I believe we are at an impasse. You obviously cannot respect my arguments, because of my apparent approach to stupidity. I am not willing to argue with you because I am neither willing to deny my stupidity nor to request examples of my consistant misinterpretation of simply concepts. I will therefore do the nearest internet equivalent of shaking hands and thank you for our interesting discussion this far.

You obviously don't know the meaning of what a cult is. Christianity does not fit into that category whatsoever.

m-w.com

cult
2 entries found for cult.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

You may not agree with the connotation of the word, but the denotation is accurate.

I was trying to identify a difference between belief in God (for example) and belief in gravity. Both require a set of pre-assumptions that, when you get right down to it, cannot be tested. To be able to test gravity, you have to assume things like cause-and-effect, as well as the idea that what we perceive bears any resemblence to reality. Yet, we identify this kind of "faith" as different from the "faith" in supernatural forces or beings. I think it is right for us to distinguish between the two, since I think they are qualitatively very different, but I'm trying to put my finger on exactly WHY.

I want to clarify, again, that I was not in any way implying or suggesting that religious faith is inherently incompatible with belief in evolutionary theory, gravity, or anything else. I was not in any way meaning to imply that all religious people reject gravity, evolution, equality, or anything else like that.

String theory can't be tested, and neither can m-brane theory.

Sure, you can draw mathematical equations all day long. But those are based on postulates.

Confirming those theories requires a level of energy we may never be able to produce, or which may be too dangerous to reproduce in our universe.

So we may have to be content just to "believe" them.

For some reason, the Vatican is not a "christian" institution for these people. The Vatican is the "catholic" powerbase. Ask me why...

When they speak of christians, they are speaking of weird right wing "christian" fundamentalist sects in the USA...

I didn't know Anglicans followed Rome...
Oh, and what about the Protestant Reformation and that Luther guy?

Morality is subjective, no belief is required.

To a Muslim women walking around without a Hijab is immoral, alcohol is immoral. To a Xian both are perfectly moral.

Morality is subjective.
What if there is an inalenable system that defines what is and is not moral, and therefore some moral beliefs are right and some are wrong? I anticipate that this is the core of most of our disagreements Bottle, I believe that such a system exists, but we have no infallible way of finding it, and you seem to deny its existance alltogether. Would that be correct?

For an american, mayhaps. Everything is possible, remember that Austria and Australia are the same thing, for instance.

Except they are on two different continents, and have different governments, and different cultures...

Oh, I get it, you're one of those All Americans are stupid people. :rolleyes:

I didn't know Anglicans followed Rome...
Oh, and what about the Protestant Reformation and that Luther guy?

I am highlighting their perception, not mine.

For me, a christian is someone that follows the precepts of Christ as related in the New Testament, and that includes a lot of people. When people like the OP says christians, he refers to those american christians, excluding lutherans, anglicans, orthodox, maronites, and catholics amongst others. That was what I meant.

String theory can't be tested, and neither can m-brane theory.

Sure, you can draw mathematical equations all day long. But those are based on postulates.

Confirming those theories requires a level of energy we may never be able to produce, or which may be too dangerous to reproduce in our universe.

So we may have to be content just to "believe" them.
Well, yes, in the case of those theories it's pretty much just a case of "belief" for now.

But there are plenty of scientific theories (the majority, I would venture to say) which can be empirically tested in one way or another. Those are the theories I was talking about.

See, even in the case of those theories, there is still an element of "faith." How do we test a theory? We perform tests, usually a bunch of them, to see if our hypothesis is supported by results. The thing is, we are making some major assumptions when we do this. We are assuming that what we perceive is, indeed, what is occuring. We are assuming that the universe will be consistent from moment to moment (i.e. if I throw a ball in the air, it will fall to the ground, because this is what has always happened when I've tried this). We assume that there are material explanations for things. We assume cause-and-effect.

These assumptions cannot be tested scientifically, because scientific testing only works if you hold these assumptions. So, in that sense, you're still working on "faith."

Yet I feel that this kind of "faith" is different from "faith" in supernatural beings or forces. At least, I feel like it would be better for everybody if we had two separate words to refer to these different kinds of "faith."

So really you don't believe in moral obligations because you believe that morality is subjective.
Morality is only objective to bigots.

Intresting...

I believe we are at an impasse. You obviously cannot respect my arguments, because of my apparent approach to stupidity. I am not willing to argue with you because I am neither willing to deny my stupidity nor to request examples of my consistant misinterpretation of simply concepts. I will therefore do the nearest internet equivalent of shaking hands and thank you for our interesting discussion this far.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11405186&postcount=179
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11405068&postcount=139
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11405121&postcount=155


Though not as many as I'd thought, it seems you and Maimed's arguments are running together in my mind.

Yet I feel that this kind of "faith" is different from "faith" in supernatural beings or forces. At least, I feel like it would be better for everybody if we had two separate words to refer to these different kinds of "faith."

I admit it's "faith" and not verifiable science. Just as scientists who come up with theories on the origins of the universe prior to the Big Bang admit that what they are discussing is "faith".

Except they are on two different continents, and have different governments, and different cultures...

Oh, I get it, you're one of those All Americans are stupid people. :rolleyes:

Not all, generalization is stupid. I have known a few, although. Some in person, some in these forums. Generally, the stupid ones tend to be the same that believe christians are american christians only, Austria is Australia, Americans are USA citizens only, latin american women are all home maids and so forth. But that's how I think, in any case.

Bottle, as one whose exposure to you in the past has been minimal, I must say that your style seems overtly confrontational. I assume that you are not a Catholic, and you obviously make no attempt to limit the offence your posts obviously cause. I recognise that little makes this style more valid than a less argumentitive one, but can I ask why you feel it is necessary?


I am a Catholic. She has a right to her opinion, even though I vigorously disagree with it. If she believes all religions are equally hooey, she has a right to state it.

Others have no problem saying "X" religion is violent, or wrong -- why is it suddenly a cardinal sin to say all religions are superstitions?

Morality is only objective to bigots.
Well!

There we have it everybody! For all your reasonable, level headed debate, we will never be able to reach such a pinacle of human knowledge as this maxim: "Morality is only objective to bigots!"

I think I'll let this particular pronouncement wallow in its own filth.

I am a Catholic. She has a right to her opinion, even though I vigorously disagree with it. If she believes all religions are equally hooey, she has a right to state it.

Others have no problem saying "X" religion is violent, or wrong -- why is it suddenly a cardinal sin to say all religions are superstitions?
I take no issue with her opinion, I was simply inquiring as to the offense she caused was intended or simply "collateral damage" in her honourable quest to dispell ignorance. There is a difference with calling Catholicism a cult comprable to Scientology and stating that all religions are equally unsound.

I guess you didn't go to Catholic Sunday School.


I did. I remember that God tested his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It was only after Abraham took Isaac, bound him, and was ready to kill him (though it grieved him) that Abraham was stopped and pointed to the ram caught in the bush by its horns.

I did. I remember that God tested his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It was only after Abraham took Isaac, bound him, and was ready to kill him (though it grieved him) that Abraham was stopped and pointed to the ram caught in the bush by its horns.

See couple thousand years ago if you try to kill your kid for god you end up in the bible as an example to aspiring parents everywhere. These days you end up on trial in Texas.

At what point? Too easy, when you started typing, but I digress. It was babbling because it had nothing to do with the points that were made. I didn't say that Catholicism speaks for all Christians, since you're inferring that by your reply.

The OP wrote about a pastor who advocated the US letting Israel bomb Lebanon without trying to call both to negotiate.

Some talked about how this is hypocritical given the beliefs Christians are supposed to live by.

You said the Pope had issued condemnations of both sides.

Bottle said the Pope does not speak for all Christians.

You then say that Catholics are the largest segment of Christianity.

It would seem, then, from this sequence of events that you are dismissing the criticism of the OP and others by bringing in a Christian group that is not relevant to the topic -- ie, one that was not involved in calling for more war.

How is this, then, relevant when you are stating that the Pope does not speak for all Christians -- through design or by accident, you have implied it when you bring him in as a spokesperson, and then again when you seem to state that it is relevant because Catholics are a majority.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity
Christianity: David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia (1994 update) gives an oft-cited figure of 1.9 billion Christians (or about 33% of the world population), and projected that by the year 2000 there will be 2.1 billion Christians in the world. The 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia stated there were 2.1 billion Christians in the world, or 33% of the total population. Regardless of the degree of accuracy of this figure, Christianity, if taken as a whole, is unarguably the largest world religion - the largest religion in the world. (Keep in mind that although Christianity is the world's largest religion, it is an umbrella term that comprises many different branches and denominations.)

See also: The Christian Family Tree by Rev. Epke VanderBerg (Episcopal minister, Grand Rapids, MI); Classifying Protestant Denominations (General Social Survey project directed by James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith. Funded by the National Science Foundation.); Largest Christian Populations (lists the Top 10 Countries with the Most Christians and the Top 10 U.S. Most Christian U.S. States); Famous Christians.

For statistical purposes: Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid. David Barrett, an Evangelical Christian who is the compiler of religion statistics for the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia, includes all of the groups listed above in the worldwide statistics for Christianity.

Contemporary sociolgists and religious leaders generally consider pan-denominational classifications based not on historical denominational divisions but on current theological positions, organizational alignments, etc. to be more relevant. Such groupings include: Evangelicals, Pentecostals, "Great Commission Christians", "C. S. Lewis Christians", Liberal Protestants, Conservative Protestants, Fundamentalists, etc.

Quite literally, then, the Pope does not speak for all Christians, which was, I believe, the point that has been made. Ergo, the relevance of his comment when condemning a non-Catholic pastor who made the comment is nil.

Well!

There we have it everybody! For all your reasonable, level headed debate, we will never be able to reach such a pinacle of human knowledge as this maxim: "Morality is only objective to bigots!"

I think I'll let this particular pronouncement wallow in its own filth.Maybe you should consider the validity of the statement, before you let it wallow in its own filth.

Can you, for example, think of one example where it isn't true?

I can't, and I'm not at all surprised. We all use our morality to condemn certain things, be it homosexuality, condoms, authority, anti-authoritarians or something else entirely. As such, a belief in objective morality, is a belief in an inassailable authority that agrees with you personally, and disagrees with X other guy personally. It's a carte blanché for bigotry.

I take no issue with her opinion, I was simply inquiring as to the offense she caused was intended or simply "collateral damage" in her honourable quest to dispell ignorance.

Put it to you this way: I'm as concerned about the "offense" taken by superstitious individuals as I am with the "offense" taken by racist individuals who object to my means of addressing them. Since I, personally, find superstition and racism to be equally unappealing, I see no reason why I should treat the one group with greater or lesser respect than the other.


There is a difference with calling Catholicism a cult comprable to Scientology and stating that all religions are equally unsound.
The thing is, I didn't call Catholicism a "cult." I simply pointed out that the word "cult" can be applied to Catholicism as well as it can be to Scientology, and that's it a matter of opinion as to which one you feel like calling a "cult." I don't care if you call it a cult or a religion, it's all the same hoo-hah to me.

I happen to think there's no meaningful distinction between "cults" and "major religions." I think many major religions engage in significantly more harmful practices than many cults do, and vice versa. All superstitious organizations are, as you say, equally unsound in my eyes, though the individual practices of different organizations can be of varrying weirdness.

The OP wrote about a pastor who advocated the US letting Israel bomb Lebanon without trying to call both to negotiate.

Some talked about how this is hypocritical given the beliefs Christians are supposed to live by.

You said the Pope had issued condemnations of both sides.

Bottle said the Pope does not speak for all Christians.

You then say that Catholics are the largest segment of Christianity.

It would seem, then, from this sequence of events that you are dismissing the criticism of the OP and others by bringing in a Christian group that is not relevant to the topic -- ie, one that was not involved in calling for more war.

How is this, then, relevant when you are stating that the Pope does not speak for all Christians -- through design or by accident, you have implied it when you bring him in as a spokesperson, and then again when you seem to state that it is relevant because Catholics are a majority.

Thank God (har har) that somebody else read this exchange the same way I did! I was actually starting to wonder if I'd finally cracked the rest of the way...;)

Thank God (har har) that somebody else read this exchange the same way I did! I was actually starting to wonder if I'd finally cracked the rest of the way...;)

Yes but it hasn't affected your reading comprehension.

Maybe you should consider the validity of the statement, before you let it wallow in its own filth.

Can you, for example, think of one example where it isn't true?

Sure. A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It is quite possible to believe in objective morality and yet not be a bigot.

Though, I grant you, belief in objective morality seems to be very strongly linked with the likelihood of bigotry. People who are bigots TEND to be more likely to believe in objective morality, though I would imagine there are probably some bigots who don't.

Yes but it hasn't affected your reading comprehension.
Hmm. Fair enough.

:D

The subjective fact in your case.

Objective, actually.


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Well!

There we have it everybody! For all your reasonable, level headed debate, we will never be able to reach such a pinacle of human knowledge as this maxim: "Morality is only objective to bigots!"

I think I'll let this particular pronouncement wallow in its own filth.
For morality to be objective for any group, you have to project your own opinions, ideas, and and beliefs on other people and deny them theirs.

This means a) you are a bigot or b) morality is subjective.

Sure. A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It is quite possible to believe in objective morality and yet not be a bigot.Is it?
Nevermind real world application, I simply can't think of a hypothetical scenario involving peoples & cultures with varying moral codes, where belief in objective morality won't automatically result in bigotry. Even if the postulated objective moral code involves anti-bigotry, I assume it will automatically result in prejudice against percieved bigots.

Though, I grant you, belief in objective morality seems to be very strongly linked with the likelihood of bigotry. People who are bigots TEND to be more likely to believe in objective morality, though I would imagine there are probably some bigots who don't.Indeed. It isn't a prequisite though. I should think I'm a living, breathing example of that.

Is it?

Sure. Remember, all you have to do to avoid being a bigot is be TOLLERANT of those who differ from you're view.

That's a pretty high bar to limbo under.


Nevermind real world application, I simply can't think of a hypothetical scenario involving peoples & cultures with varying moral codes, where belief in objective morality won't automatically result in bigotry. Even if the postulated objective moral code involves anti-bigotry, I assume it will automatically result in prejudice against percieved bigots.

Well, I certainly will agree that wide-spread belief in objective morality will probably lead to trouble if you've got enough people involved. All I'm saying is that it is possible for an individual to believe in objective morality and yet not be a bigot. I'm not saying anything about how LIKELY it is for that to happen. ;)

I take no issue with her opinion, I was simply inquiring as to the offense she caused was intended or simply "collateral damage" in her honourable quest to dispell ignorance. There is a difference with calling Catholicism a cult comprable to Scientology and stating that all religions are equally unsound.

Thing is, if one is taking issue with comparing Christianity to Scientology, then one is showing their bias by defining one as preferable to the other.

One who compares the two may (and in this case I beleive is) be stating that they are equally valid or invalid.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose.

Thing is, if one is taking issue with comparing Christianity to Scientology, then one is showing their bias by defining one as preferable to the other.

One who compares the two may (and in this case I beleive is) be stating that they are equally valid or invalid.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose.
I never cease to be amazed at how I can say, "I dream of a world without racism" without anybody accusing me of wanting to murder racists, but if I replace the word 'racism' with 'superstition,' suddenly I'm a genocidal lunatic.

See couple thousand years ago if you try to kill your kid for god you end up in the bible as an example to aspiring parents everywhere. These days you end up on trial in Texas.

No, I don't think it is an example to aspiring parents. It is an example of being willing to do literally ANYTHING for your faith.

I find the story disturbing as well and have other problems with it*, but remember, there is divine intervention at the last moment -- an animal is provided as the replacement sacrifice. It is not the potential killing of Isaac that was important here -- it was the willingness to sacrifice what one loved best in the world, and the message that you don't lose what you love when you give yourself up to God's will.

*I don't believe and follow blindly, but can understand the true meaning vs. looking at the surface.

No, I don't think it is an example to aspiring parents. It is an example of being willing to do literally ANYTHING for your faith.

I find the story disturbing as well and have other problems with it*, but remember, there is divine intervention at the last moment -- an animal is provided as the replacement sacrifice. It is not the potential killing of Isaac that was important here -- it was the willingness to sacrifice what one loved best in the world, and the message that you don't lose what you love when you give yourself up to God's will.
I would have had a lot more respect for that story if it had been asking the dude to sacrifice HIMSELF. Or if God said, "Kill your son for me," and the dude said, "No way. I have no right to give you any life other than my own."

Clearly, what that guy wanted best was to please God. He wanted it more than he wanted to cherish his own son's life.

All I'm saying is that it is possible for an individual to believe in objective morality and yet not be a bigot. I'm not saying anything about how LIKELY it is for that to happen. ;)And though I obviously can't prove you wrong, I'm gonna have to go with the Pantless one - even when it's on an individual scale.

Tolerance is great in theory, but it's not so easy to put into practice. What will you do, for example, when you see 6 fat Nazi bastards raping a Muslim teenage girl in a backstreet? If you intervene in any way, you're interfering with their moral code. If you don't, you're letting them violate hers - and we haven't even begun to consider what your own objective moral code might be telling you about Nazis raping kids.

Of course, youur objective morality might not result in bigotry, if you - under pain of death - avoid any & all interaction with other sentient lifeforms. Short of that, though, I don't see it working.

And though I obviously can't prove you wrong, I'm gonna have to go with the Pantless one - even when it's on an individual scale.

Tolerance is great in theory, but it's not so easy to put into practice. What will you do, for example, when you see 6 fat Nazi bastards raping a Muslim teenage girl in a backstreet? If you intervene in any way, you're interfering with their moral code. If you don't, you're letting them violate hers - and we haven't even begun to consider what your own objective moral code might be telling you about Nazis raping kids.

That's got nothing to do with believing in OBJECTIVE morality, though. I don't believe in objective morality, but I'd still do my damndest to kick the crap out of anybody who I saw raping anybody else.