NationStates Jolt Archive

The governor of Tennessee has sent out his Christmas greeting cards, and they bear the image of an Afghan girl who can now go to school. A Nashville pastor is objecting to the image of the Muslim girl on the Christmas cards. Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up. The message on the back of the card, which ties in to the image on the front, is very nice and in keeping with the holliday spirit.

"Afghan Girl" by Phil Bredesen

"I met the teenaged girl depicted in this painting in March of this year at a primitive shcool on the Shamali Plains Road outside of Kabul, Afghanistan. Until recently, undr the Taliban, education was forbidden to her. She is now learning to read, and on the day I visited, was studying geography.

While it may seem odd to put a portrait of a young Muslim woman on a Christmas card, this Season reminds us that He loves His children most of all.

May the miracle of Christmas help bring peace and hope to this young woman and her wounded land."
http://wdef.com/node/1772

Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up.


There's not really any maybe about it, is there?

http://wdef.com/node/1772

Looks a bit like a portrayal of the Virgin Mary. Except probably older...

I think it's a good Christmas message, Jesus was all about hope and living life more abundantly, it's not a very abundant life when you can't go to school

It seems to me that this pastor has to be one of those 'I'm a miserable, shit-eating, crybaby motherfucker, why isn't everyone else?' types, but this seems pretty low, even for that crowd. Give me a Muslim schoolgirl on my Christmas cards over a sleazebag Christian politician any day.

May the reanimaated corpse of Christ offer this bastard no rest during this year's Christmas Season.

I would think that, based on his response to the Muslim girl, the pastor would also object to having Mary and Joseph on Christmas cards, since they were Jewish. What an idiot!

I would think that, based on his response to the Muslim girl, the pastor would also object to having Mary and Joseph on Christmas cards, since they were Jewish. What an idiot!

Wouldn't the three kings be most likely Persian or Indian or something?

A muslim featured on a christian / catholic holiday card? thats a oxymoron , muslims hate every other religion and catholics / christians are a little picky

Wouldn't the three kings be most likely Persian or Indian or something?

Yep. Come to think of it, the pastor probably should, if he were consistent (which, I'm sure, he's not) object to everything about the current celebration of Christmas - the date -which is the Pagan solstice and not the actual birthday of Christ (unknown), the Christmas tree - another pagan custom, the Yule log - Pagan custom, mistletoe - Pagan custom and numerous other symbols which were all taken from Pagan, Roman, Greek and Jewish sources. If he doesn't object to all of these, he's a hypocrite and worse, an ignorant hypocrite.

Wouldn't the three kings be most likely Persian or Indian or something?

I thought two of them were and one was from Ethiopia, don't remember my source on that. They all have names or something.........and they all trace it back to kings from the time.

Wouldn't the three kings be most likely Persian or Indian or something?

Ya, I believe most scholars of any repute say the Wise Men came from Persia and were Zorastian.

Ya, I believe most scholars of any repute say the Wise Men came from Persia and were Zorastian.

And I think that most scholars will tell you that the infancy narratives are fairy stories. I've even heard catholic scholars admit that they aren't really relevant to anything and were just tacked on for political reasons to do with the 1-2nd century.

Maybe there'll be a Christmas miracle and she'll convert :D

Maybe there'll be an even bigger Christmas miracle and she'll live to tell about it.

Whatever happened to peace and goodwill to all men?

Whatever happened to peace and goodwill to all men?

Peace and Goodwill to All? Only if you believe what I believe and unquestioningly follow my divinely inspired leadership. Everyone else is an infidel and must be forcibly converted to our divine truth or anathamized and destroyed. All in the name of a loving, compassionate god, of course.

Peace and Goodwill to All? Only if you believe what I believe and unquestioningly follow my divinely inspired leadership. Everyone else is an infidel and must be forcibly converted to our divine truth or anathamized and destroyed. All in the name of a loving, compassionate god, of course.

Well thats when it goes wrong, if your going to impose conditions on it :eek:

Just another example of how those Democrats are just a bunch of fucking islamofascistloving hippies out to destroy good solid christianity which ohsaycanyouseebymycountrytisofcenturiescomeandgone and so forth.



:D

Another reason we should all convert to Communism; shit like this wouldn't happen in an Aethist government.

Seriously, Christians are really begining to get on my nerves nowadays. Whatever happened to peace to all of Jesus' children?

Another reason we should all convert to Communism; shit like this wouldn't happen in an Aethist government.

Seriously, Christians are really begining to get on my nerves nowadays. Whatever happened to peace to all of Jesus' children?

Maybe Jesus' children have to submit themselves entirely to his will and belief systems to qualify for said peace?

I dunno, but I'm feeling very disillusioned with religion at the moment.

Okay. So to put Santa Claus, Reindeer, snowmen, christmas tress, etc. on cards is okay even though they have no direct link to the Christmas story, yet they object to a painting of a Muslim girl? How are they to even know that she's Muslim if he hadn't written it? Couldn't some of the 'wise men' have been Muslim?

Let him put a Muslim girl on a Christmas card. It'll make people think of other people for a change. I know it's been said, but Christmas is supposed to be a season of goodwill to all men (and women) so I don't see the big deal. He knew he'd get opposition, but at least he went out and got the cards made anyway.

I think that the pastor is just a jackass who wants his name in the paper.

Actually, what's the deal with the governor's cards anyway. I hope those weren't sent in an official capacity.

Okay. So to put Santa Claus, Reindeer, snowmen, christmas tress, etc. on cards is okay even though they have no direct link to the Christmas story, yet they object to a painting of a Muslim girl? How are they to even know that she's Muslim if he hadn't written it? Couldn't some of the 'wise men' have been Muslim?

Let him put a Muslim girl on a Christmas card. It'll make people think of other people for a change. I know it's been said, but Christmas is supposed to be a season of goodwill to all men (and women) so I don't see the big deal. He knew he'd get opposition, but at least he went out and got the cards made anyway.

The Wise Men could not have been Muslim. Islam is a relatively young religion, established about 700-800 years after the inception of Christianity. I'm sorry I don't have the exact dates.

The governor of Tennessee has sent out his Christmas greeting cards, and they bear the image of an Afghan girl who can now go to school. A Nashville pastor is objecting to the image of the Muslim girl on the Christmas cards. Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up. The message on the back of the card, which ties in to the image on the front, is very nice and in keeping with the holliday spirit.

http://wdef.com/node/1772

Just goes to show that there are professional 'victims' on all sides of an issue.

Side note:
My wife has a couple Muslim kids in her class. On the last day of school, she passed out some little stockings with candy in them and included the two Muslims so they wouldn't feel left out. I sure hope that doesn't come back to her as forcing Christianity on them.

Just another example of how those Democrats are just a bunch of fucking islamofascistloving hippies out to destroy good solid christianity which ohsaycanyouseebymycountrytisofcenturiescomeandgone and so forth.



:D
Laugh a little

Amen! You tell 'em brother.

laughs some more

A Nashville pastor is objecting to the image of the Muslim girl on the Christmas cards. Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up.
What an ass. Christ's love is not only for Christians!

How are they to even know that she's Muslim if he hadn't written it? Couldn't some of the 'wise men' have been Muslim?

No, the Wise men were Persian. Islam didn't exist untill 622 years after Christ's birth, so they were probably Zoroastrians.

I sure hope that doesn't come back to her as forcing Christianity on them.
Children never say no to sweets.

Seriously, Christians are really begining to get on my nerves nowadays. Whatever happened to peace to all of Jesus' children?
It never went away, but we have to expect that there will always be a minority of jackasses in every religion. They don't taint the whole thing.

And I think that most scholars will tell you that the infancy narratives are fairy stories. I've even heard catholic scholars admit that they aren't really relevant to anything and were just tacked on for political reasons to do with the 1-2nd century.

Considering that the events being discussed are now maybe over two thousands years in the past and most likely not put into written form for two hundred years after the event it is not surpising that some "fairly tales" crept into the story. But the same is true of non-religious history. If there really were Three Wise Men they probably came from Persia and were most certainly followers of Zoraster. Religion and politics do make an extremely deadly recipe. So which is most to be blamed for the bloodshed?

Someone always has to cause trouble...oh well, I guess there's not much you can do about it.

"Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

"Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Source: Holy Bible

"Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

"Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Source: Holy Bible

I seriously doubt the Pastor here knows much about the Bible.

"Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

"Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Source: Holy Bible

Similiar, if not exactly that same sentiments can be found in every major religion. So which one is correct? Or, are they all "right"?

The pastor does have a point of sorts. If white hoods, lynching and slavery are yor kind of thing....

Similiar, if not exactly that same sentiments can be found in every major religion. So which one is correct? Or, are they all "right"?

I tend towards the latter, personally. I think God probably just revealed different religions at different times in order to convey his message best to the people of that time. And sometimes we are attracted to an earlier revelation for one reason or another...I imagine only God knows why and for what purpose.

I tend towards the latter, personally. I think God probably just revealed different religions at different times in order to convey his message best to the people of that time. And sometimes we are attracted to an earlier revelation for one reason or another...I imagine only God knows why and for what purpose.

Wallowing in ignorance and delusion like a Rhino in quicksand.....

So which is most to be blamed for the bloodshed?

Oh that's easy. Religion.

People do be killing people over it.

Wallowing in ignorance and delusion like a Rhino in quicksand.....

Who? Me? I don't think it's a delusion personally...in order for that to be the case, it would have to be demonstrably untrue.

And frankly, I find agnosticism and atheism to be increasingly unattractive, unconvincing and inadequate in their explanations of the world. Pure rationalism is boring and intellectually stifling and gives me no further knowledge about myself or the world around me.

Who? Me? I don't think it's a delusion personally...in order for that to be the case, it would have to be demonstrably untrue.

And frankly, I find agnosticism and atheism to be increasingly unattractive, unconvincing and inadequate in their explanations of the world. Pure rationalism is boring and intellectually stifling and gives me no further knowledge about myself or the world around me.

A religion, a belief system wherein one must adhere strictly and intransisgently to every tenet, however false, is intellectually stimulating?

In any case, what renders religion any more adequate as an explanation than secular philosophies? That it simply explains what secularism cannot by means of labelling it "God" and rendering it unassailable is hardly watertight.

A religion, a belief system wherein one must adhere strictly and intransisgently to every tenet, however false, is intellectually stimulating?

If you consider studying and debating thousands of years of theology and philosophy, even in the context of a single religion intellectually stimulating, than yes. Some of the greatest philosophers in human history spent their lives discussing and debating religion and the nature of God.

In any case, what renders religion any more adequate as an explanation than secular philosophies? That it simply explains what secularism cannot by means of labelling it "God" and rendering it unassailable is hardly watertight.

I find it to be a stronger explanation of the universe that can go beyond the limitations of science and complement it. It gives science an added teleological purpose beyond simple discovery or the desire for additional knowledge; to know the universe is to know what God has created.

There's not really any maybe about it, is there?

Nope.

I've often proposed that if we concentrated on those things that unite us, and paid less attention to those things that divide us, we could make significantly more headway in solving these problems. It's been pointed out here, and elsewhere, that every religion has common tenets - love your neighbor, do unto others, turn the other cheek - and so forth. Strangely enough, when I tried to talk to some Christians about this, they were very unreceptive - they seemed to think that the common teachings of love, charity, caring were less important than the, to me, minor point of who was being worshipped. I wonder what Christ would think of that?

A muslim featured on a christian / catholic holiday card? thats a oxymoron , muslims hate every other religion and catholics / christians are a little picky

Not all Muslims fit your stereotypical, bitter description.

The Wise Men could not have been Muslim. Islam is a relatively young religion, established about 700-800 years after the inception of Christianity. I'm sorry I don't have the exact dates.
It's 600 years younger than Christianity.

Similiar, if not exactly that same sentiments can be found in every major religion. So which one is correct? Or, are they all "right"?
They are universal truths - no matter what religion expresses them, they are true and add to that total truth of that religion. My belief is that most religions contain a lot of truth, but Christianity (probably Catholicism) contains the most truth.

I've often proposed that if we concentrated on those things that unite us, and paid less attention to those things that divide us, we could make significantly more headway in solving these problems.
I agree.

It's been pointed out here, and elsewhere, that every religion has common tenets - love your neighbor, do unto others, turn the other cheek - and so forth. Strangely enough, when I tried to talk to some Christians about this, they were very unreceptive - they seemed to think that the common teachings of love, charity, caring were less important than the, to me, minor point of who was being worshipped. I wonder what Christ would think of that?
The matter of who is being worshipped is quite important, but they are wrong to dismiss the message.

Wouldn't the three kings be most likely Persian or Indian or something?

Zoroastrians.

I tend towards the latter, personally. I think God probably just revealed different religions at different times in order to convey his message best to the people of that time. And sometimes we are attracted to an earlier revelation for one reason or another...I imagine only God knows why and for what purpose.

Don't you think that if God knows He would share the knowledge with us? Isn't it possible that each of these different religions are really the same religion? Each of the Divine Revealors of these religions really the same Revealor in a new robe? The same light in a different colored globe? The same spiritual language in a different dialect?

Zoroastrians.

That would be the religion. Persian would be the ethnic description. There are still Zoroastrians in Persia or Iran today.

Oh that's easy. Religion.

People do be killing people over it.

Isn't the same true of Politics?

Isn't the same true of Politics?

Apparently these days you can't separate the two.

I've often proposed that if we concentrated on those things that unite us, and paid less attention to those things that divide us, we could make significantly more headway in solving these problems. It's been pointed out here, and elsewhere, that every religion has common tenets - love your neighbor, do unto others, turn the other cheek - and so forth. Strangely enough, when I tried to talk to some Christians about this, they were very unreceptive - they seemed to think that the common teachings of love, charity, caring were less important than the, to me, minor point of who was being worshipped. I wonder what Christ would think of that?


I would have to say the those Christians who were more concerned with the physical body and ignored the spiritual teachings were really not Christians, now were they!

Apparently these days you can't separate the two.

Yes, that is true in most cases, which only proves the absolute need for religion to remain out of the political realm

Isn't the same true of Politics?

Your point is well taken. But it is a matter of degree. I'll grant that they are both grey hats, but religion still wins in the pointless slaughter stakes.

Your point is well taken. But it is a matter of degree. I'll grant that they are both grey hats, but religion still wins in the pointless slaughter stakes.

It seems to me that religion that is into killing is really politics anyway.

Your point is well taken. But it is a matter of degree. I'll grant that they are both grey hats, but religion still wins in the pointless slaughter stakes.
I despise this myth. Far more people have been killed over secular/atheist political ideologies than religion.

The simplest answer, and one most likely to be true: this INDIVIDUAL PASTOR is a jerk.

Isn't it possible that each of these different religions are really the same religion? Each of the Divine Revealors of these religions really the same Revealor in a new robe? The same light in a different colored globe? The same spiritual language in a different dialect?

No, it isn't. Not when different religions make contradictory statements about the existence (e.g., Buddhism) or the nature (Christianity, Islam, etc.) of God. For example, orthodox Christianity says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Islam says He is not the Son of God but is a mere prophet. Only one of these statements can be true. The other must be false. Thus, the two are clearly not "the same religion."

Trying to blur or deny the differences between religions does not further the search for truth.

Don't you think that if God knows He would share the knowledge with us? Isn't it possible that each of these different religions are really the same religion? Each of the Divine Revealors of these religions really the same Revealor in a new robe? The same light in a different colored globe? The same spiritual language in a different dialect?

That's exactly what I believe. I personally feel that all religions reflect the same spiritual truths, just in different forms and languages meant to convey those truths in the most accessible form to the people of the time.

I despise this myth. Far more people have been killed over secular/atheist political ideologies than religion.

Tell yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

Tell yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

Has anyone ever actually calculated it? That would be a rather interesting piece of information.

Has anyone ever actually calculated it? That would be a rather interesting piece of information.

It would be impossible, but between Stalin's Purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward, The Holocaust, The Holodomor, and the Khmer Rouge I would say at least 175 million killed for political causes, probably much, much more.

Humans are just naturally violent, what makes religions violent are the people who follow them, not the religions themselves.

It would be impossible, but between Stalin's Purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward, The Holocaust, The Holodomor, and the Khmer Rouge I would say at least 175 million killed for political causes, probably much, much more.

Humans are just naturally violent, what makes religions violent are the people who follow them, not the religions themselves.

That's what I feel. It's people, individuals even, who need power or control over others that drive those killings, and they latch on to whatever can be used to sway the most people their way. Remove religion from society and instead you will have them kill in the name of the leader, of the party, of the fatherland or whatever thing can arouse the kind of moral denial necessary to justify crimes against humanity.

Religion can be used for great good or great evil...that's really all you can say.

Has anyone ever actually calculated it? That would be a rather interesting piece of information.

Don't know, but I'd make the argument that Stalin's purges and the other examples were the acts of madmen as opposed to people being killed for a political cause, secular or otherwise. The same can't be said for people killed in the name of religion--there were way too many true believers.

I despise this myth. Far more people have been killed over secular/atheist political ideologies than religion.

I can't think of a single person who has been a proven atheist that has engaged in pointless foreign wars. Can you?

Possibly Mao was an atheist, but that is domestic politics in any case.

Stop despising the myth. Atheists are less likely to instigate huge amounts of slaughter.

Don't know, but I'd make the argument that Stalin's purges and the other examples were the acts of madmen as opposed to people being killed for a political cause, secular or otherwise. The same can't be said for people killed in the name of religion--there were way too many true believers.

Well, the same could be applied to a lot of religious killings; it was a few elite madmen at the top that did most of the work while the common people were either decieved or forced in to backing it.

And there were a lot of people who were true believers in Stalin...kids were indoctrinated from birth during that period with images of Stalin as a god-like superman with the Communist Party as the priesthood of his cult of personality. It was a very frightening time, one that would have likely ended up in a Soviet Holocaust had he not died in 1953. Personality cults are infectious in a society desparate for order and stability.

Don't know, but I'd make the argument that Stalin's purges and the other examples were the acts of madmen as opposed to people being killed for a political cause, secular or otherwise. The same can't be said for people killed in the name of religion--there were way too many true believers.

The only thing on record about Stalin was that he hated the Russian Orthodox Church. I've never heard of a single piece of evidence that supports the notion that he was an athiest.

It's all a hangover from the godless communist phase.

I despise this myth. Far more people have been killed over secular/atheist political ideologies than religion.
Bullshit. You must be referring to Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. In both cases, it was people being killed by a government that happened to be atheist. This is completely different than killing in the name of religion, killing for the specific purpose of furthering your own beliefs. In that respect, religion wins all the way.

I can't think of a single person who has been a proven atheist that has engaged in pointless foreign wars. Can you?

Josef Stalin.

Stop despising the myth. Atheists are less likely to instigate huge amounts of slaughter.

No, they're not. Atheist regimes have been some of the bloodiest and most brutal in the history of mankind. In reality, however, it has nothing to do with their atheism but rather the same desire for power that motivated the religious murderers of the past.

The only thing on record about Stalin was that he hated the Russian Orthodox Church. I've never heard of a single piece of evidence that supports the notion that he was an athiest.

Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940.

Not to mention he was an anti-Semite and a brutal murderer.

Bullshit. You must be referring to Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. In both cases, it was people being killed by a government that happened to be atheist. This is completely different than killing in the name of religion, killing for the specific purpose of furthering your own beliefs. In that respect, religion wins all the way.


Even so, atheism was on the agenda of these regimes (well, certainly China's; I do not know for certain about Stalin). All religions were frowned upon, and the open practice of them was persecuted. Even now, in China, you've got to be careful what you say and where you say it, regarding your religious beliefs.


You've made a pretty broad statement there, when you say "killing for the specific purpose of furthering your own beliefs." Isn't that essentially the purpose of all wars? "I believe that Iraq is a threat to my country; let's invade it." "I believe the Aryan race is superior; let's dominate the world." "I believe communism is the way every country should run itself; let's force it upon them."

Wars are about beliefs.

Wars are about beliefs.
I think wars are about resources far more than about beliefs. Beliefs are the justification used so people don't come off as greedy sumbitches when they take what they wish.

I think wars are about resources far more than about beliefs. Beliefs are the justification used so people don't come off as greedy sumbitches when they take what they wish.

"I believe I need that; let's go take it."

:D

Even so, atheism was on the agenda of these regimes (well, certainly China's; I do not know for certain about Stalin). All religions were frowned upon, and the open practice of them was persecuted. Even now, in China, you've got to be careful what you say and where you say it, regarding your religious beliefs.
Right, but people weren't killed for the purpose of preserving atheism as much as to protect communism or, specifically in China, from failed communist systems.


You've made a pretty broad statement there, when you say "killing for the specific purpose of furthering your own beliefs." Isn't that essentially the purpose of all wars?
Wars are about beliefs.
I was referring to religious beliefs.
Also, some would argue that certain wars are over selfish, greedy reasons (like oil).

That's exactly what I believe. I personally feel that all religions reflect the same spiritual truths, just in different forms and languages meant to convey those truths in the most accessible form to the people of the time.

I think we both believe the following:


All the divine Manifestations have proclaimed the oneness of God and the unity of mankind. They have taught that men should love and mutually help each other in order that they might progress. Now if this conception of religion be true, its essential principle is the oneness of humanity. The fundamental truth of the Manifestations is peace. This underlies all religion, all justice. The divine purpose is that men should live in unity, concord and agreement and should love one another. Consider the virtues of the human world and realize that the oneness of humanity is the primary foundation of them all. Read the Gospel and the other Holy Books. You will find their fundamentals are one and the same. Therefore, unity is the essential truth of religion and, when so understood, embraces all the virtues of the human world. Praise be to God! This knowledge has been spread, eyes have been opened, and ears have become attentive. Therefore, we must endeavor to promulgate and practice the religion of God which has been founded by all the Prophets. And the religion of God is absolute love and unity.

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 31)

"I believe I need that; let's go take it."

:D
"And we'll say God told us to take it."

Right, but people weren't killed for the purpose of preserving atheism as much as to protect communism or, specifically in China, from failed communist systems.

Atheism was important enough to their ideologies that they needed to kill over it. Their version of communism needed atheism in order to live. Thus, in their minds, no atheism no communism.

Regardless, this is just an example of athiesm being forced upon a people. Much like Christianity or Islam has been.

I was referring to religious beliefs.
Also, some would argue that certain wars are over selfish, greedy reasons (like oil).

I agree with you that many wars are about resources, as the Nazz brought up. It just seems that the most atrocious ones are about beliefs.

I do not know why you would restrict yourself to only religious beliefs when defining beliefs. Beleifs are beliefs, whether religious or no-- by definition, they are something held as true, even though they can not be 100% proven as such. Especially in this day and age, when people are moving away from traditional religious ideologies, these alternate beliefs-- whether they be ethical, economical, political, etc-- are going to become increasingly important in future international politics.

No, it isn't. Not when different religions make contradictory statements about the existence (e.g., Buddhism) or the nature (Christianity, Islam, etc.) of God. For example, orthodox Christianity says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Islam says He is not the Son of God but is a mere prophet. Only one of these statements can be true. The other must be false. Thus, the two are clearly not "the same religion."

Trying to blur or deny the differences between religions does not further the search for truth.

Insisting that the your preceived differences between religions are real differences only serves to pit creature against creature. Each of us is created by God the Creator. The same God who sent each of the Holy Teachers. Those who would divide God's Creation into little pieces, build a fence around those pieces and then announce to the world that my piece is the only real piece because of how you interpet the sayings of the Holy Teachers. Rely on inaccurate translations, use Holy Books (Buddhism) that are impossible to verify as accurate, as proof of the difference of religions have no desire to establish unity or peace on earth.

Insisting that the your preceived differences between religions are real differences only serves to pit creature against creature. Each of us is created by God the Creator. The same God who sent each of the Holy Teachers. Those who would divide God's Creation into little pieces, build a fence around those pieces and then announce to the world that my piece is the only real piece because of how you interpet the sayings of the Holy Teachers. Rely on inaccurate translations, use Holy Books (Buddhism) that are impossible to verify as accurate, as proof of the difference of religions have no desire to establish unity or peace on earth.

From what you have just said, this discludes any of the religions of the world from "having a desire to establish unity or peace on earth", since the way they have interpreted those holy teachings is exactly how New Mitanni portrayed them-- as being incompatible.

Furthermore, under your own definition, your ideology is not helping to bring unity since it claims that it is true, and the other claims are not.

That is an awesome Christmas Card, and the Pastor needs to get his head out of his ass.

The governor of Tennessee has sent out his Christmas greeting cards, and they bear the image of an Afghan girl who can now go to school. A Nashville pastor is objecting to the image of the Muslim girl on the Christmas cards. Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up. The message on the back of the card, which ties in to the image on the front, is very nice and in keeping with the holliday spirit.

http://wdef.com/node/1772
We are all of God's children, no matter what religion one may profess.

And ya, the critic should cease and desist.

A Nashville pastor is objecting to the image of the Muslim girl on the Christmas cards. Maybe that pastor needs to shut the fuck up.


Oh, he's just jealous he didn't get anything from the governor.

Insisting that the your preceived differences between religions are real differences only serves to pit creature against creature. Each of us is created by God the Creator. The same God who sent each of the Holy Teachers. Those who would divide God's Creation into little pieces, build a fence around those pieces and then announce to the world that my piece is the only real piece because of how you interpet the sayings of the Holy Teachers. Rely on inaccurate translations, use Holy Books (Buddhism) that are impossible to verify as accurate, as proof of the difference of religions have no desire to establish unity or peace on earth.

In view of this argument and your preceding post, I'd say you must be a Baha'i. You're certainly free to advocate the tenets of your faith, including your notion that all religions are equivalent (the Zarathustris have a similar belief IIRC).

You can deny that differences in religions matter all you want. It doesn't address the fact that they do differ. And you can't rely on "inaccurate translations" to refute those differences. It isn't a matter of translation, nor of interpretation. The differences are real, and they are irreconcilable. Something can't be both true and false. Religion isn't quantum physics with superpositions of states. Jesus Christ isn't both the Son of God and not-the-Son-of-God, like some theological Schroedinger's Cat.

Insisting that the your preceived differences between religions are real differences only serves to pit creature against creature. Each of us is created by God the Creator. The same God who sent each of the Holy Teachers. Those who would divide God's Creation into little pieces, build a fence around those pieces and then announce to the world that my piece is the only real piece because of how you interpet the sayings of the Holy Teachers. Rely on inaccurate translations, use Holy Books (Buddhism) that are impossible to verify as accurate, as proof of the difference of religions have no desire to establish unity or peace on earth.


Very well said and very well put

In view of this argument and your preceding post, I'd say you must be a Baha'i. You're certainly free to advocate the tenets of your faith, including your notion that all religions are equivalent (the Zarathustris have a similar belief IIRC).

You can deny that differences in religions matter all you want. It doesn't address the fact that they do differ. And you can't rely on "inaccurate translations" to refute those differences. It isn't a matter of translation, nor of interpretation. The differences are real, and they are irreconcilable. Something can't be both true and false. Religion isn't quantum physics with superpositions of states. Jesus Christ isn't both the Son of God and not-the-Son-of-God, like some theological Schroedinger's Cat.

Well said and also very well put

question:

Let's suppose Jesus is the saviour how does that changes the rest of what GoodThoughts said?

when trying to quote from the Quran use reliable sources, not translated versions from any tom dick and harry!

"O Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers." -- Sura 5:56 (from Everyman's The Koran, tr. J.M. Rodwell)

Sura 5:56 from Respected scholars translates as follows:
005.056
YUSUFALI: As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- it is the fellowship of Allah that must certainly triumph.
PICKTHAL: And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for guardian (will know that), lo! the party of Allah, they are the victorious.
SHAKIR: And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

How long 'till Soviestan starts a thread called "You got your christmas on my Allah!"?

Well said and also very well put

Thank you :D

question:

Let's suppose Jesus is the saviour how does that changes the rest of what GoodThoughts said?


It undermines his assertion that God sends "Holy Teachers" who are somehow equivalent. If they make contradictory and irreconcilable claims, I submit that they are not all sent by God and are not equivalent.

Of course, this assumes that God is not a liar. If you reject that assumption, well, all bets are off.

I am sure if Jesus were here right this minute. The last thing he would want from us is to kill each other in his name.

The our way is the only way to "true" salvation just makes us enemies.

How do I know you will "go to hell" if you do not believe my way?

There is only one judge and I for one am not qualified to judge any of you.

I know what it is like down here there is a lot of confusion, a lot of mixed and contradictory messages.

I am somewhat of a "cafeteria" christian. I think Jesus had a lot of great ideas, I think Budda had some too, I am ignorant of Islam so I do not know what they teach. Is there only one way to Heaven. I must admit I don't know.....

From what you have just said, this discludes any of the religions of the world from "having a desire to establish unity or peace on earth", since the way they have interpreted those holy teachings is exactly how New Mitanni portrayed them-- as being incompatible.

Furthermore, under your own definition, your ideology is not helping to bring unity since it claims that it is true, and the other claims are not.

To claim that Christ and Moses and Buddha and others came to continue the living, organic message of God to His children does not distract from any other religion. It merely brings new understanding to God's plan for humankind. Those who would say that there is only the Son of God, or any other messanger, who spoke with authority to the creation of God and only the words of that Son are true words from God then drive the arrows of religious war into the heart of humanity. The radical Islamist say exactly the same thing that many Christians say: Only my messanger is true.

The ideology I speak of says that each of the messangers spoke the truth and that they are in a very real sense the same messanger in a new robe. One could say that there is only one religion. It is human ego that has divided that religion into opposing forces.

Atheism was important enough to their ideologies that they needed to kill over it. Their version of communism needed atheism in order to live. Thus, in their minds, no atheism no communism.
Regardless, this is just an example of athiesm being forced upon a people. Much like Christianity or Islam has been.
Yes, but there was no massive inquisition against theists. There was no crusade against India.The majority of the killing was not for atheism.


I do not know why you would restrict yourself to only religious beliefs when defining beliefs. Beleifs are beliefs, whether religious or no-- by definition, they are something held as true, even though they can not be 100% proven as such. Especially in this day and age, when people are moving away from traditional religious ideologies, these alternate beliefs-- whether they be ethical, economical, political, etc-- are going to become increasingly important in future international politics.
*Sigh* I know the definition of "beliefs". However, the subject at hand is not beliefs in general, but religious beliefs. If you can remember, it was originally about whether religion or atheism killed more people.

Yep. Come to think of it, the pastor probably should, if he were consistent (which, I'm sure, he's not) object to everything about the current celebration of Christmas - the date -which is the Pagan solstice and not the actual birthday of Christ (unknown), the Christmas tree - another pagan custom, the Yule log - Pagan custom, mistletoe - Pagan custom and numerous other symbols which were all taken from Pagan, Roman, Greek and Jewish sources. If he doesn't object to all of these, he's a hypocrite and worse, an ignorant hypocrite.

I thought the Christmas tree was originally a German custom, spread to England by Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband), and it went from there.

I thought the Christmas tree was originally a German custom, spread to England by Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband), and it went from there.

Yes it was, an ancient Germanic Pagan festival celebrating the changing of the seasons.

Chocotina;12120761']when trying to quote from the Quran use reliable sources, not translated versions from any tom dick and harry!

"O Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers." -- Sura 5:56 (from Everyman's The Koran, tr. J.M. Rodwell)

Sura 5:56 from Respected scholars translates as follows:
005.056
YUSUFALI: As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- it is the fellowship of Allah that must certainly triumph.
PICKTHAL: And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for guardian (will know that), lo! the party of Allah, they are the victorious.
SHAKIR: And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

OK, wiseguy, your "respected scholars" and "reliable sources" number it Sura 5:51. And if you'd bothered to look a little closer, you'd have noticed that these "respected scholars" say virtually the same thing as "tom dick and harry":

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Number it however you please, the substance of my citation stands.

OK, wiseguy, your "respected scholars" and "reliable sources" number it Sura 5:51. And if you'd bothered to look a little closer, you'd have noticed that these "respected scholars" say virtually the same thing as "tom dick and harry":

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Number it however you please, the substance of my citation stands.

Your point is that because Muhammed warned His followers to be wary of those who were trying to destroy them that Muhammed is suspect, is evil?

Your point is that because Muhammed warned His followers to be wary of those who were trying to destroy them that Muhammed is suspect, is evil?

In a word, yes.

And BTW: neither the Jews nor the Christians were "trying to destroy them." Don't confuse the victims with the aggressors.

In a word, yes.

And BTW: neither the Jews nor the Christians were "trying to destroy them." Don't confuse the victims with the aggressors.

What history book did you read? The Christians did not try to destroy Islam--so me your reference on that one.