NationStates Jolt Archive

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

Wow. Your faith must be pretty crappy for it to be seen by you as such good news. That or you're horrendously insecure about it.

Or is it simply a way for you to celebrate someone leaving a religion you claim to know but don't and joining one you claim to practice but don't?

That's not an Easter miracle. That's a Festivus miracle.

Worst. Miracle. Ever.

I bet he soon turns gay :)

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/Fredcat/Cats%2006/Cat-CatWearingScarfMuslimCatDeclare.jpg

Or is it simply a way for you to celebrate someone leaving a religion you claim to know but don't and joining one you claim to practice but don't?

^ That ^

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/Fredcat/Cats%2006/Cat-CatWearingScarfMuslimCatDeclare.jpg

LOL! :D

Seems like he made a good move to me. After all his own faith was calling for his demise. :rolleyes:

I hope he finds peace and a long life as a Catholic.

Seems like he made a good move to me. After all his own faith was calling for his demise.

No, it wasn't. Not anymore than the Christian faith called for the lynching of African-Americans when the KKK did it.

An attention whore gets another opportunity to whore for attention and that's a miracle?

You seem to have a low expectation of miracles. This might impress you: http://www.zippyvideos.com/6312316562288266/family_guy_jesus/

:)

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!
This is bad news. Why are you saying it's good? First, Christianity gets another member. Second, Muslims lost a prominent member. They're going to love that.

An attention whore gets another opportunity to whore for attention and that's a miracle?

You seem to have a low expectation of miracles. This might impress you: http://www.zippyvideos.com/6312316562288266/family_guy_jesus/

:)

Well, New Mitanni needs something to feel good about, and this comes as close to the destruction of teh ebil moslems as he'll ever get.

Damn, they really lowered the bar for miracles this Easter.

Used to be, you had to resurrect yourself after being dead three days and get out of a tomb with a fucking huge boulder blocking the door to have a miracle. Now, all you have to do is be a high-profile Muslim and convert, and suddenly it's a miracle!

Really, a cornflake in the shape of Kansas is more miraculous than that.

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

Yes, because he belongs to "your" club now, blessings and long life. Had he remained a non-practicing Muslim, curses and hopes for a speedy death.

If that's your idea of faith, then fuck faith.

Oh wow, a non-practicing 'muslim' writer (who's married to a practicing christian) who pissed off a whole bunch of practicing muslims with his writings converts to christianity.

Not only is it not a miracle, it isn't even a surprise.:rolleyes:

No, it wasn't. Not anymore than the Christian faith called for the lynching of African-Americans when the KKK did it.

This article states that he did indeed receive death threats.


Pope baptizes prominent Muslim
Iconoclastic commentator has spoken out against extremists
The Associated Press
updated 7:02 p.m. ET, Sat., March. 22, 2008
VATICAN CITY - Italy's most prominent Muslim commentator, who has long spoken out against Islamic fanaticism and received death threats as a result, converted to Roman Catholicism on Saturday during the Vatican's Easter vigil service presided over by the pope.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23759188

I am christian but not catholic. I think it is good though that the man found a faith he can belive in and practice. As to it being a miracle, well that depends on your own beliefs. I am not sure what to believe about it.

This article states that he did indeed receive death threats.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23759188

Which doesn't refute my point: His former religion didn't send him death threats: Individuals did, and they did so against the express wishes of their supposed religion.

Which doesn't refute my point: His former religion didn't send him death threats: Individuals did, and they did so against the express wishes of their supposed religion.


LOL you are too funny. :p

LOL you are too funny. :p

I'd tell you what YOU are, but that would be flaming.

What's so wrong with people choosing their own faith and others congratulating them on their decision? I thought liberalism supports freedom of religion, not hatred of it. Why must we bash someone for making their own choice?

I'd tell you what YOU are, but I don't want to get banned.

How about you tell me why you are in such a fizz over me wishing a guy the best about his decision to change his faith?

The article I read did say his life was threatened, by Hamas no less, not just an individual. Yet you are angry. Why is that?

I shouldn't have laughed at your anger, I apologize. But honestly I really don't see why your panties are in such a wad over this...and I would like to understand it.

The true miracle is that I have not yet cracked the "instant easter" joke.
:cool:

What's so wrong with people choosing their own faith and others congratulating them on their decision? I thought liberalism supports freedom of religion, not hatred of it. Why must we bash someone for making their own choice?

Didn't you miss the memo. Since marx started writing the more liberal minded peopel have began hating religion. Moved onto their own new religon of atheism

Pretty lacklustre "miracle" if you ask me. The pope could have at least done something interesting, like shot fireworks from his big hat.

Pretty lacklustre "miracle" if you ask me. The pope could have at least done something interesting, like shot fireworks from his big hat.

lmao

I bet he soon turns gay :)He only became catholic, not a priest...

Didn't you miss the memo. Since marx started writing the more liberal minded peopel have began hating religion. Moved onto their own new religon of atheism
You're funny.:)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/Fredcat/Cats%2006/Cat-CatWearingScarfMuslimCatDeclare.jpg

Is it just me or does that cat look like Hitler?

If the New Testament is to be belived then people about two millenia ago were largely unimpressed by large-scale zombie invasions (see Gospel of Matthew), and yet today it's seen as a miracle when a cultural-member of a regressive religion converts to a slightly different regressive religion.

So much for progress. :p

Is it just me or does that cat look like Hitler?

Well, it does look like he has a Hitler moustache. :eek:

How about you tell me why you are in such a fizz over me wishing a guy the best about his decision to change his faith?

The article I read did say his life was threatened, by Hamas no less, not just an individual. Yet you are angry. Why is that?

I shouldn't have laughed at your anger, I apologize. But honestly I really don't see why your panties are in such a wad over this...and I would like to understand it.

1- I don't care about the guy's conversion. I'm questioning New Mit's celebration of this, because New Mitanni has repeatedly called for the "final solution" regarding ALL Muslims. I'm not "angry" (if that's how you want to paint me) about the guy practicing his religious freedom, I'm miffed about New Mit calling this a miracle as if it were meaningful, special and eminently good. It isn't. Because changing his religion won't make him better or worse, because this really ISN'T meaningful and because for something to be a MIRACLE it'd have to break the bonds of consensual reality.

2- Again: Hamas is to Islam like the KKK is to Christianity. It doesn't represent Islam just like the KKK doesn't represent Christianity.

3- I'd wish him the best if his decision actually changed him one bit. It doesn't. Essentially because the Quran and the Bible are not that different. Well, I actually DO wish him the best, but I would all the same had he stayed as a Muslim, converted to Zoroastrianism, or whatever.

4- If this guy had stayed as a Muslim, New Mitanni would be wishing for him to develop a neuro-degenerating disease.

After all his own faith was calling for his demise. :rolleyes:

No, a handful of people belonging to that faith did. Not Islam or Muslims as a whole.

What's so wrong with people choosing their own faith and others congratulating them on their decision?

Nothing, if it's not compared to a MIRACLE by the same guy that wants all Muslims dead. Thus proving it's NOT about religious freedom, it's about New Mitanni, who would wish this guy he doesn't know nothing but ill for being a Muslim a few days ago, wishing him well now that he's one of HIS club, whereas we, liberals, wish him well regardless of his religion, rather, based on his ACTIONS of harming no one.

No, a handful of people claiming to belong to that faith did. Not Islam or Muslims as a whole.

Fixed, mainly because Islam rejects that kind of threat or murder.

Fixed, mainly because Islam rejects that kind of threat or murder.

My mistake. Either way, whether Islam rejects it or not, most Muslims do reject it.

My mistake. Either way, whether Islam rejects it or not, most Muslims do reject it.

Both Islam and, yes, most Muslims do. ;)

Before anyone asks, I'm not a Muslim. Nor do I play one on TV. :p

VATICAN CITY - Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service.

Well, not too hard to see why ol' Mitanni is pleased. One less of those annoying Muslims to disrupt his worldview...

Both Islam and, yes, most Muslims do. ;)

Before anyone asks, I'm not a Muslim. Nor do I play one on TV. :p

Have you ever read the Koran? I own a copy, but never got around to reading it. Maybe I should give it a look.

My mistake. Either way, whether Islam rejects it or not, most Muslims do reject it.

Most sensible people reject murder.

Cue discussion about religion and sensible not fitting into the same context :p

Didn't you miss the memo. Since marx started writing the more liberal minded peopel have began hating religion. Moved onto their own new religon of atheism

Yes, only since Marx. :rolleyes:

What's so wrong with people choosing their own faith and others congratulating them on their decision? I thought liberalism supports freedom of religion, not hatred of it. Why must we bash someone for making their own choice?

That's not what people here are bashing. They're bashing the reasons for it, and in New Mittani's case the bashing is most certainly warranted.

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

The Easter Troll.....

What a sad thread... you would hope that someone who finds out that his/her religion is bollocks doesn't just turn around to join another cult... :confused:

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!

I have a better miracle, that i will complete the work i'm due in for monday.

Fixed, mainly because Islam rejects that kind of threat or murder.

To be honest I find this kind of statement just as absurd as those of the trolls who say that all Muslims are evil and want to suck your blood: what grounds do you have to decide what is and isn't 'Real Islam' TM?

I have a better miracle, that i will complete the work i'm due in for monday.
To be quite honest, if the best God can come up on Easter with is something that happens on a daily basis anyway...

Well, it does look like he has a Hitler moustache. :eek:

You mean Reincarnated-Hitler-Cat is now a Muslim? The Evil Atheist Conspiracy will hear of this!

*flees in black helicopter*

To be quite honest, if the best God can come up on Easter with is something that happens on a daily basis anyway...

Yeah, at least the cheese toastie had novelty value. :D

To be honest I find this kind of statement just as absurd as those of the trolls who say that all Muslims are evil and want to suck your blood: what grounds do you have to decide what is and isn't 'Real Islam' TM?

The Quran says that killing a man is the same as killing all mankind.

The Quran says that killing a man is the same as killing all mankind.

I think both the Q'ran and the bible are used much in the same way by their followers : Ignore what you don't agree with, and shout about the stuff you like.

The Quran says that killing a man is the same as killing all mankind.

The Quran is like any other 'holy' book: you decide what position you hold and then you find quotes to back it up. There are other parts of the book which say that killing is acceptable, and even obligatory, in some situations (4.76 for example).

Look at these verses from the Quran:

4:3 "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four."

4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

5:38 "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah."

24:2 "The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment."

Are you seriously saying that anyone who opposes Polygamy, supports equality for women, opposes amputation as a punishment for theft and/or doesn't think that adulterers should be flogged can't really be a Muslim? I've got at least one friend who calls himself a Muslim but is even more liberal than I am, does that make him a liar?

I think both the Q'ran and the bible are used much in the same way by their followers : Ignore what you don't agree with, and shout about the stuff you like.

Bingo! In Galatians Paul suggests that Christians should live in celibacy if at all possible and only get married if they really can't control their urges, but not many people follow that guidance. ;)

The Quran is like any other 'holy' book: you decide what position you hold and then you find quotes to back it up. There are other parts of the book which say that killing is acceptable, and even obligatory, in some situations.

Look at these verses from the Quran:

4:3 "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four."

4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

5:38 "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah."

24:2 "The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment."

Are you seriously saying that anyone who opposes Polygamy, supports equality for women, opposes amputation as a punishment for theft and/or doesn't think that adulterers should be flogged can't really be a Muslim? I've got at least one friend who calls himself a Muslim but is even more liberal than I am, does that make him a liar?

Well, okay, then you're of the position that BOTH these guys are real Muslims and, say, Fred Phelps is a true Christian?

Well, okay, then you're of the position that BOTH these guys are real Muslims and, say, Fred Phelps is a true Christian?

First answer my question and then I'll be happy to answer yours:

Are you seriously saying that anyone who opposes Polygamy, supports equality for women, opposes amputation as a punishment for theft and/or doesn't think that adulterers should be flogged can't really be a Muslim?

Well, okay, then you’re of the position that BOTH these guys are real Muslims and, say, Fred Phelps is a true Christian?
I don’t want to answer for Agenda07, but I think it’s a bit foolish to try and find the ‘truest’ Christian, Muslim, etc. And merely applying the rule, ‘the most peaceful denomination is the truest’ doesn’t seem to work.

Lets take your examples away from extremes to see the uselessness of the question: ‘Who’s the true Christian, the Presbyterian or the Episcopalian?’

Obviously, from a POV inside Christianity, the denomination you consider to be the ‘true’ Christianity is the denomination you belong to (if you even believe there can be a ‘true’ Christianity). From a more objective view, the idea of one sect being more or less ‘true’ seems strange at the least, as all sects pick and choose from the Bible. Even Fred Phelps’ creed has some grounding in Scripture, even if he is ignoring a huge amount.

Each denomination is just an interpretation of a faith, and unless a particular denomination is saying things that simply aren’t in any translation of their religious text(s), such as “Jesus says that guns are an abomination” (and, heck, here we run into the problem of interpretation; I'm sure there's some Christian denomination that interprets some passage to mean that Jesus hates all weapons), then deciding who’s the truest faith seems rather foolish.

First answer my question and then I'll be happy to answer yours:

No, I'm not saying that. You have a point there, but in order to be coherent the same would hold true for any religion, surely?

I don’t want to answer for Agenda07, but I think it’s a bit foolish to try and find the ‘truest’ Christian, Muslim, etc. And merely applying the rule, ‘the most peaceful denomination is the truest’ doesn’t seem to work.

Lets take your examples away from extremes to see the uselessness of the question: ‘Who’s the true Christian, the Presbyterian or the Episcopalian?’

Obviously, from a POV inside Christianity, the denomination you consider to be the ‘true’ Christianity is the denomination you belong to (if you even believe there can be a ‘true’ Christianity). From a more objective view, the idea of one sect being more or less ‘true’ seems strange at the least, as all sects pick and choose from the Bible. Even Fred Phelps’ creed has some grounding in Scripture, even if he is ignoring a huge amount.

Each denomination is just an interpretation of a faith, and unless a particular denomination is saying things that simply aren’t in any translation of their religious text(s), such as “Jesus says that guns are an abomination”, then deciding who’s the truest faith seems rather foolish.

That's basically what I'd have said, so feel free to answer on my behalf. :p

I simply wouldn't use such a loaded term as 'true [insert religion here]' unless it had been rigorously defined:

is it referring to the group which is closest to the sacred texts of the religion (and if so which texts and which versions: there are variant reading of central Christian writings in different manuscripts even before you get on to the Gnostic texts, and there are also variant texts of the Quran circulating in the Muslim world)?
is it being judged by the group which is closest to the beliefs of the earliest followers of the religion (and if so how sure can we be of what those people believed and how united they were)?
is it being used to describe the group with the most internally coherent doctrines which are roughly based around [insert religion here]?
what about groups like the Mormons, who consider themselves to be the 'true' Christians but diverge significantly from traditional Christianity?
I don't see it as being a very useful term, and when it's used it almost always results in a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

To be quite honest, if the best God can come up on Easter with is something that happens on a daily basis anyway...

I suppose it is a bit trivial...guess i'm not allowed to ask for small things then.

No, I'm not saying that. You have a point there, but in order to be coherent the same would hold true for any religion, surely?

If by that you mean it's impossible to describe any particular branch of religion as being 'true' or 'false' then I'd broadly agree.

If by that you mean it's impossible to describe any particular branch of religion as being 'true' or 'false' then I'd broadly agree.

I see.

Well, okay, then you're of the position that BOTH these guys are real Muslims and, say, Fred Phelps is a true Christian?

And just to give an explicit answer to your question: I'd have to ask what criteria we were using for 'truth'', and even then I wouldn't be inclined to give a straight answer. :D I'm not convinced that we know enough about Jesus to decide whether Phelps' behaviour matches his or not, and there has never really been a united group of Christians with an agreed upon doctrine to compare his to (even in the New Testament itself you can find openly conflicting views, like the epistle of James which satirises the doctrine of solar fide salvation).

And just to give an explicit answer to your question: I'd have to ask what criteria we were using for 'truth'', and even then I wouldn't be inclined to give a straight answer. :D I'm not convinced that we know enough about Jesus to decide whether Phelps' behaviour matches his or not, and there has never really been a united group of Christians with an agreed upon doctrine to compare his to (even in the New Testament itself you can find openly conflicting views, like the epistle of James which satirises the doctrine of solar fide salvation).

Mmm. Right. Well, I may not agree entirely with you, but you're coherent. I'm for a more peaceful, liberal interpretation of all religions.

Mmm. Right. Well, I may not agree entirely with you, but you're coherent. I'm for a more peaceful, liberal interpretation of all religions.

I'm for more liberalism and more peace all round, I just don't think it's realistic to suggest that the 'true' meaning of a Mediterranean text (assuming for a moment that it has an objective, true meaning) written between 2,500 and 1,300 years ago happens to coincide with 21st Western Liberal thought. :p

The Easter Troll.....

Haha. I suppose he leaves rotten eggs around for little children to find?

Haha. I suppose he leaves rotten eggs around for little children to find?

Rotten eggs wrapped in Jack Chick tracts.

God's light reaches through to all mankind, one soul at a time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert

Blessings and long life to Magdi Allam!
Don't the Muslims have to kill him now that he's an apostate?

Im sure he converted after an Inquisitor spent some time with him.

Don't the Muslims have to kill him now that he's an apostate?

No, they don't. Nor would the vast majority of them do so, even given opportunity or guarantee of impunity. Do you dispute this?

Well, okay, then you're of the position that BOTH these guys are real Muslims and, say, Fred Phelps is a true Christian?

Sure. Fred Phelps is a perfectly true Christian.

Sure. Fred Phelps is a perfectly true Christian.

Mm.

Im sure he converted after an Inquisitor spent some time with him.

http://www.freewebs.com/delta187/Inquisitor%20Rosette.JPG
Hell yes.

Haha. I suppose he leaves rotten eggs around for little children to find?

with the occassional issue of "The Weekly Standard" hidden inside....

No, they don't. Nor would the vast majority of them do so, even given opportunity or guarantee of impunity. Do you dispute this?
Only in that the article seems to lean that way...

There is no overarching Muslim law on conversion. But under a widespread interpretation of Islamic legal doctrine, converting from Islam is apostasy and punishable by death...

But I'm sure that your learned opinion outweighs the "widespread interpretation" called out here.

Only in that the article seems to lean that way...

But I'm sure that your learned opinion outweighs the "widespread interpretation" called out here.

There are numerous schools of thought regarding interpretation of the Sharia: some hold that apostasy must be punished by the death penalty (this is the case in Afghanistan for example); others say that apostasy should be punished, but that it's not a capital crime (an interpretation which is applied in parts of Malaysia); while others argue that apostasy is a spiritual crime which is punished in the next life and there is no earthly punishment.

With regard to 'Muslims having to kill him', there's a distinction in Islamic theology between a Collective Duty and an Individual Duty. The Fatwa on Salman Rushdie was proclaimed as an Individual Duty (i.e. any Muslim who regarded the Ayatollah as an authority and had the opportunity to kill Rushdie would be expected to), but execution for apostasy would usually be seen as a Collective Duty (so it would be carried out through a Muslim government, and individual Muslims have no personal obligation to kill the apostate).

Only in that the article seems to lean that way...

But I'm sure that your learned opinion outweighs the "widespread interpretation" called out here.

1- The article is the article. You are you. I asked if YOU dispute it.

2- It's not widespread any more than Phelps Christianity is.

There are numerous schools of thought regarding interpretation of the Sharia: some hold that apostasy must be punished by the death penalty (this is the case in Afghanistan for example); others say that apostasy should be punished, but that it's not a capital crime (an interpretation which is applied in parts of Malaysia); while others argue that apostasy is a spiritual crime which is punished in the next life and there is no earthly punishment.

With regard to 'Muslims having to kill him', there's a distinction in Islamic theology between a Collective Duty and an Individual Duty. The Fatwa on Salman Rushdie was proclaimed as an Individual Duty (i.e. any Muslim who regarded the Ayatollah as an authority and had the opportunity to kill Rushdie would be expected to), but execution for apostasy would usually be seen as a Collective Duty (so it would be carried out through a Muslim government, and individual Muslims have no personal obligation to kill the apostate).

1- The article is the article. You are you. I asked if YOU dispute it.

2- It's not widespread any more than Phelps Christianity is.
Now you see, there are people that can give an understandable answer to a question... Since you don't appear to be one of them, I thought I'd include an example.

Now you see, there are people that can give an understandable answer to a question... Since you don't appear to be one of them, I thought I'd include an example.

You do see that:

1- He does not at any point say that most Muslims favor threats or murder against the guy.

2- The first question is the one I was asking. Of YOU.

Right?

You do see that:

1- He does not at any point say that most Muslims favor threats or murder against the guy.

2- The first question is the one I was asking. Of YOU.

Right?
The way I see it, Agenda07 provided an informative and complete answer to my question. He did not answer it with another question. That is not responsive and certainly not informative.

It appears you do need remedial lessons in conversation.

The way I see it, Agenda07 provided an informative and complete answer to my question. He did not answer it with another question. That is not responsive and certainly not informative.

It appears you do need remedial lessons in conversation.

I didn't answer your question with another question.

No, they don't. Nor would the vast majority of them do so, even given opportunity or guarantee of impunity. Do you dispute this?

I answered, THEN I asked you a question. Which you dodged by saying "the article" implied that, as if I had asked the ARTICLE if it disputes this.

Now who needs remedial lessons in conversation?

Miracle? Hardly. Good news? Yes. Worthy of both a thread on here, and a news article? No.

Miracle? Hardly. Good news? Yes. Worthy of both a thread on here, and a news article? No.

Good news, yes, just as it would be if someone converted from Christianity or other faiths and finally found themselves in the Muslim, Wicca or any other religion.

Good news, yes, just as it would be if someone converted from Christianity or other faiths and finally found themselves in the Muslim, Wicca or any other religion.

Wicca or any other religion would be preferable actually, as Abrahamic religions fuel genocide.

Wicca or any other religion would be preferable actually, as Abrahamic religions fuel genocide.

Maybe so, but the point is it's not eminently good nor bad news that a person is converting away from Islam or into Christianity.

Didn't you miss the memo. Since marx started writing the more liberal minded peopel have began hating religion. Moved onto their own new religon of atheism
Didn't you miss the memo about punctuation and spelling?

Heh, OP still hasn't returned. Does he do this a lot?

Heh, OP still hasn't returned. Does he do this a lot?
Yes. Which is unfortunate, I've really wanted to see an Andaras - NM battle, albeit from a good distance.

Yes. Which is unfortunate, I've really wanted to see an Andaras - NM battle, albeit from a good distance.

:D

Wicca or any other religion would be preferable actually, as Abrahamic religions fuel genocide.

Well Genghis Khan was a bit heavy with the mass killing and the Mongols religon was some form of shamanistic one, wasn't it?

Heh, OP still hasn't returned. Does he do this a lot?

Drive-by trolling is his specialty. It's always a surprise the few times he actually returns.

Wicca or any other religion would be preferable actually, as Abrahamic religions fuel genocide.
*Sigh* KOL, you're starting too turn into a little Fass clone...

Few religions fuel genocides, rather, they are used as the excuse. Other problems are almost always present, and so someone decides that if they claim that their G/gods told them to, they can get away with it. And they usually do.:(

Yes. Which is unfortunate, I've really wanted to see an Andaras - NM battle, albeit from a good distance.

Orbit?

*Sigh* KOL, you're starting too turn into a little Fass clone...



Hardly, I dont denounce the culture of every culture/nation that isnt my own and dont activally go looking into threads that have nothing to do with religion simply to troll about how much I hate religion.

Well Genghis Khan was a bit heavy with the mass killing and the Mongols religon was some form of shamanistic one, wasn't it?

the Khan wasn't killing people because of his religion (as early Christians, Jews, and Muslims were) he was killing them because he wanted their stuff.

the Khan wasn't killing people because of his religion (as early Christians, Jews, and Muslims were) he was killing them because he wanted their stuff.

True, true. He was an equal opportunities fellah that way.

True, true. He was an equal opportunities fellah that way.

Not quite: He still favored the people with MORE stuff and LESS armies. Sounds unequal to me.

Well Genghis Khan was a bit heavy with the mass killing and the Mongols religon was some form of shamanistic one, wasn't it?

Early on, yes. Later they began converting to Christianity and Islam.