Christian forums

[MeDeFe]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

I disagree with your second statement. I can see some good reasons for the various forms of vegetarianism.

Then don't you disagree with my first statement?

Well, yes, but disagreeing with the second statement disagrees summarily with both of your points, with only one statement.

Not quite, in disagreeing with the second statement you're only saying that you put vegetarianism on a lower level of retardedness than theism. This does in no way imply that you don't consider vegetarianism not to be retarded. Which is what I take your second sentence to mean.

[unriggable]

Napoleon, why is it that when Xianity is used for evil it is because of manipulations, when Islam is used for evil it is because it is encouraged?

[Neoteny]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

I disagree with your second statement. I can see some good reasons for the various forms of vegetarianism.

Then don't you disagree with my first statement?

Well, yes, but disagreeing with the second statement disagrees summarily with both of your points, with only one statement.

Not quite, in disagreeing with the second statement you're only saying that you put vegetarianism on a lower level of retardedness than theism. This does in no way imply that you don't consider vegetarianism not to be retarded. Which is what I take your second sentence to mean.

Whatever. You're a homophobe.

EDIT: Dick

[Guiscard]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil islamis in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Nappy, we all know you're 15. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of the Middle East was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.

Nappy. Every time you make the same hypocritical points. Over and over. Please lets try a new track, eh?

We get it. Christianity by nature is good, and so religion is not culpable for the bad. Islam by is nature bad, and so religion is culpable for the bad (and, while we're at it, the good is ignored). Rinse, repeat.

Heaven forbid you ever try to address any form of social or economic factors ... Ahh yes, sorry, I'm forgetting the world is doomed by neo-marxist conspirators. Sometimes I wonder who you hate more... OCR, The Neo-Marxists or the Muslims.

[Frigidus]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil islamis in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Nappy, we all know you're 15. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of the Middle East was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.

Nappy. Every time you make the same hypocritical points. Over and over. Please lets try a new track, eh?

We get it. Christianity by nature is good, and so religion is not culpable for the bad. Islam by is nature bad, and so religion is culpable for the bad (and, while we're at it, the good is ignored). Rinse, repeat.

Heaven forbid you ever try to address any form of social or economic factors ... Ahh yes, sorry, I'm forgetting the world is doomed by neo-marxist conspirators. Sometimes I wonder who you hate more... OCR, The Neo-Marxists or the Muslims.

My guess is bolded. We should have a poll along these lines.

[Jenos Ridan]

As I've said before and will probably say several times more before the last shread of entertainment value evaporates from this thread,

This topic was never intended to be entertaining, it was ment to alert people like you of how little you understand the differences between the two.

the original point of a religion has virtually no impact on what it eventually becomes.

But the beliefs expressed in them do. And those beliefs dictate what is in a persons mind and thus how they behave. So you are wrong.

Middle Age Christianity is an excellent example of this. The ideas the book espouced were all well and good, but very few people actually followed them.

And those persons where not faithful; in order to be a Christian, one must think and act (dare I say it) "Christ-like" thoughts and actions. One cannot murdurs his neighbor or beat and rape his wife and still be seen as an upright member of society. Or are you saying he can?

The vast majority of religions never get the opportunity to make this leap out of a violent and oppressive society, because the infrastructure for them to do so doesn't exist. But, of course, I've already said this before. My text longs for a responce.

They don't get the opportunity because they don't have the kind of teaching that allows it, nor is their message capable of that kind of progress. Simple as that.

You claim that the Koran includes more violent sections than the Bible. Very true.

Well it does, doesn't it? I'm glad you agree on something.

However, it doesn't matter. One verse espoucing violence, or a hundred; people will still use them to justify their violent ways.

When a Christian takes a verse out of the greater context of the whole book, yes. But then, he would be betraying his beliefs.

Again, why is Islam deserving of your righteous wrath, when Christianity an be interpreted to mean almost the exact same things? Why does it deserve bashings, when it is merely one of a huge swarm of religions that never had the chance to progress beyond the fuedal state?

Because the nature of Islam is hateful, and that is because Muhammad, a hateful man, was it's creator.

This stands in direct opposition to the message Christ brought to us.

BTW: you said I had "double-standards". I point out that by way of that you said I was biased. You then claim that you implied no such thing. No only are you the one with a bias, you are also a liar. To say nothing of ignorant of Christianity, in spite of that fact that they are many, many good examples of Christian behavor, in the form of other Christians, all over this site.

[Neoteny]

Jenos, should the Muslim terrorists be blamed for following their religion as you describe it? They were following their own worldview.

[Jenos Ridan]

Napoleon, why is it that when Xianity is used for evil it is because of manipulations, when Islam is used for evil it is because it is encouraged?

Two words: Prophet Mohammad.

[Frigidus]

Napoleon, why is it that when Xianity is used for evil it is because of manipulations, when Islam is used for evil it is because it is encouraged?

Two words: Prophet Mohammad.

Another two words: Jesus Christ

Two other words: Regrettable Venison

Both Jesus and Mohammad had rather, say, interesting views on morality. What makes one OK and the other not?

[Neoteny]

Jenos, should the Muslim terrorists be blamed for following their religion as you describe it? They were following their own worldview.

Nothing?

[Neutrino]

The interpretation of the original writers of the text has virtually no impact on what the official interpretation is after a significant period of time has passed. End of story. Take all the many and varied sects of Christianity for example. Catholicism says Idolatry is all well and good; Protestantism states that it's against the teachings of the Bible. These two wildly different interpretations are based on exactly the same book. Only one of them (at maximum. More likely none do) can possibly interpret the Bible in exactly the same way as those who lived in the same period as it's writers did. It is overwhelmingly likely that you interpret the Bible completely differently to the way the Disciples did. You still consider yourself Christian, yet you believe something quite significantly different to what the writers of the Bible did. This is what I mean when I say that the interpretation of what is written, not what is written itself is actually important.
If there are so many possible valid interpretations of the Bible, what's stopping an interpretation that states violence is permissable? After all, this was the primary interpretation during the Middle Ages. Are all these people not Christian? Was the entire Christian population for several hundred years not actually Christian? If you say they're not Christian, then in fact you are declaring that everyone other than you is not, in fact, Christian, since you are the only one likely to have exactly your specific beliefs. If you think that's true, then there is nothing anyone can do for you.
And, in fact, one can murder and rape their wife and still be an upstanding member of the community. I personally might find both acts horrible, but I'm not an avatar of the society that man lived in. It is possible both are acceptable acts in this hypothetical society. In Biblical times, stoning was accepted as natural. You could stone someone to death every day of the week (with suitable angry mob entourage, of course) and still be a fine, upstanding member of local society. Try something like that these days and you (with every other identified member of the mob) will be shunned and probably arrested. My how times change.
I find your claim that Islam is too hateful to advance incredibly closed minded. Think back a few hundred years. Imagine European society. Violent? Check. Sexist? Check. Ruthlessly expantionist? Check. Endorsed slavery? Check. Hateful? Check. Every other negative trait you have claimed Islam possesses? Check. Medieval Christianity and Islam were nigh-identical. How can you claim that Islam is too hateful to advance when medieval Christianity was just as hateful? It advanced just fine.
It is here that I would like to point out that a Muslim that takes something out of the greater context of the Koran is also betraying their beliefs. Remember, the overall context of both books is pro-peace.

P.S. I said you had a double standard, but this only implies you have a bias. You were saying that I directly called you biased. This is why I denied it. I assumed you had uncovered a quote of me directly calling you biased.

[Snorri1234]

because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine.

OH SHIT NAPPY UNCOVERED OUR INTENTIONS!

Might as well give it up guys, Nappy knows now.

[Guiscard]

Middle Age Christianity is an excellent example of this. The ideas the book espouced were all well and good, but very few people actually followed them.

And those persons where not faithful; in order to be a Christian, one must think and act (dare I say it) "Christ-like" thoughts and actions. One cannot murdurs his neighbor or beat and rape his wife and still be seen as an upright member of society. Or are you saying he can?

Those persons were medieval Christianity. I don't think you can have studied the medieval church too much. You simply cannot judge it by 'modern' standards in such a way. You're pretty much declaring that pretty much every single person in Christendom for perhaps three or four hundred years was 'not faithful'. The Bible was interpreted very differently. It was more than OK, indeed it was ideal, to go and fight the Saracen or the Pagan. Religion is categorically 100% the primary reason for such mass conflicts in the period - not power-hungry Popes, not restless young Nobles, Religion. Other factors were vital, and indeed interlinked to an inextricable degree, but the core of such conflict was the Christian faiths and the tenants of that faith as held at the time. The vast vast majority of the crusaders undertook such a perilous journey because they believed their sins would be redeemed because of it.

[Snorri1234]

Middle Age Christianity is an excellent example of this. The ideas the book espouced were all well and good, but very few people actually followed them.

And those persons where not faithful; in order to be a Christian, one must think and act (dare I say it) "Christ-like" thoughts and actions. One cannot murdurs his neighbor or beat and rape his wife and still be seen as an upright member of society. Or are you saying he can?

Wow, the "MY INTERPRETATION IS THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION AND ALL OTHERS ARE NOT TRUE!!!"-argument. There's a suprise....

[john9blue]

I think some associations are being made here that are incorrect. Just because the Bible was misinterpreted during the Middle Ages doesn't invalidate its real message. Similarly, if you don't believe the Bible is true, that's hardly a good reason to be an atheist. If you think Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, then the existence of God wouldn't depend on him at all.

Middle Age Christianity is an excellent example of this. The ideas the book espouced were all well and good, but very few people actually followed them.

And those persons where not faithful; in order to be a Christian, one must think and act (dare I say it) "Christ-like" thoughts and actions. One cannot murdurs his neighbor or beat and rape his wife and still be seen as an upright member of society. Or are you saying he can?

I don't think Jenos is completely wrong. The goal of a Christian is to live like Christ. It's human error, not a fallacy of the Bible itself, which caused these wars.

OH SHIT NAPPY UNCOVERED OUR INTENTIONS!

Might as well give it up guys, Nappy knows now.

Wow, the "MY INTERPRETATION IS THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION AND ALL OTHERS ARE NOT TRUE!!!"-argument. There's a suprise....

What a hypocrite. Are you going to contribute anything yourself, Snorri, or simply stand blindly behind your beliefs?

[unriggable]

I don't think Jenos is completely wrong. The goal of a Christian is to live like Christ. It's human error, not a fallacy of the Bible itself, which caused these wars.

I'm pretty sure they thought they were going to heaven, just as you do now. It's not so much they didn't live like christ, they didn't live like you, and according to you, you live like christ. If they saw you knowing you were a christian, I'm sure they'd have the same kind of view you have on them. Christianity is all subjective. There's no right or wrong.

[Neoteny]

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

And who are you to say your interpretation is more correct than a medieval scholar? People today can't even agree on an interpretation, so it's a little pretentious to assume that you and Jenos know what the "right" and "wrong" interpretations are. You follow through on what you think is right based on your own "flawed, human" judgement. But to the majority of the world, and, indeed, most people throughout history, you're wrong. I guess that makes you, and me in the same respect, special.

[Frigidus]

I think some associations are being made here that are incorrect. Just because the Bible was misinterpreted during the Middle Ages doesn't invalidate its real message. Similarly, if you don't believe the Bible is true, that's hardly a good reason to be an atheist. If you think Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, then the existence of God wouldn't depend on him at all.

We aren't saying that its message is invalidated. Heck, the current interpretation (minus the God bit for me) is actually quite pleasant. However, that interpretation isn't necessarily the only correct one. Just as two random people can pick apart and analyze, say, "Heart of Darkness" and get two entirely different meanings, so can you do the same with the Bible. What, exactly, makes you think that the Bible was misinterpreted in the Middle Ages? Just because they focused more on certain passages than others doesn't make them incorrect.

EDIT: Damn, two people beat me to the punch. I guess I'll be the good cop in this one.

[Napoleon Ier]

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

What a GOON!

[Neoteny]

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

What a GOON!

What a douche!

[Napoleon Ier]

Mais je t'encule aussi trop d'uc

[Neoteny]

::southern accent:: I don't speak stupid.

[Frigidus]

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

What a GOON!

In what way? Religious texts are largely the driving force behind the idea of god(s). Without the context the idea of a god is completely arbitrary.

[unriggable]

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

What a GOON!

In what way? Religious texts are largely the driving force behind the idea of god(s). Without the context the idea of a god is completely arbitrary.

Largely? They're the only way. Same reason that everybody nobody knows about may as well have not existed.

[Napoleon Ier]

Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?