Pretty much a perfect example of how badly people get things. Take away the underlying motive to split from England, the larger birthrate of Irish Catholics, which was going to result in larger voting blocks, and historic wrongs by England, and yes, it was totally about Protestants vs Catholics.

But they would probably have just played soccer againt each other.

Same with most of the Middle Ages, take away the political power grabs by the Catholic hierarcy, nation states trying to isolate enemy states, and the massive amounts of money involved, and yes, the Middle Ages was about Christians wanting to force people to their religion.


In other words, the 'catch phrases' you are using are lazy history, based on an agenda, not on facts

Christs teaching itself has nothing to do with violence. This is the difference that is key that for some reason people want to just gloss over. It's stupid, really, I don't get it at all. One calls for violence, one does not. How simple is that? Really, truthfully, how simple is that? Where are the christian honor killings happening? Where is Christ telling me to kill everyone who doesn't bow to him? There are times in this thread where it feels like I am taking crazy pills, these people want you dead, don't you get it? Dead. Dead. 100% based on religous belief. 100% Quit glossing over what this is and wake up. Sometimes it's perfectly okay to judge.

So, the question is, what do we do about it? Politically,defend your soil, other than that, nothing. People are free to believe as they will in this country, I don't care what it is, until it harms another in a palpable way. Not,"Oh, that makes me feel bad" I mean actual harm, and then the law can run it's course. In this country, we accept your backwards beliefs, end of story.

Now, I wonder if they would afford you the same opportunity?

No? They would kill you? Wow.

Well, then, there is the difference. All this, "Well, Islam doesn't teach, blah, blah, blah," Kneegrow please. I've read it with my own eyes. I know what it teaches, and sure, like anything else with parts that one doesn't like, you can throw out parts and pretend the parts don't exist but the truth is someone can come around and say,"Wait, where is the rest?" and you have no real answer, except to say,"Well, I don't like those parts, so I pretend they never existed."

I just don't get when it became so hard for smart people to deal in reality.

BTW, Nimue, this was not aimed at you, well, the first part was with your ridiculous claim that christ perpetrated atrocities based on his teachings.

Pretty much a perfect example of how badly people get things. Take away the underlying motive to split from England, the larger birthrate of Irish Catholics, which was going to result in larger voting blocks, and historic wrongs by England, and yes, it was totally about Protestants vs Catholics.

But they would probably have just played soccer againt each other.

Same with most of the Middle Ages, take away the political power grabs by the Catholic hierarcy, nation states trying to isolate enemy states, and the massive amounts of money involved, and yes, the Middle Ages was about Christians wanting to force people to their religion.


In other words, the 'catch phrases' you are using are lazy history, based on an agenda, not on facts

fwiw, after about 6 years of religious studies training, i've yet to come across an interpretation of genesis 12 that would suggest that abraham ought to have done otherwise at god's command, nor have i encountered any evidence to suggest that one ought to disobey a similar order within virtually any mainstream christian tradition. i suppose that you could conceivably read it otherwise--or, indeed, however you'd like--but i know of literally no self-described christians who would have given the burning bush the finger were they in that spot.

do you really think that the endgame of suicide bombings in israel or wherever is 72 virgins or however many it is?

this is still anecdotal at best. i linked an article above that showed that the vast majority of muslims in indonesia outright condemn violence as a means of achieving religious or political ends. i mean, we live in a country with crazy people in it, too, a number of whom have, in the name of their (less arabic) god, gone wild with the statutory rape and incest, murdered their own wives and children, bombed government buildings, and lynched and hung minorities, among other atrocities.
we call them republicans. hi, balloon guy!
the indonesian government is shown in your very link to condemn both al-qaeda and (in more vague terms) these other groups you're mentioning. this government is relatively secular, but its figures are muslims. muslims. condemning. violence.

here's a good little exercise for someone with more energy than me: see if you can wander around the web and find some data concerning the average standard of living for a suicide bomber as compared to the rest of their society. i'm guessing you won't find many rich kids that blew themselves up.

lol, i can't believe i missed this post.

take away israel and watch the crazy towelheads in the middle east settle down. seriously.


your hypocrisy is mindblowingly, frustratingly blatant here. you're arguing that christian violence ought to be contextualized politically, and islamic violence shouldn't be. do you honestly not see how retarded that is?

I guess it would help if that is what I was saying, but since I was responding to someone else making that point, it leaves me with the impression that the short bus might be full already...with you and your many wrong assumptions

Come on Lois,

If they just get to know us they will like us. We just need to stop falling down to their level and shooting back. All we need to do is show them we are serious about wanting to live in peace, maybe give them a place at the table, help them by building mosques in DC, SHOW THEM that we can be reasonable.

This will stop all the violence, because it's about appeasement, and understanding the REASONS why they behead their wives and daughters.

After all, 1300 years ago a group who claimed to be Chrisitan killed some people too


This message has been brought to you by moral relativism and the Neville Chamberlain school for advanced diplomatic theory.

Where did I say that LMD? And it's interesting that we continue to ignore the Old Testament in these discussions of Christianity. Checky touched on it but the fact is that God did command that the Israelites kill every inhabitant of Caanan. I believe it was God's judgement on the people that inhabited that land but you can't say that only Islam ordered it's followers to kill non-believers. Now God doesn't say to do that now and most Christians take a majority of their theology from the New Testament and cherry pick the Old Testament for what they take as God's commandments (This isn't a bad thing, it's my contention that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament). But from a casual outsider's perspective, it's harder to see a difference.



Would recommend you read some of Alison Weir's historical books on the middle ages BG if you don't think it was about religion. Yes it was about power too but religion was intertwined with it to the point that at that time they were pretty much one and the same. But if they were non-believers then I think it would have been a great deal easier to accede to those in power at the time regarding religion instead of getting burned at the stake and beheaded. It wasn't just power plays BG.

In your opinion the Old Testament takes precedent over the New?

Ladies and gentleman, let me introduce you to what we will call "the problem with christianity." This person right here, is a problem with christianity, a very grave problem. Not only does New Testament law take the place of the New, Christs crucifixion nailed it to the cross. Any New Testament law that agrees with the Old is fine, and Old that disagrees is gone. Kaput. Get it, Miss Christian? So simple it's disgusting, but you make it your OPINION? Not to mention that Old Testament deeds were done by the Jewish people, and not christians, Christ brought a different law that, while offered to jews, was rejected, or are you not aware of the story?

Nimue is a fine example of what you get when you have someone who doesn't really know the material she claims to represent, much like Muslims that ignore the violence in there own.

....
<intellectual theological rant>

....

red scares, black face, and other forms of dishonest lampooning of the proverbial Other--these are the things that render our ideal of democracy entirely farcical, and arguing as i have been in this thread is undergone solely in defense of that ideal. history has taught us over and over that the disenfranchised among us, as their condition worsens, become progressively more frustrated, furious, and then violent.

Come on Lois,

If they just get to know us they will like us. We just need to stop falling down to their level and shooting back. All we need to do is show them we are serious about wanting to live in peace, maybe give them a place at the table, help them by building mosques in DC, SHOW THEM that we can be reasonable.

This will stop all the violence, because it's about appeasement, and understanding the REASONS why they behead their wives and daughters.

After all, 1300 years ago a group who claimed to be Chrisitan killed some people too


This message has been brought to you by moral relativism and the Neville Chamberlain school for advanced diplomatic theory.

English citizens are losing their right to vote? Why isn't this on the news?

I guess this was humour. Good one.

If it was an attempt at serious political response, I'd say this:
If you were holding me to the dictionary definition (even though checky didn't use it that way), then while it is true that the English have not lost the vote in the UK parliament, they have less 'civil rights' in the politically complex society which would make my question valid.

They do not have a Parliament. Therefore they do not have an independent voice. Therefore they are being told they are not a nation. A nation being told they are not to have a voice any more, having never voted for this. I'd say that's disenfranchised...

...


i really hope that is a bad joke...

Where did I say that LMD? And it's interesting that we continue to ignore the Old Testament in these discussions of Christianity. Checky touched on it but the fact is that God did command that the Israelites kill every inhabitant of Caanan. I believe it was God's judgement on the people that inhabited that land but you can't say that only Islam ordered it's followers to kill non-believers. Now God doesn't say to do that now and most Christians take a majority of their theology from the New Testament and cherry pick the Old Testament for what they take as God's commandments (This isn't a bad thing, it's my contention that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament). But from a casual outsider's perspective, it's harder to see a difference.



Would recommend you read some of Alison Weir's historical books on the middle ages BG if you don't think it was about religion. Yes it was about power too but religion was intertwined with it to the point that at that time they were pretty much one and the same. But if they were non-believers then I think it would have been a great deal easier to accede to those in power at the time regarding religion instead of getting burned at the stake and beheaded. It wasn't just power plays BG.

Everything that was wrong in the LAW of the Old Testament is now clean unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament. Tattoos? now ok. Murder? Still bad.

Christians don't pick and choose what to believe from the OT...

I agree that all the piling on Islam should not delude us into thinking that Christianity is without fault. But the point is that Islam is worse.

I like to think of it this way: Christianity is a dangerous addictive drug that initially makes people who ingest it feel good. It's cocaine.

But Islam is crack. Much more dangerous.

I don't endorse the entire article, but an interesting link for those who wish to see a different angle on Islam:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/terr...of-islamic.html

Of course there are muslims who have loose interpretations and many muslims are good people (and I'm friends with many of them, etc etc). But all ideologies are not created equal. This one happens to have some pretty dangerous memes in it.

Jesus hates religion. Including, but not limited to, Christianity.

People do all sorts of things 'in God's name'. But what the Bible says is all that matters.... and the God of the Bible makes it clear that males and females are totally equal.

"1": I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

"2": For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

"3": For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

"4": Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

"5": For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

"6": Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

"7": Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

"8": I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

"9": In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

"10": But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

"11": Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

"12": But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

"13": For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

"14": And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

"15": Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Have you ever been frustrated when a Communist argues that none of the examples of Communism are really Communism? I feel you're engaging in the same semantic shell game.

You quote those verses like they're a bad thing

I quoted that chapter to refute Brvhrt's assertion. Do you agree with Brvhrt when he says, "But what the Bible says is all that matters.... and the God of the Bible makes it clear that males and females are totally equal."?

I am equal to any man, but I'm not on the same pay grade.

You're using the Wookie Defense?

Have you ever been frustrated when a Communist argues that none of the examples of Communism are really Communism? I feel you're engaging in the same semantic shell game.

Have you ever been frustrated when a Communist argues that none of the examples of Communism are really Communism? I feel you're engaging in the same semantic shell game.

I quoted that chapter to refute Brvhrt's assertion. Do you agree with Brvhrt when he says, "But what the Bible says is all that matters.... and the God of the Bible makes it clear that males and females are totally equal."?

Mohammed himself had had 13 wives. Sets kind of a different example from Jesus or the Buddha.

...and one of them was 8 years old.

The thing is that it's much more a cultural issue than a Religious one. The thought process that dehumanizes Women sweeps across all religions in certain regions but due to the anti-Muslim political climate that is current we choose to focus on the religious aspect when it`s a Muslim.

While it's true that Religion and Culture are intertwined I would argue that the negative aspects of some cultures have infected Islam and used Religion as an excuse for their anti-Women attitudes and actions.

and for what its worth christian culture needs to go as well, though they havent been as bad recently lets be honest.

I find the title of this thread funny since lois rolled an fcper for a lousy 150 bucks and hasn't showed his face around here since.

If its in a fancy font with a border around it, it has to be true.