Curious - Page 5

Curious

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Curious

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 20 May 2010, 22:03

Jazcash wrote:Some religions can seem more inflicting than others. Islam spreads and evolves with force. Christianity is simply making others aware of it and knowledgeable about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
A lot of people may choose to become Islam but an awful lot of people are forced to become Islam in the modern world to avoid death. Nowhere in the world will you find Christianity being forced upon others. Simply evangelised.
500 years ago, you could be killed for being a protestant in catholic england. Today, most christian nations are democratic and increasingly athiest so that isn't an option. Muslim nations are currently less developed.
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 22:04

Jazcash wrote:I see no point in continuing with this unless people realise that the old testament is before the birth of Jesus Christ which is when he "died for our sins". That's when morality was set in stone.

You know, in the Old Testament, it states that the only people who could be Christians were Jews. In fact, it states countless things which the New Testament teaches against.

All the quotes of the Bible in this thread are from the Old Testament and are quoted without any context at all. If you could find some New Testament quotes, that would be great. Thanks.
You are still completely discounting the (highly relevant) role of the old testament in modern christianity. Yes much of it conflicts with the new testament....much of it also conflicts with itself. However its teachings are still widely applied and thus it cannot be discounted as irrelevant. It is incorrect to be arguing against the legitimacy of christianity by solely quoting the old testament but your counter-argument is every bit as fallacious.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 20 May 2010, 22:06

from forb...
As a result, there is incentive to do no evil (barring unintentional) whereas with an atheist there is not. That's a pretty huge gap
i wouldnt go as far as to describe myself as an atheist, i think you're confusing agnostic and atheist a little bit in this interpretation

i feel i'm a good person, apart from a little software piracy i've got sound morals that although appear to be a TON different from the view of christianity that some people are posting here (homosexuality is fine with me, killing heathens is not, women are equal to men, just a few of my far-fetched ideas) are still well developed and were taught to me not by a priest but by my parents and teachers as i grew up

being an atheist <> being a nihilist

if anything, i feel that maybe as a non-religious person, my morals and views are less clouded and indistinct as a religious person, because i'm able to follow the laws and rules my government gives me without a fear of misinterpretation or conflict via my spiritual beliefs, as well as being able to judge a person by their own values and actions rather than their religion
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14599
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Curious

Post by Forboding Angel » 20 May 2010, 22:07

I would like to point out to many of you that Leveticus (Law, or First Law) and Deuteronomy (Second Law), are irrelevant as of Christ dying on the cross. Citing them as active biblical laws is citing your own misunderstanding (or stupidity, if you prefer).

There is a reason that the old testament has the word "old" in front of it.
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 22:10

Forboding Angel wrote:I would like to point out to many of you that Leveticus (Law, or First Law) and Deuteronomy (Second Law), are irrelevant as of Christ dying on the cross. Citing them as active biblical laws is citing your own misunderstanding (or stupidity, if you prefer).

There is a reason that the old testament has the word "old" in front of it.
Please give me an example of a religion that completely discounts the old testament. Every popular christian denomination uses (cherry-picked of course) teachings from it.
0 x

User avatar
Hobo Joe
Posts: 1001
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 21:55

Re: Curious

Post by Hobo Joe » 20 May 2010, 22:11

Forboding Angel wrote: The majority of that was catholicism. Catholicism has a very long and a very bloody history. People always confuse protestant christianity with catholicism when in truth they are light years apart.

Christianity has been the citation of some bloody occurances as well, however, as anyone with half a brain knows, none of those events were carried out by true christians. Back then, the church was power, leading to a very corrupt state, hence why the US has separation of powers.
This just about sums it all up. No Christians are not perfect, neither is any religion, but I feel like I should point out that the very large majority of Christians are incredibly low-key, and not extremist or preachy, and that the extremism that is often seen from Christians is the rare exception, not the rule. I grew up with christian parents and surrounded with christian friends, so I'm pretty well aware of how they are in general.

Every group has its extremists, some more than others. And in turn, it's the extremists of the opposing group who tend to judge an entire group based on the actions of only a few individuals.

I try not to do this when I can, although admittedly it can be difficult, especially where radical and often violent religions like Islam are concerned, still I think it's better to avoid generalizations, as it's the judgmental extremists who are the source of most of the worlds conflict, in general.

Christianity has a messy past, and catholicism even more so, most Christian-hating extremists like to point out the Crusades as ammo against Christians, when it's two different groups entirely.
Last edited by Hobo Joe on 20 May 2010, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Hobo Joe
Posts: 1001
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 21:55

Re: Curious

Post by Hobo Joe » 20 May 2010, 22:16

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
A lot of people may choose to become Islam but an awful lot of people are forced to become Islam in the modern world to avoid death. Nowhere in the world will you find Christianity being forced upon others. Simply evangelised.
500 years ago, you could be killed for being a protestant in catholic england. Today, most christian nations are democratic and increasingly athiest so that isn't an option. Muslim nations are currently less developed.

This is true, however I think it's worth pointing out that first of all, the Catholic church is separate from Christianity. Secondly, the violence that occurred that the time was not something derived from the actual religion itself(i.e. the bible), but rather as a result of the corruption within the catholic church.

Now I'll admit I could be wrong about this, BUT to my understanding, islam and its teachings are very closely tied with violence and extremism. Things like killing unbelievers will get you rewards in heaven, etc. Like I said I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard at various times.
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 22:16

Image

Just sayin' what the topic was about.
Also, Kaiser, you said earlyer that I was as close minded as the Islams are.
Well, yes. And I'll explain you why.

Muslims live in their country and live their lives pretty much however they want, I won't tell them what to do or what not to do. The thing is that THEY are telling US what not to do - drawing Muhammad. And that's what I'm so close-minded about, not about their religion or their way to threat their women like cattle.

I believe in free speech.
They don't. They want to ban all free speech in western countries.
I'm against that idea.

Now, I'm being called close-minded by you.
Are you sure you got it right?
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 22:18

Eh, you're every bit as unaccepting of their principles as they are of yours. They're just a bit less apathetic about the matter.
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Curious

Post by JohannesH » 20 May 2010, 22:19

Damn religious people can be so funny
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Curious

Post by Pxtl » 20 May 2010, 22:21

@Hobo Joe

I have to say, I find the deflection of all Christian guilt onto the "not Christian" Catholic Church, and claiming that the actions were against Christian doctrine (hint: doctrine means whatever you need it to mean) all moderately hilarious.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 20 May 2010, 22:23

Forboding Angel wrote:I would like to point out to many of you that Leveticus (Law, or First Law) and Deuteronomy (Second Law), are irrelevant as of Christ dying on the cross. Citing them as active biblical laws is citing your own misunderstanding (or stupidity, if you prefer).

There is a reason that the old testament has the word "old" in front of it.
but this would assume that all of christianity is homogenous, when there are thousands upon thousands of variations and sects throughout the world, some of which actively teach the old testament. this is not an interpretation subject to intelligence or stupidity, it just "is what it is".

your statement is true for -your- christianity, and you're welcome to your own interpretations as much as you like... you could say you believe that jesus rode a unicycle and killed all of the dinosaurs with lighting hands and nobody could say shit to you.

you probably have about as much in common as the people in ethiopia (was it there?) who claim to have the ark of the covenant hidden in some crappy little building...

and yet, they would argue that they are true christians as well, even though their beliefs and teachings likely vary drastically from yours.
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 22:30

Peet wrote:Eh, you're every bit as unaccepting of their principles as they are of yours. They're just a bit less apathetic about the matter.
Except their principles go against open-mindedness whereas mine, and anyone in the world who votes for a non-fascist-party, ensure that these topics are not censored.


Also, their 'principles' are all based on belief.
Mine are mere promotion of basic human rights.

I'm glad I'm unaccepting towards theirs, why do you accept how we're worth less than humans(and thus have no human rights) for being infidels? Do you accept how they wish every women on earth, including your mothers, sisters and daughters, to be treated as cattle?

YES these are the views of moderate Muslims.

I accept tho that they do whatever they wish in their country, as long as it doesn't involve us.
Last edited by Raghna on 20 May 2010, 22:48, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Curious

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 20 May 2010, 22:37

Raghna wrote:
Peet wrote:Eh, you're every bit as unaccepting of their principles as they are of yours. They're just a bit less apathetic about the matter.
Except their principles go against open-mindedness whereas mine, and anyone in the world who votes for a non-fascist-party, ensure that these topics are not censored.


Also, their 'principles' are all based on belief.
Mine are mere promotion of basic human rights.

I'm glad I'm unaccepting towards theirs, why do you accept how we're worth less than humans(and thus have no human rights) for being infidels? Do you accept how they wish every women on earth, including your mothers, sisters and daughters, to be treated as cattle?

YES these are the views of moderate Islams.

I accept tho that they do whatever they wish in their country, as long as it doesn't involve us.
somthing tells me you get your oppinions from fox news
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 22:41

I don't watch faux news. I'm not even American...
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 22:41

Raghna wrote:Do you accept how they wish every women on earth, including your mothers, sisters and daughters, to be treated as cattle?

YES these are the views of moderate Islams.
I really would like you to back this sort of argument rather than just stating it. Plus you might want to take a look at your terminology, it is really working to discredit you at the moment.
I accept tho that they do whatever they wish in their country, as long as it doesn't involve us.
Ooh, a nice dose of Nationalism. My favourite.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Curious

Post by Pxtl » 20 May 2010, 22:47

Whole lotta Scotsmenin this thread, eh?
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 20 May 2010, 22:52

i guess i'll state my opinions then, where this debate should really stay in the realm of ideology, because it runs a risk of offending people.

i dont disagree that its stupid for them to get upset about it.
I believe in free speech.
They don't. They want to ban all free speech in western countries.
I'm against that idea.
do you really feel that "draw mohammed day" is anything more than throwing fuel on the fire? all you're doing is making this hypothetical group of people hate you even more.

its not a case of "I" and "They".

by grouping muslims together like that, you are making a massive mistake, just like grouping all of christianity together. maybe you don't know any muslim people, i do... and i can assure you that to the best of my knowledge, they don't give two shits about people drawing mohammed or going on a jihad. they care about getting pussy, partying, video games, movies, the same sort of things that you and i can relate to.

by construing this problem as a me vs them scenario, you are pushing aside a lot of pertinent information and oversimplifying the issue. it would be like me assuming all belgians can be understood and represented by "Tintin in the Congo" and then going out and making a facebook group "omg look at these racist colonialists" and presenting it as -the only facts you need to know-

i dont think i said your mind was closed. all i meant to do was indicate that the problem is not as simple as the state in which you presented it.
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 23:01

Peet wrote:I really would like you to back this sort of argument rather than just stating it. Plus you might want to take a look at your terminology, it is really working to discredit you at the moment.
Sure, I missed a word, I'm a big bad guy now right?
But towards that 'backing up those sort of argument, do I really need to?

How am I being Nationalistic without even typing the name of my country?
I'm standing up for human rights. That's it.

I do believe the following might be slightly extremer:

Image
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 23:08

Well Kaiser, I know Muslims as well, some who lived in a civilized world for long enough have become less and less Muslim. I know some who eat pork or drink alcohol, that's not a moderate Muslim. I have nothing against these people.
The Moderate Muslim lives in Morocco, Iraq, India, Pakistan etc etc...

I think a confrontation is needed. More so than cowering back and giving them more and more ground, the more we give in to them, the worse they'll become.

Just the same as with a child, if you give buy him a toy now, he'll cry even harder if you don't give him his toy the next time.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”