sandy: answer these claims against Christianity

Christians don't strap bombs on their children either:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56399

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What i don't get is that you claim not to be interested in responding to people, yet respond to them anyway..... Also,If that article is to be believe, Children are often the most feverent believers, and it is sad and horrible what extremism can do to children. However, that article does not mean that all muslims would try and strap bombs to their children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But Sandy, the body count in Iraq is now in aproximately 70.000 Iraqi deaths. Do you think you have killed 70.000 Islamic terrorists? I don´t think so.
I´m also pretty sure there are plenty of Christians fighting against Iraqi innocent people.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I lose track of who's nice and who's not. I can't put everyone on ignore or I would just be responding to a few people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That story wasn't about fervent child believers. It was about some moron trying to recruit a child.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Christians have nothing against innocent Iraqi people. They're the ones we're trying to help.

 

I'm afraid you do. Your hate, your language, its the same shit, just another language.

 

Higher Irony

"Religious Rock Right" - Grand Buffet

Wait lets tell the truth,
We're not Holier-than-thou
But Holy cow!
There's people doin' stuff that God would never allow.
Like guys kissing guys,
And poor people too!
There's plenty of jobs - find somethin to do!

We think abortion is pretty messed up,
If you don't want a kid, then don't be a slut.
There's plenty of races, on God's green planet -
That doesn't mean you have to breed with them, Goddammit!

---------

Pretty fitting, I think!

 

This has got to be the dumbest thread yet.

 

I thought Qa`Dark was just using that arguement to prove a point to Sandy? Otherwise they're both just being hypocrits.:shrug:

 

I think you lot are missing out on the larger issue here: separation of religion and state. Whether or not it's an accident of history, this has occurred in the West, although there is a certain movement to reintroduce religion to the secular state system. I don't disapprove of it per se, so long as it's harmless. But the islamic system - islam meaning, let's be honest, "submission" - is not so divided. In fact, the "good old days" to which apologists and seeming moderates hearken back to are characterized at all levels by more islam (always touted as the 'solution'), more religious law and government, more sharia, more observance, more, more, more, more, more. Always, and without ever wondering "what does 'more' really translate into?" Does 'more' mean more tolerance for religious minorities, or apostates, or women, or homosexuals? Does 'more' mean more secular authority and equal treatment under the law? Or is more just...more? What does 'more', in all its 'highly variable' expressions, as Ghost likes to suppose - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, the Sudan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia - usually mean? And what then for the citizen of one of these countries embracing this 'moreness' who conscientiously, arrives at the conclusion that religion, or organized religion, or his religion, is bollocks? What then? Well, he must have more! But he will not. So what then? Well, there is example to be drawn from the present and the past: fines, imprisonment, physical torture...death. And as always before, the option to just give up and accept this mad 'more'.

There might be a humanitarian way to get this 'more' that is talked about, in spite of the general hubris and recollect that the 'grand old Golden Age of Islam' was not so grand for the filthy unbelievers, those kuffars, those un-muslims (Unsubmitters! one might cry in religious NewSpeak), I rather doubt it. By comparisons, are the Christians that are so fashionable to damn over and over - and, mind, not merely the fundamentalists, but the whole lot, much as we're told again and again by apologists that they aren't radicals either - clamouring for the good old era of pogrom and witch-dunking? Are they demanding the reinstitution of forced conversion, or even the deaths of apostates, that merest blot of religious honour? No. And if they were, I'd oppose that too.

Your right to self-expression ends at the tip of my nose (or even at more gynaecological body parts central to other debates). Will islam, which rejects the separation of mosque and state, withhold its fist? Where has it done so before, in the beloved gone-by?

 

It is now you're here.

 

All right: then let's be fair. Examine the list, if you will, the targets, the causes.

Police captain, charred body, executions, mortars, car bombs, battles with militiamen, suicide bomber, roadside bomb, drive by, suicide bomb, mortars again, gunfire, suicide bomb...oh, and a couple from US airstrikes. And Blackwater mercenaries. And someone, for some fucking reason, executed the "vice-president of Iraq's taekwondo union". (??? WTF? Why?)

No specification of who or what. Who was killed? Innocent farmers on their way to market? Terrorists? Jehovah's Witnesses? (Well, probably not them, in the climate.) I generally believe or believed there were more casualties from American action once, but now I'm not so sure.

 

Even if Iraqis have a part in the body count, it seems to be because their country is being invaded, and they are targeting opposition soldiers, but they are a little messy doing so :bugeye:

 

Then their targetting system needs to be improved. Or - or - maybe this "tiny minority of extremists" could simply stand by, let the Coalition try and rebuild, and bow to the will of the people instead of fighting among the sects, blowing college students and beating women and barbers and music shop owners.

And, maybe, I could have my very own pony.

 

You can´t blame people for freaking out and enter in civil war, while the strongest armed country in the world is behind their asses blowing bombs at them...

lol

 

MW: are they permitted to do all this, either in their religion, or in the religious laws (which there aren't) of their state? Which Biblical passage commands frolicking with prostitutes and the molestation of children? Do any of the above occur in a positive context in Christian tradition, at least? Why or why not?

 

*************
M*W: As far as I know, the above are not permitted in christian religions. However, there is a deep-rooted psychological understanding of the ancient Essenes who worshipped semen. I've given this some thought for a long time. I think celibacy in the RCC has led to the molestation of those who are the most vulnerable. Anytime you suppress a natural urge for survival (air, water, food, sex, etc.), it will come out in a perverted way. However, I don't think all of these clergy did these things for some deep-seated psychological need. They did it because they thought they could get away with it.

 

Worshipped semen?

Err...allll rightie. But yeah, I think priests should just be allowed to get married and get on with it. Definitely a good idea.

 

The RCC made many wrong decisions on hiring priests in the 70s and 80s, given the fact that this is a hard to fill position and not everyone can make that sacrifice, many with emotional problems (including closet homosexuals) got through.

I honestly think you should be more in tune with the society we live in. Getting rid of religion will not solve any problems but just may make things worse....much worse.

But this will never happen given the human inclination towards spirituality. Rehashing the priest stuff over aqnd over is a cheap shot, as if there are no atheist pedos, rapists, pornographers, serial killers etc.