I am American, and I respect Christianity.

[thereisnospoon]

Terrorism in this country is the fault of the liberals.

Most terrorism has been conducted by Conservatives. More Americans were killed by Conservative terrorists than in 9-11

They also did it in the name of Christianity

Facts?

 

[koshergrl]

This belongs in a sig line. It says a lot about you KG.

By the way, you know this is America, and you're allowed to hate people, right? You can hate Muslims and liberals and immigrants and whoever else you want. It's allowed.

Amy, hon, have a ring pop:

You don't have the chops for this sort of discourse.

I like ring pops, and I love when you change the subject and don't address the point.

You are allowed to hate people. You spend a good portion of your day on here condemning Islam and liberals and immigrants and welfare recipients and yet you never simply admit you hate them, as if not saying the actual words changes the obvious.

You are allowed to hate people, this is the Internet for good was sake, just be honest and admit how you feel.

Have more ringpops, dearie:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So....you think that it's their religion that causes the extremism? I'm not saying it doesn't have an effect, but it's not the root cause. There is a combination of things that feed into it.

1. socioeconomics.....most of these people are dirt poor, have little to no education and are frustrated beyond belief by the endless violence, the enormous wealth that oil has brought to the region that only the royal families see, they see change.all around them that they are not mentally equipped to handle at such a rapid pace.

2. The extremist leaders, who Cherry Pick.parts of their Holy Book to stir the masses and make enemies out of anyone who doesn't fall in line....people on the far right ought to be familiar with that.....but that's NOT religion....that is propaganda for recruitment purposes.

That's just two off the top of my head....I got to go to work now.

Wow.

1. In Islam everything is about religion. Politics, economics, science, and even family all come a distant second to religion. The socioeconomic conditions they live in are not imposed by outside forces, and are actually magnitudes better than they are in other parts of the word. Tell me something, how much socioeconomic based terrorism comes out of sub-Sahara Africa?
2. That is religion, just like it is religion when David Koresh, Fred Phelps, and Jim Jones does it. You don't get to cherry pick your definition of religion in order to argue that religious based cults have nothing to do with religion. Debate honestly, if you can. You can argue they are cults, or that they distort Islam, but you cannot argue that it is not religion, only a fool would fall for that.

I never said that David Koresh, Fred Phelps and Jim Jones were the face of Christianity. Just as I don't say that Al Quaida or any of the other Islamist Terror organizations are the face of Islam. To Cherry pick extremists and assign those attributes to an entire religion is asinine. Sure, Islam....at the moment has the most prevalence of violence...and you misunderstood me...or actually, I forgot to add something that I had mentioned in a previous post either in this thread, or other other similar thread....That in that region, governmental Theocracy is the rule, secular governments are the exception. Look back, you'll see that I at least alluded to that. But when religion plays such an important role in everyone's daily lives, it very easy for extremists to take advantage of it....especially with uneducated/undereducated people with tight controls on their access to information.

Sub Saharan Africa, up until very recently, was the epitome of regional violence. Perhaps you are too young to remember Idi Amin and his regime in Uganda. in short, Darfur ring a bell? How about the pirates in Somalia? the genocide of the Tutsis at the hands of the Hutus in 94? I am sure there are many, many more...I don't have the time or inclination to dig up a comprehensive list. In short....just because CNN, FOX, or the networks don't cover it....doesn't mean it's not, or hasn't occurred.

I see you still prefer to argue with straw men rather than actually address the issues. Since I did not say you said anything about them, I will just ignore your attempt to deflect and get back to the fact that they were all about religion, just like the extremist/jihadists/idiots that use Islam as their basis for terror are.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between sectarian violence and terrorism. Sub-Sahara Africa never flew planes into buildings, they never blew up airplanes, they never hijacked any planes. Can you explain that if we assume that the root cause of terrorism is economics? What about the terrorists that come from rich families and have the advantage of university educations, how do they fit into your socio-economic model of terrorism? Does it explain bin Laden?

Of course not, so the obvious conclusion is that the root cause of terrorism is something other than you are claiming it is. I claim the root cause is personal delusions and/or religion. Feel free to provide actual examples of terrorists that do not fit into my model.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, the Islamaphobes are the ones who insist we should stop insulting Islam. Unless, of course, you also rail against Christianphobes who smear all Christians with the brush of the crusades.

Wait, you do that, and you cannot possibly be a bigot, can you?

Yes I am. I'm bigoted against extremism and intolerance...of all stripes and in all religions.

You don't oppose it in yourself, so you aren't anti bigot, you are just a bigot.

What is the "it" I'm supposed to oppose? I've admitted I'm bigoted against intolerance and religious extremism. I've got no problem with 95+% of religious populations..it's the small percentage of crazies in each that I'm not fond of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes I am. I'm bigoted against extremism and intolerance...of all stripes and in all religions.

You don't oppose it in yourself, so you aren't anti bigot, you are just a bigot.

What is the "it" I'm supposed to oppose? I've admitted I'm bigoted against intolerance and religious extremism. I've got no problem with 95+% of religious populations..it's the small percentage of crazies in each that I'm not fond of.

You do not oppose intolerance, if you did you wouldn't be trying to argue that insulting Islam is the same as killing people.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't oppose it in yourself, so you aren't anti bigot, you are just a bigot.

What is the "it" I'm supposed to oppose? I've admitted I'm bigoted against intolerance and religious extremism. I've got no problem with 95+% of religious populations..it's the small percentage of crazies in each that I'm not fond of.

You do not oppose intolerance, if you did you wouldn't be trying to argue that insulting Islam is the same as killing people.

Since I never argued that, you're having an interesting conversation with yourself.

I said, and I'll repeat it for the cheap seats, I do no believe in painting an entire religion based on the actions of that religions most extreme spokesmen.

If that isn't clear enough for you, you'll have to have someone transcribe it to you in crayon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the "it" I'm supposed to oppose? I've admitted I'm bigoted against intolerance and religious extremism. I've got no problem with 95+% of religious populations..it's the small percentage of crazies in each that I'm not fond of.

You do not oppose intolerance, if you did you wouldn't be trying to argue that insulting Islam is the same as killing people.

Since I never argued that, you're having an interesting conversation with yourself.

I said, and I'll repeat it for the cheap seats, I do no believe in painting an entire religion based on the actions of that religions most extreme spokesmen.

If that isn't clear enough for you, you'll have to have someone transcribe it to you in crayon.

You didn't make this post?

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."

Leviticus 24:16

Translation: Kill the unbelievers

Or this post claiming that Rudolph killed because he is a Christian?

Eric Rudolph did. He's the guy that bombed Olympic Park, a gay bar and an abortion clinic. The guy that walked into Doctor Tiller's church and shot him in front of his friends and family did it in the name of your god too. Wesbtborogh Baptist Church protests in the name of your god too.

Do you really want to get into the habit of painting an entire religion based on their extremists?

Funny, I don't recall Rudolph ever saying he killed because God told him too. Do you happen to have a link that proves he said this, or are we simply supposed to bow to your awesome awesomeness?

You could try keeping up with events as they happen so that people don't have to remind you of what was all over the news.

Army of God letters support accused bomber Eric Rudolph

I can keep this up all day, you are a bigot, admit it, you won't look near as stupid when you try to posture.

 

[daveman]

You realize this doesn't show me making a comment that's anything close to what your accusing me of, yes?

You're really being a hack right now.

Sure. You stepped on your crank, and it's MY fault.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe that.

Maybe you could explain what you meant by "Unfortunately, old habits are hard to kick", if it's not my interpretation.

This ought to be amusing.

I did, at least once after the initial post. The sentence following it in the same post explains it, but I can see how it may have been missed, so I offered further clarification.

Find it, I'm not wasting more time talking to you, you're only interested in being a dishonest douche.

Uh huh. So, you can't offer an alternate explanation.

Looks like mine was right, then.

 

[bobcollum]

Sure. You stepped on your crank, and it's MY fault.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe that.

Maybe you could explain what you meant by "Unfortunately, old habits are hard to kick", if it's not my interpretation.

This ought to be amusing.

I did, at least once after the initial post. The sentence following it in the same post explains it, but I can see how it may have been missed, so I offered further clarification.

Find it, I'm not wasting more time talking to you, you're only interested in being a dishonest douche.

Uh huh. So, you can't offer an alternate explanation.

Looks like mine was right, then.

No dave, your dishonesty wasn't correct, you can keep trying though, I know the dave routine.

 

[daveman]

Terrorism in this country is the fault of the liberals.

Most terrorism has been conducted by Conservatives. More Americans were killed by Conservative terrorists than in 9-11

They also did it in the name of Christianity

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[daveman]

I did, at least once after the initial post. The sentence following it in the same post explains it, but I can see how it may have been missed, so I offered further clarification.

Find it, I'm not wasting more time talking to you, you're only interested in being a dishonest douche.

Uh huh. So, you can't offer an alternate explanation.

Looks like mine was right, then.

No dave, your dishonesty wasn't correct, you can keep trying though, I know the dave routine.

You can prove I'm being dishonest by posting a link to your explanation of your statement.

Ball's in your court.

 

[bobcollum]

Uh huh. So, you can't offer an alternate explanation.

Looks like mine was right, then.

No dave, your dishonesty wasn't correct, you can keep trying though, I know the dave routine.

You can prove I'm being dishonest by posting a link to your explanation of your statement.

Ball's in your court.

The balls are on your chin Dave, you've already shown me what you consider honest discussion and frankly, I'm not impressed.

If you'd like to readdress something we've already discussed than fine, if not...

 

[Steelplate]

Wow.

1. In Islam everything is about religion. Politics, economics, science, and even family all come a distant second to religion. The socioeconomic conditions they live in are not imposed by outside forces, and are actually magnitudes better than they are in other parts of the word. Tell me something, how much socioeconomic based terrorism comes out of sub-Sahara Africa?
2. That is religion, just like it is religion when David Koresh, Fred Phelps, and Jim Jones does it. You don't get to cherry pick your definition of religion in order to argue that religious based cults have nothing to do with religion. Debate honestly, if you can. You can argue they are cults, or that they distort Islam, but you cannot argue that it is not religion, only a fool would fall for that.

I never said that David Koresh, Fred Phelps and Jim Jones were the face of Christianity. Just as I don't say that Al Quaida or any of the other Islamist Terror organizations are the face of Islam. To Cherry pick extremists and assign those attributes to an entire religion is asinine. Sure, Islam....at the moment has the most prevalence of violence...and you misunderstood me...or actually, I forgot to add something that I had mentioned in a previous post either in this thread, or other other similar thread....That in that region, governmental Theocracy is the rule, secular governments are the exception. Look back, you'll see that I at least alluded to that. But when religion plays such an important role in everyone's daily lives, it very easy for extremists to take advantage of it....especially with uneducated/undereducated people with tight controls on their access to information.

Sub Saharan Africa, up until very recently, was the epitome of regional violence. Perhaps you are too young to remember Idi Amin and his regime in Uganda. in short, Darfur ring a bell? How about the pirates in Somalia? the genocide of the Tutsis at the hands of the Hutus in 94? I am sure there are many, many more...I don't have the time or inclination to dig up a comprehensive list. In short....just because CNN, FOX, or the networks don't cover it....doesn't mean it's not, or hasn't occurred.

I see you still prefer to argue with straw men rather than actually address the issues. Since I did not say you said anything about them, I will just ignore your attempt to deflect and get back to the fact that they were all about religion, just like the extremist/jihadists/idiots that use Islam as their basis for terror are.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between sectarian violence and terrorism. Sub-Sahara Africa never flew planes into buildings, they never blew up airplanes, they never hijacked any planes. Can you explain that if we assume that the root cause of terrorism is economics? What about the terrorists that come from rich families and have the advantage of university educations, how do they fit into your socio-economic model of terrorism? Does it explain bin Laden?

Of course not, so the obvious conclusion is that the root cause of terrorism is something other than you are claiming it is. I claim the root cause is personal delusions and/or religion. Feel free to provide actual examples of terrorists that do not fit into my model.

No...you'd just rather call everything that doesn't hive with your conclusion a "strawman".
Why haven't sub-Saharans fly airplanes into buildings? Could it be that their perceived fight was more locally influenced? Could it be locally influenced, because of a lack of marketable resources, the Western world has pretty much left them alone?

Your model is based upon your beliefs and personal thoughts.

The Bin Ladens of the world are evil....their followers aren't necessarily so. You mentioned Jonestown and Koresh....Do you think that all of those people were evil, or just their leader?...Better yet, do you believe all those people insane, or just brainwashed?

Just because, religion is the tool of these particular radicals, doesn't necessarily mean that the religion itself is to blame. That would exactly like using Koresh, Jones, Phelps, and other Christian influenced madmen and assigning those examples to the entire religion...my religion. I hate no man....I don't want ill upon anyone...there are many more of people like me than there are Koreshes and Joneses. Same goes with Islam.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said that David Koresh, Fred Phelps and Jim Jones were the face of Christianity. Just as I don't say that Al Quaida or any of the other Islamist Terror organizations are the face of Islam. To Cherry pick extremists and assign those attributes to an entire religion is asinine. Sure, Islam....at the moment has the most prevalence of violence...and you misunderstood me...or actually, I forgot to add something that I had mentioned in a previous post either in this thread, or other other similar thread....That in that region, governmental Theocracy is the rule, secular governments are the exception. Look back, you'll see that I at least alluded to that. But when religion plays such an important role in everyone's daily lives, it very easy for extremists to take advantage of it....especially with uneducated/undereducated people with tight controls on their access to information.

Sub Saharan Africa, up until very recently, was the epitome of regional violence. Perhaps you are too young to remember Idi Amin and his regime in Uganda. in short, Darfur ring a bell? How about the pirates in Somalia? the genocide of the Tutsis at the hands of the Hutus in 94? I am sure there are many, many more...I don't have the time or inclination to dig up a comprehensive list. In short....just because CNN, FOX, or the networks don't cover it....doesn't mean it's not, or hasn't occurred.

I see you still prefer to argue with straw men rather than actually address the issues. Since I did not say you said anything about them, I will just ignore your attempt to deflect and get back to the fact that they were all about religion, just like the extremist/jihadists/idiots that use Islam as their basis for terror are.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between sectarian violence and terrorism. Sub-Sahara Africa never flew planes into buildings, they never blew up airplanes, they never hijacked any planes. Can you explain that if we assume that the root cause of terrorism is economics? What about the terrorists that come from rich families and have the advantage of university educations, how do they fit into your socio-economic model of terrorism? Does it explain bin Laden?

Of course not, so the obvious conclusion is that the root cause of terrorism is something other than you are claiming it is. I claim the root cause is personal delusions and/or religion. Feel free to provide actual examples of terrorists that do not fit into my model.

No...you'd just rather call everything that doesn't hive with your conclusion a "strawman".
Why haven't sub-Saharans fly airplanes into buildings? Could it be that their perceived fight was more locally influenced? Could it be locally influenced, because of a lack of marketable resources, the Western world has pretty much left them alone?

Your model is based upon your beliefs and personal thoughts.

The Bin Ladens of the world are evil....their followers aren't necessarily so. You mentioned Jonestown and Koresh....Do you think that all of those people were evil, or just their leader?...Better yet, do you believe all those people insane, or just brainwashed?

Just because, religion is the tool of these particular radicals, doesn't necessarily mean that the religion itself is to blame. That would exactly like using Koresh, Jones, Phelps, and other Christian influenced madmen and assigning those examples to the entire religion...my religion. I hate no man....I don't want ill upon anyone...there are many more of people like me than there are Koreshes and Joneses. Same goes with Islam.

No, it's not the same with Islam.

But you keep pretending it is, loon.

 

[koshergrl]

I misremember...how many of Koresh's followers went out and bombed schools?

 

[Dot Com]

KG is a koresh apologist now. Know anything about his "wives" KG

 

[koshergrl]

What am I apologizing for? What did they do?

 

[logical4u]

As an American, you should respect all religions, not just the one you follow

That is a major problem with our society

I do not "respect" Satanism.

Fortunately you don't have to respect Satanism. But you do have to respect the right of Satanists to worship from their hearts.

At least in America you do on paper - I still don't see how a person can proclaim a religion with passion and dedication to the point of giving ones life and death to it and still be able to honestly respect Freedom and Tolerance for people who believe quite differently.

That is like saying someone that is passionate about their job, and if it is a dangerous job (where they could die at work) should want to force everyone to do the same job. Each relationship with the LORD is individual, and even those that do not believe in HIM have a purpose for HIM. They may not be aware, but they were put here for a reason, and our ways are not HIS ways.

 

[logical4u]

Still waiting for your opinion on the concept of the religious, by definition, neutering their religion the moment they admit that other religions have a right to exist.

Are freedom and tolerance mutually exclusive to a society with religions that are worth dying for, assuming more than one such passionate religion exists?

Religion is a set of beliefs, and the cultural promotion of said beliefs. Christianity believes that each person has a relationship with the Lord (if they acknowledge it or not). It is up to that person to worship the Lord as they choose. Christians will tell people the good news (gospel)/point out poor decisions and even "bless them" (sometimes if the person does not want to hear it).

Respecting each person's right to choose how they deal with the Lord is not "neutering their religion" (some of the other religions that have to use force to keep their "believers" faithful might have theirs neutered).

I know you guys don't want to hear it, don't want to acknowledge it, but before the different Christian denominations came together to form this country, subjects of rulers, worshipped according to the rulers' beliefs. In communism, it is that way also (there are some churches, were the message is controlled by the state, but they follow the gov't beliefs or they go to prison).

Forcing someone to follow another's rules, seldom works for long. It buildes a chain of tyrants/dictators/self-proclaimed gods. Christians were taught this long ago. They have been swayed to "go along to get along", but have learned that doesn't work. It just allows oppressors to put people into subservient status.

No religion causes chaos, for if each person is allowed to decide what is right and wrong, their personal comfort is before anyone else's. Anarchy benefits no one (as the top dog is always replaced by the next top dog).

We are spiritual beings. IMHO, Christianity, is the only faith, that gives each person responsibility for their own soul. That faith alone has caused more charity, and more generosity than has ever been seen on this planet.

There really is no comparison to what happens when people practice Christianity, compared to the practice of other faiths.

If you believe that others are better, please list the reasons or evidence that demonstrates productivity and generosity.

I know HOW religion works, what I want to know is how a religious person can admit that all other religions are just as viable and worthy of respect as his own without rendering his own religion impotent.

I say it's impossible based on the definition of religion, especially those of Christianity and Islam, both of which have a jealous God.

Other religions are not as "viable or as worthy of respect". They are the choice of others on how they "choose" to live their lives. I have no slaves. I have no authority over others. They have a "right" to make decisions in their own lives. If I disagree, I can tell them so, or if they seem intelligent and willing, I can have a discussion about the things I see as lacking in their faith. If I am having that kind of discussion, they are usually asking me what they see as lacking in my faith. Many times, each of us grows in faith and knowledge by seeing a different perspective.

 

[logical4u]

Still waiting for your opinion on the concept of the religious, by definition, neutering their religion the moment they admit that other religions have a right to exist.

Are freedom and tolerance mutually exclusive to a society with religions that are worth dying for, assuming more than one such passionate religion exists?

Not so, Joe.

In today's world, a Christian dying for his/her religion does so at the hands of an enemy that wants to kill them for being Christian.

Muslims, OTOH, die for their religion by strapping on suicide vests and taking out a couple dozen Christians or Jews in the name of Allah, with 72 virgins as a reward for their ingenuity.

I hope all those virgins are named Bubba, too.

Excellent observations but no where near an answer to my question of whether or not a truly religious man can honestly accept the right of all other religions to exist without rendering his own religion impotent.

I know... it seems like it should be simple, but it's a hard question!

Guess you are talking to the "wrong" religious group. Christians don't believe in "forcing" people to believe in the SAVIOR. Each person has to deal with their own problems (sins) with the gifts given to them and bear temptations (their cross). Christians believe the Bible when it says that every knee shall bend before HIM, and each shall be judged (by HIM). That makes whatever we could do..... insignificant.

Maybe those that are of other faiths will answer you.