Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: The difference between polytheistic and monotheistic religions is not the motives behind their creation, but the origins. The three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all stem from the Israelites. Each religion is an interpretation of Abraham's children and Jesus (Judaism accepts Isaac, but not Jesus; Islam accepts Ishmael but not Jesus; Christianity accepts Isaac and also Jesus).

They're also the most hostile religions hence cause more conflicts.

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: There is CERTAINLY a difference between these three religions and polytheistic - the most evident being, these three were (and are) the most persecuted religions on Earth.

Haha. That gave me a good chuckle. Judaism yah, but the other two have whiped out more polytheists than the amount of people they lost to them case and point Zorastian genocide and the Indian genocide.

Christians have the most "street" record of persecution (from literally day one, to current),

No. no no no no no no. Day one sure but they were a cult back then, now? C'mon they were the least persecuted religion and still are as they still dominate the world and are the most populus religion, if anything they're the religion which persecutes the MOST.

although obviously the Jews and Muslims have not had a sugar-coated path either.

You're right. The Muslims had it worse when they lost their power and now became dominated by Europe thus discriminated again, and the Jews, well they had it 1000000000x worse seeing as they were almost whiped out by Christians.

Because of the isolated and "us-against-them" philosophy of these religions, it is hardly plausible that they were inspired for control purposes (especially when you consider the enslavement in Egypt, Roman Genocides, and present-day persecutions.

If you read the Bible you can easily pick this crap up. It has an excuse for everything, oh you prayed that your mom got through her surgery and she dies? Oh guess what! God is just testing you look at Job! Hey you got a raise? God has blessed you!

I'd say it started early one during the tribal formation of the Jewish church.

We cannot dismiss any religion simply because some (or most) of its followers reject the original teaching. Examine each belief's texts for what they are; you will find that it is extremely difficult to develop a sound argument insinuating that Christianity is a religion of control.

I can in only two words. Catholic Church. That entire structure is dedicated to control.

(I do not disagree that most religions were developed by the hierarchies simply to control the populace).

And yet you don't seem to get that you're calling the worst offenders innocent. I good place to look too would be Hinduism or Buddhism, not these oppressive and brutal religions.

At 9/27/11 12:36 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: The difference between polytheistic and monotheistic religions is not the motives behind their creation, but the origins. The three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all stem from the Israelites. Each religion is an interpretation of Abraham's children and Jesus (Judaism accepts Isaac, but not Jesus; Islam accepts Ishmael but not Jesus; Christianity accepts Isaac and also Jesus).

They're also the most hostile religions hence cause more conflicts.

Islam is a hostile RELIGION. Judaism and Christianity are peaceful religions with followers who make dumb decisions not based on their teachings. (Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they represent Christianity).

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: There is CERTAINLY a difference between these three religions and polytheistic - the most evident being, these three were (and are) the most persecuted religions on Earth.

Haha. That gave me a good chuckle. Judaism yah, but the other two have whiped out more polytheists than the amount of people they lost to them case and point Zorastian genocide and the Indian genocide.

Are you suggesting that neither Christians nor Muslims are persecuted worldwide? America aside, I think you need to examine the world you live in, sir. Also, please reference your second statement.

Christians have the most "street" record of persecution (from literally day one, to current),

No. no no no no no no. Day one sure but they were a cult back then, now? C'mon they were the least persecuted religion and still are as they still dominate the world and are the most populus religion, if anything they're the religion which persecutes the MOST.

Re-read my response above.

although obviously the Jews and Muslims have not had a sugar-coated path either.

You're right. The Muslims had it worse when they lost their power and now became dominated by Europe thus discriminated again, and the Jews, well they had it 1000000000x worse seeing as they were almost whiped out by Christians.

Correct, except you are once again labeling the wrongdoers (such as Hitler) as "Christian", when they most certainly were not.

Because of the isolated and "us-against-them" philosophy of these religions, it is hardly plausible that they were inspired for control purposes (especially when you consider the enslavement in Egypt, Roman Genocides, and present-day persecutions.

If you read the Bible you can easily pick this crap up. It has an excuse for everything, oh you prayed that your mom got through her surgery and she dies? Oh guess what! God is just testing you look at Job! Hey you got a raise? God has blessed you!

I'd say it started early one during the tribal formation of the Jewish church.

If you would like to debate true Christian philosophy, I am more than willing to disprove your minimal understanding of our beliefs about blessings and "curses". However, this comment seemed pointless to your argument.

We cannot dismiss any religion simply because some (or most) of its followers reject the original teaching. Examine each belief's texts for what they are; you will find that it is extremely difficult to develop a sound argument insinuating that Christianity is a religion of control.

I can in only two words. Catholic Church. That entire structure is dedicated to control.

I completely agree. I have one word for you: Protestantism. Why do you think we split in two?

(I do not disagree that most religions were developed by the hierarchies simply to control the populace).

And yet you don't seem to get that you're calling the worst offenders innocent. I good place to look too would be Hinduism or Buddhism, not these oppressive and brutal religions.

Please explain how I am calling the worst offenders innocent! Catholicism, Traditional Judaism, and Contextual Islam are the oppressive religions. I daresay, they are the worst religions on Earth, and must be purged from their related counterparts. I believe Protestantism and Messianic Jews are the only ones able to claim peace (although, I must admit, these groups have had issues with their larger "siblings")

I think what we all need to understand is that we are all human. It is the text of our religions that must be tried.

At 9/27/11 02:41 PM, Hybridization wrote: Islam is a hostile RELIGION. Judaism and Christianity are peaceful religions with followers who make dumb decisions not based on their teachings. (Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they represent Christianity).

Oh, okay. Right. Islam is a hostile religion (please define this phrase), and Christianity isn't. Even though the doctrines presented in both the Qur'an and the Bible are virtually identical, with the largest chasm in similarities you could point out being their versions of creation myths and other miracle tales. Are you even the slightest bit familiar with any of the core tenets of Islam AT ALL? Because you certainly don't come across like it. And again I'm going to have to point to the crusades and ask you to justify Christianity's bloody little war games during a time when Muslims could have very well been considered the most peaceful religious practitioners around.

What are you basing your notion that Islam is a hostile religion off of? Are you aware of the fact that the dominance of fundamental Islam in the east is an extremely recent occurrence? And that even considering the control they exude over those countries, moderate Muslims still make up the majority of the population that practices Islam worldwide?

Are you suggesting that neither Christians nor Muslims are persecuted worldwide? America aside, I think you need to examine the world you live in, sir.

I think you either misunderstand what persecution is. Are Muslims persecuted in many areas of the world? Yes. Are Christians? No. What are you referring to when you mention modern Christian persecution that isn't something that could be described as isolated incidents in very small pockets of the globe? Because with Islam I can give you many examples or persistent and widespread systematic inequalities and abuses. You're not going to have much luck doing that with Christianity.

Re-read my response above.

He doesn't need to because what you said still makes little to no sense.

Correct, except you are once again labeling the wrongdoers (such as Hitler) as "Christian", when they most certainly were not.

Wait, so you paint Islam as being a 'hostile' religious belief system, presumably due to the acts of a certain group of people who follow it, but the same doesn't apply to Christianity? I hate to keep trotting out the Crusades like this, but it really is the best cop-out for this discussion. I mean it was a campaign to genocide people that made Hitler appear to be tolerant of Jews by comparison.

Secondly, who are you arbitrarily judge the validity of somebody's religious beliefs? People are capable of horrible things. Ergo, religious people are capable of horrible things, so it's not very logical to stake the claim that somebody isn't Christian because they are a murderer. It's what they believe. If we're invalidating religious affiliation by course of actions here, then I'm going to have to go ahead and say you aren't Christian because you also happen to be a chronic masturbator, and everyone knows how Jesus hates masturbators.

If you would like to debate true Christian philosophy, I am more than willing to disprove your minimal understanding of our beliefs

I'd say you're the only one demonstrating ignorance here.

Please explain how I am calling the worst offenders innocent! Catholicism, Traditional Judaism, and Contextual Islam are the oppressive religions. I daresay, they are the worst religions on Earth, and must be purged from their related counterparts. I believe Protestantism and Messianic Jews are the only ones able to claim peace (although, I must admit, these groups have had issues with their larger "siblings")

I really don't even know where to go with this one without wearing my keyboard down to an unshapely petroleum nub.

I think what we all need to understand is that we are all human. It is the text of our religions that must be tried.

Hitler was human too, and you seemed to be pretty adamant in stating that the excuse of humanity shouldn't be applied to him (note to moderators: I am not an Adolf lover. I'm just pointing out hypocrisies.)

At 9/27/11 03:15 PM, Famas wrote:

Oh, okay. Right. Islam is a hostile religion (please define this phrase),

A religion encouraging and/or requiring violence (physical harm) in order to promote its ideologies.

Even though the doctrines presented in both the Qur'an and the Bible are virtually identical, with the largest chasm in similarities you could point out being their versions of creation myths and other miracle tales. Are you even the slightest bit familiar with any of the core tenets of Islam AT ALL? Because you certainly don't come across like it.

No, YOU are the one unfamiliar with these religions - you are (laughably) attempting to link the creation theory to violence. This might be a bit over your head, but the creation story is not a doctrine. The doctrines of Christianity are adverse to Islam. Christianity DOES NOT condone the killing of people who do not convert and, in fact, calls that: "murder". Unless you think the similar, general promotion of "peace and prosperity" between the two religions (although distorted to enslavement in islam) is a bad thing, you are extremely mislead/misinformed - otherwise, an insane and irrational human being.

And again I'm going to have to point to the crusades and ask you to justify Christianity's bloody little war games during a time when Muslims could have very well been considered the most peaceful religious practitioners around.

Pardon my short memory, but, when did I justify the crusades? The crusades were a disgrace and embarrassment to the Christian faith - the exact opposite of what the Bible (and Jesus Christ) taught. Perhaps if you more thoroughly read my previous argument, you would understand that a religion cannot be judged by its followers. We must examine the TEXTS of the religion in question, and put the TEACHINGS to trial. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct us (the Gentiles and Messianic Jews) to kill non-believers. Also, you may wish to research that time period and learn just how peaceful those Muslims were. The crusades were products the ambitious Catholic Church (then, a corrupt form of "Christianity" that i daresay was a different religion altogether).

What are you basing your notion that Islam is a hostile religion off of? Are you aware of the fact that the dominance of fundamental Islam in the east is an extremely recent occurrence? And that even considering the control they exude over those countries, moderate Muslims still make up the majority of the population that practices Islam worldwide?

This statement tells me you have little to no background in history and culture outside your own (probably Western). There are countless (credible) articles on websites, in the bookstore, and on your national news stations that expose true Islam. I suppose ignorance is bliss after all.

I think you either misunderstand what persecution is. Are Muslims persecuted in many areas of the world? Yes. Are Christians? No. What are you referring to when you mention modern Christian persecution that isn't something that could be described as isolated incidents in very small pockets of the globe? Because with Islam I can give you many examples or persistent and widespread systematic inequalities and abuses. You're not going to have much luck doing that with Christianity.

Educate yourself, my friend.:

Wait, so you paint Islam as being a 'hostile' religious belief system, presumably due to the acts of a certain group of people who follow it, but the same doesn't apply to Christianity? I hate to keep trotting out the Crusades like this, but it really is the best cop-out for this discussion. I mean it was a campaign to genocide people that made Hitler appear to be tolerant of Jews by comparison.

No, it is not a cop-out. As I explained earlier, it is the teachings that we must examine. According to the instruction of Jesus Christ, the crusades were not of God at all - and did not represent the Christian Faith. Islam TEACHES it's followers to kill (i.e: Jihad [simplified]). Hypothetically, it would not be an Islamic sin to "crusade" against the Christians (or anyone else). This is why Islam is a hostile religion. i hope I made my point clear. if I need to rephrase or think of another example, I will be more than happy to do so.

Secondly, who are you arbitrarily judge the validity of somebody's religious beliefs? People are capable of horrible things. Ergo, religious people are capable of horrible things, so it's not very logical to stake the claim that somebody isn't Christian because they are a murderer. It's what they believe. If we're invalidating religious affiliation by course of actions here, then I'm going to have to go ahead and say you aren't Christian because you also happen to be a chronic masturbator, and everyone knows how Jesus hates masturbators.

Somewhat explained above; but, this question is more of an attack on Christianity itself and not our debate. I am VERY willing to discuss the errors in your mindset, but I feel this is irrelevant to the topic.

I'd say you're the only one demonstrating ignorance here.

How so, friend? I feel that I am well versed in many cultures/beliefs/religions (including some taboo), and have given educated points from an insider's perspective. And, if you followed through with the link I posted above, you might wish to examine your own ignorance before accusing me of it.

I really don't even know where to go with this one without wearing my keyboard down to an unshapely petroleum nub.

Lol, this might be my new signature.

Hitler was human too, and you seemed to be pretty adamant in stating that the excuse of humanity shouldn't be applied to him (note to moderators: I am not an Adolf lover. I'm just pointing out hypocrisies.)

I'm sorry, did I support Hitler's distorted "interpretation", or did I use him as an example for the separation of the religion and the follower? Hopefully, the latter.

I look forward to your responses!

At 9/27/11 02:41 PM, Hybridization wrote: Islam is a hostile RELIGION. Judaism and Christianity are peaceful religions with followers who make dumb decisions not based on their teachings. (Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they represent Christianity).

*sigh* nope. Islam is a peaceful religion at its core, but again because of the kill all non-believers doctrine that it shares with Christianity and Judaism that's where it gets violent. And how does that second part not apply to Islam?

Are you suggesting that neither Christians nor Muslims are persecuted worldwide? America aside, I think you need to examine the world you live in, sir. Also, please reference your second statement.

I'm suggesting that they're NOT the MOST persecuted. Yes they'll be persecuted somewhere because every where Christian empires have gone they've left a scar on the people of oppression and discrimination.

Correct, except you are once again labeling the wrongdoers (such as Hitler) as "Christian", when they most certainly were not.

Because Hitler killed 6 million Jews on his own? He had people following him who WERE Christian and who DID work at the Concentration camps and hell Christianity is the main reason the Jews were hated in the first place.

If you would like to debate true Christian philosophy, I am more than willing to disprove your minimal understanding of our beliefs about blessings and "curses". However, this comment seemed pointless to your argument.

You mean about how you say the religions weren't created for control purposes but I called that out and pointed out the Bible has obviously created a control religion in its own text. Yah totally had nothing to do with the argument.

I completely agree. I have one word for you: Protestantism. Why do you think we split in two?

Because King George the 8th wanted to divorce his bitchy wife he hated and the Pope wouldn't let him. He then created the first Protestant church i.e. the Church of England to solve this which was identical in every way to the Catholic church except for the people who leading it.

Otherwise many of the Protestants moved to America and they were even more oppressive and intolerable assholes then the Catholics/Anglicans who had persecuted them out of Europe before them. So I don't see your point.

Please explain how I am calling the worst offenders innocent! Catholicism, Traditional Judaism, and Contextual Islam are the oppressive religions. I daresay, they are the worst religions on Earth, and must be purged from their related counterparts. I believe Protestantism and Messianic Jews are the only ones able to claim peace (although, I must admit, these groups have had issues with their larger "siblings")

What? You went up ahead and called Christianity the most persecuted religion in the world, when in reality it is the least persecuted.

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: I think what we all need to understand is that we are all human. It is the text of our religions that must be tried.

Most people don't even bother to read them and those that too don't take it to heart or else we'd have a bunch of dead bodies everywhere.

I'm not responding to the whole post because I'm not interested in being dragged into this in full but these parts are so outrageously stupid that I can't just walk away from them.

At 9/27/11 06:50 PM, Warforger wrote: *sigh* nope. Islam is a peaceful religion at its core, but again because of the kill all non-believers doctrine that it shares with Christianity and Judaism that's where it gets violent. And how does that second part not apply to Islam?

That doctrine isn't part of the written texts of the faith though. I agree that he is wrong to call Islam a violent religion but the bible does not command people to go out and kill all non-believers (I haven't read the Quran so I won't speak for it but from what I've been told by Muslims that I've met it's teachings of peace are fairly similar).

Because King George the 8th wanted to divorce his bitchy wife he hated and the Pope wouldn't let him. He then created the first Protestant church i.e. the Church of England to solve this which was identical in every way to the Catholic church except for the people who leading it.

That is so completely wrong I have to assume that you've never even studied Western history. The first protestant sect stemmed from Martin Luther. He saw the corruption of the Catholic church and pointed out what was wrong with it. The king your thinking of is Henry VIII who moved the power of the nations religion from the church to the state so that he could make his own protestant sect that would allow him to get divorced. This gave protestantism a chance to grow quickly but also infuriated the people who had to change their religious beliefs almost every time a monarch died.

Most people don't even bother to read them and those that too don't take it to heart or else we'd have a bunch of dead bodies everywhere.

I'm not sure if this is a typo or not so my reply might not correspond with what you meant to say.
Yes, I'm sure people treating others as they would want to be treated, loving their neighbors, and turning the other cheek would result in huge piles of dead bodies. Do you know anything about the Bible or do you just like to attack religion blindly so that you don't realize when you've said something so obviously wrong?

At 9/27/11 06:50 PM, Warforger wrote:
*sigh* nope. Islam is a peaceful religion at its core, but again because of the kill all non-believers doctrine that it shares with Christianity and Judaism that's where it gets violent. And how does that second part not apply to Islam?

This is simply not true. Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace suggests ignorance of its teachings. Christianity and Judaism do not share the "kill all non-believers" doctrine.

Because Hitler killed 6 million Jews on his own? He had people following him who WERE Christian and who DID work at the Concentration camps and hell Christianity is the main reason the Jews were hated in the first place.

"Wrongdoers such as Hitler." - meaning, non-exclusive of Hitler.

You mean about how you say the religions weren't created for control purposes but I called that out and pointed out the Bible has obviously created a control religion in its own text. Yah totally had nothing to do with the argument.

This wasn't the basis for your targeting statement. I previously addressed this issue, but you must have skimmed over it.

I completely agree. I have one word for you: Protestantism. Why do you think we split in two?

Because King George the 8th wanted to divorce his bitchy wife he hated and the Pope wouldn't let him. He then created the first Protestant church i.e. the Church of England to solve this which was identical in every way to the Catholic church except for the people who leading it.

You're funny. Look up Martin Luther unless you're TRYING to make evident your ignorance.

Otherwise many of the Protestants moved to America and they were even more oppressive and intolerable assholes then the Catholics/Anglicans who had persecuted them out of Europe before them. So I don't see your point.

How many times do I have to say this: Examine the TEACHINGS not the FOLLOWERS. THAT is my point! If you cannot understand this simple instruction, then I no longer wish to have an intelligent "debate".

What? You went up ahead and called Christianity the most persecuted religion in the world, when in reality it is the least persecuted.

Is that so? Here's plenty of modern examples.

There are countless examples of Christian persecution throughout history as well. if you're truly interested in expanding your knowledge of alternative perspectives and not just your own, do some research. Google is quite amazing, friend. :)

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: I think what we all need to understand is that we are all human. It is the text of our religions that must be tried.

Most people don't even bother to read them and those that too don't take it to heart or else we'd have a bunch of dead bodies everywhere.

Exactly, so, how can you say "[insert religion] is [insert assumption], because [insert follower] did [insert action]." You said yourself most people don't read the texts. So, stop calling Christianity and Judaism (even Islam without background research) a hostile/violent/bad religion when the only thing you base your perception on is the followers.

At 9/27/11 05:56 PM, Hybridization wrote: A religion encouraging and/or requiring violence (physical harm) in order to promote its ideologies.

You know those people that love to focus on the Old Testament and cite that as proof that the religion is violent when arguing about Christianity? That's you right now talking about the Qur'an. Because like I said before: it's the same goddamn thing as the bible, just with more flaming sword swallowing and less wine.

So unless you want to start citing specific passages of the text that you feel support the notion of Islam being a violent religion, I'm going to take that as you giving me the go ahead to stick purely to Old Testament quotes as unwavering proof that Christianity is a violent religion that advocates child murder.

No, YOU are the one unfamiliar with these religions - you are (laughably) attempting to link the creation theory to violence. This might be a bit over your head, but the creation story is not a doctrine. The doctrines of Christianity are adverse to Islam. Christianity DOES NOT condone the killing of people who do not convert and, in fact, calls that: "murder". Unless you think the similar, general promotion of "peace and prosperity" between the two religions (although distorted to enslavement in islam) is a bad thing, you are extremely mislead/misinformed - otherwise, an insane and irrational human being.

No, I did not attempt to link the creation myth with violence (how on Earth did you extrapolate this from what I said?). I said that the core tenets of Islam and Christianity are virtually identical, and the single biggest difference between the Qur'an and the Bible are their fairy tales.

Case in point, you're making the claim that Islam condones slavery, yet their are numerous passages from the Bible that instruct on how slaves should be used , treated and when/how they were punished.

Pardon my short memory, but, when did I justify the crusades? The crusades were a disgrace and embarrassment to the Christian faith - the exact opposite of what the Bible (and Jesus Christ) taught. Perhaps if you more thoroughly read my previous argument, you would understand that a religion cannot be judged by its followers. We must examine the TEXTS of the religion in question, and put the TEACHINGS to trial. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct us (the Gentiles and Messianic Jews) to kill non-believers. Also, you may wish to research that time period and learn just how peaceful those Muslims were. The crusades were products the ambitious Catholic Church (then, a corrupt form of "Christianity" that i daresay was a different religion altogether).

When did I ever say you did justify them? I asked you to do so in light of you attempting to exonerate the Bible from all criticism and condemnation in regards to violence and travesty while simultaneously judging another extremely similar monotheistic religion as being violent and cruel. The irony of which, I pointed out, being that yes, by all means, the Muslims of the time period (you know, the ones being genocided by Templars) were considerably peaceful and stable.

Secondly, as I pointed out, this is like your fifth attempt to claim that "because X person interpreted the Bible differently than yourself and committed Y action, they are not actually Christian", which is illogical. If your standard for judging who is a 'true' Muslim/Jew/Christian is based off of whether or not they break principle codes that their religious affiliation teaches, then what you are in effect saying is "there is no such thing as a Muslim/Christian/Jew". The point of me calling you a chronic masturbator was to tell you that you're being a giant hypocrite; you most certainly do not adhere to every last word of scripture, that would be impossible. Your hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when you consider that you're juding people objectively based off a text that is open to subjective interpretation.

This statement tells me you have little to no background in history and culture outside your own (probably Western). There are countless (credible) articles on websites, in the bookstore, and on your national news stations that expose true Islam. I suppose ignorance is bliss after all.

This is a question dodge. You did not answer my question. What specific tenets of Islam are using as a basis for your claim that it is a religion of violent nature? Adding insults to question dodges doesn't make it so people don't notice you failed to answer them.

Educate yourself, my friend.:

Another question, this time with a link. You might as well have linked me to Wikipedia's front page and declared yourself the victor of the rest of the discussion. Except this is worse because instead of citing examples and linking to a neutral information source for support you directed me towards a website that has an outright admitted biased narrative. Do you want me to pick from the site you provided at random and debate their merits on my own? Because if that's how it works then I just won.

Islam TEACHES it's followers to kill (i.e: Jihad [simplified]). Hypothetically, it would not be an Islamic sin to "crusade" against the Christians (or anyone else). This is why Islam is a hostile religion. i hope I made my point clear. if I need to rephrase or think of another example, I will be more than happy to do so.

Please site the Qur'an passages that condone murder and the genocide of Christians and I will return the favor by siting Biblical passages that condone murdering babies with rocks.

Somewhat explained above; but, this question is more of an attack on Christianity itself and not our debate. I am VERY willing to discuss the errors in your mindset, but I feel this is irrelevant to the topic.

How in the jumping Jehovah's Witness (<-- violent dog rapists) is what I said an attack on Christianity? It was an attack on you judging other people as "Christian" or "Not Christian", something you do not have the right to do, especially if you affiliate yourself as a Christian:

"...Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment." (II Chronicles 19:6)

Like I said, you lay on some thick hypocrisy for somebody claiming to be well versed in the religious doctrine of others when you apparently struggle coming to terms with your own (if I'm understanding what you said earlier right and you are a christian that is).

How so, friend? I feel that I am well versed in many cultures/beliefs/religions (including some taboo), and have given educated points from an insider's perspective. And, if you followed through with the link I posted above, you might wish to examine your own ignorance before accusing me of it.

Quoted this because it adds to the irony of the previous paragraph.

I'm sorry, did I support Hitler's distorted "interpretation", or did I use him as an example for the separation of the religion and the follower? Hopefully, the latter.

If I really have to spell it out for you then I suppose I will: the discussion started over highlighting that the organized religions we're talking about have a very long track record of being used almost exclusively to control populations of human beings and to impose the will of the advantaged over the oppressed. It's all well and dandy that you interpret the Bible as being a solid and dependable backbone of human behavior, but I hate to break it to you, that's not what it has been utilized as by virtually any group out there.

It's not dissimilar to saying "But guns don't kill people, people do!" Well that's true and all, but I have my suspicions that telling a mugger that isn't going to stop you from getting shot in the dome piece.

At 9/27/11 09:44 PM, Famas wrote: You know those people that love to focus on the Old Testament and cite that as proof that the religion is violent when arguing about Christianity? That's you right now talking about the Qur'an. Because like I said before: it's the same goddamn thing as the bible, just with more flaming sword swallowing and less wine.

I was waiting for someone to argue this. Here are the misconceptions about this violent OT:

1. The commands from God to go to war were defensive - in the interest of the Israelites' survival.
2. The commands from God were single-incident - meaning, specific to the circumstances and not instructional to future Christians/Jews.
3. The commands from God were of last resort - killing or going to war was never a primary motivation, nor was it a means to "convert" people.

Furthermore, Christians have never been instructed to go to war (Bible). Muslims are ALWAYS called to go to war. The Old Testament wars were not guidelines while islam CLEARLY promotes genocide.

Case in point, you're making the claim that Islam condones slavery, yet their are numerous passages from the Bible that instruct on how slaves should be used , treated and when/how they were punished.

Instructing a slave on behavior is different from condoning slavery; but, this is a separate issue. I take it you are still stuck on the Old Testament. In the time period, slavery in Israelite terms was NOTHING like the slavery of today. Slaves then were paid, had very good relations with their masters, and were not "bound" to work unless they were prisoners of war. From my understanding, slavery then could be compared to indentured servants.

When did I ever say you did justify them? I asked you to do so in light of you attempting to exonerate the Bible from all criticism and condemnation in regards to violence and travesty while simultaneously judging another extremely similar monotheistic religion as being violent and cruel. The irony of which, I pointed out, being that yes, by all means, the Muslims of the time period (you know, the ones being genocided by Templars) were considerably peaceful and stable.

Are you even "listening"? I have been saying this WHOLE THREAD that the Bible does NOT promote genocide or violence. While Christians may have committed violent acts, they did so out of carnal ambitions NOT on a single verse of Scripture. Islam DOES promote genocide and violence. Muslims are to kill those who renounce their faith or refuse to convert. Please stop the redundancies! I have answered this clearly!

Secondly, as I pointed out, this is like your fifth attempt to claim that "because X person interpreted the Bible differently than yourself and committed Y action, they are not actually Christian", which is illogical. If your standard for judging who is a 'true' Muslim/Jew/Christian is based off of whether or not they break principle codes that their religious affiliation teaches, then what you are in effect saying is "there is no such thing as a Muslim/Christian/Jew". The point of me calling you a chronic masturbator was to tell you that you're being a giant hypocrite; you most certainly do not adhere to every last word of scripture, that would be impossible. Your hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when you consider that you're juding people objectively based off a text that is open to subjective interpretation.

Oh absolutely I am a hypocrite! I make more mistakes than most people (haha). None of us are perfect followers of [input religion]. To say that we are able to follow every line of text is ludicrous.

What you fail to understand is the purpose of this argument. I am not justifying the people. The people are corrupt. The purpose of this argument (and thread, I thought) justify or ridicule the RELIGION. I am not judging people. I am calling their actions "non-Christian" - meaning, their actions are not in line with Biblical text, and therefore, cannot be used as an example against Christianity.

if we are arguing on the basis of people and not the texts, I am in the wrong place and I apologize.

This is a question dodge. You did not answer my question. What specific tenets of Islam are using as a basis for your claim that it is a religion of violent nature? Adding insults to question dodges doesn't make it so people don't notice you failed to answer them.

No, sir, it was an exasperation. As I said, you can research the truth about Islam yourself. If you would like me to do some research for you, believe me, I would be happy to! I'm sure I have some files somewhere on my computer from one of my classes. Please send me a message to my inbox if you would like some insight, and I will reply with some articles and/or direct text supporting my statements. There are simply too many sources that reject your baseless claims that I pulled the "lazy card". Researching/Locating would have taken a long time, and I assumed you would just dismiss my findings (as proven by your response below).

Except this is worse because instead of citing examples and linking to a neutral information source for support you directed me towards a website that has an outright admitted biased narrative. Do you want me to pick from the site you provided at random and debate their merits on my own? Because if that's how it works then I just won.

I want you to do research and educate yourself. If all you are interested in is winning an "argument", by all means, I forfeit this online forum debate, hahaha. And after this you want me to take extra time to research FOR you? No thanks.

"[G]uns don't kill people, people do!" Well that's true and all, but I have my suspicions that telling a mugger that isn't going to stop you from getting shot in the dome piece.

This made me laugh :). But it was irrelevant.

Let's get something straight here: you started the tangent by making repeated claims which, you then defended, stating that Islam is distinct from Christianity because its core tenets are violence. As such, the onus is on you to cite what tenets and passages it is you speak of in order to support your claim. When somebody asks you what you are using for a basis in your reasoning, saying "look it up yourself" equates to "I don't have any".

That goes double for you since you boasted that you're self reportedly well versed in 'many religions and cultures, including some taboo (what the shit is that even supposed to mean', which suggests that you're trying to exude some authority on the subject while I on the other hand am not. I've simply asked you to source your arguments so the discussion can move on to elaborating on said material. You're talking about subjective material here, so it's important to support your interpretation of subjective texts with logic and reasoning, otherwise you're not sharing anything worthwhile because nobody else can follow or consider your points.

It's not about winning. It's about getting something constructive out of a conversation.

At 9/27/11 08:09 PM, Hybridization wrote: This is simply not true. Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace suggests ignorance of its teachings. Christianity and Judaism do not share the "kill all non-believers" doctrine.

What. You're joking right? To begin with if you read like any of the Old Testament you know that argument goes straight in the bin since God tells the Hebrews to wipe out any trace of a pagan religion they find when they go into Canaan, to go on that totally explains not only Protestant persecution but more importantly Jewish persecution, who were put in Ghetto's by the Catholic church. Think Protestants were any better? Nope.

"Wrongdoers such as Hitler." - meaning, non-exclusive of Hitler.

I never said that.

This wasn't the basis for your targeting statement. I previously addressed this issue, but you must have skimmed over it.

I'm getting confused here.

You're funny. Look up Martin Luther unless you're TRYING to make evident your ignorance.

Martin Luther wasn't a separatist, he wanted to just purify the Catholic church of bad practices. Of course when they went into the ignorant Satan association accusations then it went into bad things but overall all he just wanted to get rid of corrupt practices. Calvin on the other hand was more influential creating Presbyterianism. But again those sects were even more oppressive and intolerant then that of the Catholic church so I don't see your point.

Otherwise many of the Protestants moved to America and they were even more oppressive and intolerable assholes then the Catholics/Anglicans who had persecuted them out of Europe before them. So I don't see your point.

How many times do I have to say this: Examine the TEACHINGS not the FOLLOWERS. THAT is my point! If you cannot understand this simple instruction, then I no longer wish to have an intelligent "debate".

.......That was teachings. They believed those in the Catholic church were in league with Satan and thus when the English Catholic Haven of Maryland became Protestant dominated discrimination began again, nowhere in the colonies were Jews allowed to hold public office or practice their religion in public aside from Rhode Island which started the whole separation of Church and State.

Is that so? Here's plenty of modern examples.

*sigh*. Again all I see is places where Christians don't even make up 1% of the population getting persecuted, nowhere do I see that this practice is so widespread that Christanity deserves the #1 spot for most persecuted. How about Bosnia where Christians attempted to force the Muslims to either convert to Christianity or get killed? How about Circuasia where the Christian Russians forced the Circuasians off their land and expunged them from the land? How about the Holocaust where Christians VOLUNTEERED IN GOOD NUMBERS to round up and kill the Jews? So many more examples of genocides and persecution exist that were perpetrated by the Christians than those perpetrated against them.

There are countless examples of Christian persecution throughout history as well. if you're truly interested in expanding your knowledge of alternative perspectives and not just your own, do some research. Google is quite amazing, friend. :)

Yes, best ones being the Armenian-Greek-Assyrian genocide during WWI in the Ottoman Empire, but again others like Buddhists,Muslims and Jews remain FAR more persecuted than Christanity.

Exactly, so, how can you say "[insert religion] is [insert assumption], because [insert follower] did [insert action]." You said yourself most people don't read the texts. So, stop calling Christianity and Judaism (even Islam without background research) a hostile/violent/bad religion when the only thing you base your perception on is the followers.

No. If they were to actually read the book and take it literally they'd be alot more violent and intolerable, if anything the modern interpretation is much more peaceful than what the texts suggest.

Alright I'm through with this nonsense. I hope we all took something away from this (but probably not). Pleasure mates. Famas if you are actually interested, my inbox is free. But, I don't need a lecture on "forum etiquette". And Warforger, i strongly recommend a high-school world history course in the near future. Many of your statements were downright incorrect - not an interpretation.

Feel free to reply to this post, but I won't be checking it.

Stay Gold,
+H+

I never lectured anybody on etiquette, I was pointing out one of many flaws in your incredibly lackluster method of debate. Which is to say, you're not willing to elaborate positions in the least and seem intent on making baseless claims and demanding that others agree with them for no reason.

Couldn't Hybridization just say "screw you guys, I'm going home"? I mean, less characters, and basically that's what his message really boils down to in the end. :)

I think he's keen on wanting the last word so that he can feel that the reason people are criticizing him is because their simply to ignorant to understand, and less because he argues like a dunce.

Holy baby christ, my spelling.

At 9/28/11 12:35 AM, Hybridization wrote: And Warforger, i strongly recommend a high-school world history course in the near future. Many of your statements were downright incorrect - not an interpretation.

*facepalm*. That's exactly what you need since you don't seem to understand history at all if you say "Christians are the most persecuted religion in the history of the world"

Anyway you could've just said "Ok ok you're right I admit I was wrong".

At 9/28/11 07:21 AM, Famas wrote: Holy baby christ, my spelling.

Don't worry, I hear he's very forgiving.

Also, I figured out Hybrid's game the minute he tried it. He's no different then others that have been in this thread spouting the same self important nonsense. Christians are so wronged...nevermind the fact that 90% of the last 2,000 years flies in the face of that assertion. Once you start pointing it out and argue with even a little competence they tuck tail and run, but act like it's because they're just so right and smart, and it's everybody else that can't see the truth.

I knew the direction the argument was headed the instant it began, but you know, give people the benefit of the doubt blah blah blah. The deal was sealed when asking for something as simple as a quote or a page to reference was met by being called lazy.

Hell, I'd have even taken a vague passage with the context completely butchered out as at least a starting point to work with or something. He passed up a freebie.

At 9/26/11 08:15 AM, Famas wrote:

Then how do you explain those that, if only internally, are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific dedication? People like Kenneth Miller? I ask this because while I myself am an atheist, and I take strong opposition to a lot of the claims about science that people of faith make, I still respect that there are a lot of people I would consider pioneers in the fields that I am passionate about that are reasonable in explaining the reasons they have religious beliefs.

In this day and age, the belief system is like a venn diagram. Take science and religion as two elements. Combined, you form a neutral ground between the search for truth through science and through religion. There's always the matter of "both are true/both are false" because of the factor "uncertainty between the two."

At 9/27/11 02:41 PM, Hybridization wrote: Islam is a hostile RELIGION. Judaism and Christianity are peaceful religions with followers who make dumb decisions not based on their teachings. (Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they represent Christianity).

Islam isn't a hostile religion. The people who make use of religion/cult with means that are bad are the hostile ones. Like for example: Witch-hunt. Human sacrifices. The use of religion for The banishment of King Henry IV by the Pope of the vatican because of the conquest and the denial of giving land to the pope. King Henry IV died praying in fear of the word of the pope during the age of conquest (spain and portugal history). The use of religion in pacifying (the sword and the cross. Be converted by the cross or die by the sword.) to occupy a nation (Philippine History).

Not all historical texts, scriptures and symbols give the absolute truth of what happened especially if the evidences aren't sufficient to back it up. To get to the point, all religion have roots. There's only one origin that is foretold by one man who started it all generations and generations back. Who might it be? I don't know. I never met him or even heard of him.

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: Christians please read:

well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: Christians please read:

Your post even managed to scare away paragraphs and proper punctuation.

At 10/5/11 08:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

For the trollols?

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: i'm not even an athiest

So you believe in a god? Do you think thos paragraph applies differently to different religions?

At 10/6/11 12:46 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/5/11 08:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

For the trollols?

is it possible that there is a heaven and hell and that trolls are proof that the internet is the living embodiment of the latter?

At 10/6/11 12:18 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

is it possible that there is a heaven and hell and that trolls are proof that the internet is the living embodiment of the latter?

I think it serves more as proof that some people have a few extra chromosomes.

In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

If I told someone that I believed in Poseidon and he created the Earth by using the waves to shape it, everyone would look at me like I'm nuts. What makes your God special and what makes me crazy for saying,"I believe in the god of the sea! He is in books, he must be real!"

Furthermore, why would you praise a God who says:
Rape is okay: Exodus 22:16, Deuteronomy 22:27-29
Kill homosexuals and lesbians: Leviticus 20:13
Kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday: 31:13-15
It is like saying to respect an elder who smacks you with a stick and teaches you to be hateful of women, gays and other races. I think it has become this way because everyone is taught the new testament and rarely speaks of the old testament unless it is about Jonah, Noah, or Adam and Eve.

Why would anyone worship the Judeo-Christian God is baffling.

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

It's because of the power of brain-washing. And repetitive lectures like we were schooled to believe in such.

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

As an Atheist myself, without arguing semantics of specific definitions I believed this to be bullshit.

At 10/9/11 05:12 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

As an Atheist myself, without arguing semantics of specific definitions I believed this to be bullshit.

It's not bullshit because everybody does not believe in every god, goddess or deity ever created by men. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and the Old Testament God. Poseidon? He's make believe they say.

Again, everyone is an atheist, some of us just go one god further.