CloseTheBlastDo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Luke - this is what txa said: I believe that it very much matters how you live and what you do - because of the basic teachings throughout the bible emphasize the correct ways for living in a way that emphasizes Jesus golden rule - love god above all else and your neighbor as yourself. When you take all the verses in the NT regarding faith and combine them with the verses in James 2 (which clearly states that faith without works is dead) - HOW do you come to the conclusion that the above statement is wrong?! Yes - faith (according to the Bible) is required to return back to God, but faith without works is dead. i.e. it very much matters how you live and what you do. It's obvious to me, and I'm not even a believing Christian. ...I'd check your interperetation of the Bible. There's every chance your gonna get to the judgement bar and be told 'Sorry, you thought faith without works was enough. You got it wrong. Have a nice life in hell'. In short, I'm worried for your eternal salvation And dont' start getting angry at me for stating my beliefs, I'm just telling you what the bible says... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I'm a little confused here luke... You state that the bible is a collection of things like letters and private diary thoughts that were never meant to be made public. But then you appear (i may be wrong) to be one of those christians who believe that every word in the bible is "the litteral word of god" and as such it infallible. I don't think the appostles themselves ever claimed that they were infalible. And i doubt that when paul was writing a private letter to one of his mates he was "channeling god". Surely these texts were simply the personal opinions of those involved about what they had witnessed and how they interpreted it? That makes more sense, it makes the bible rational, it allows it to co-exist with known facts about the universe and it explains why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the different authors. And the claim that the catholics were "right" when they put the bible together, but (now they disagree with you) they are clearly "wrong" seems a strange and baseless argument. If you have no evidence that NOW they aren't speaking the will of god, what is different that makes you think that back then they WERE speaking the will of god. I'm also fairly sure that while you claim jesus was "without sin" he wasn't.. his early life was much like that of any child, and he experienced the same temptations as anyone else. He may have ultimately overcome the temptations and become pure, but even he had to ask for god's forgiveness. Dying for something isn't a very good indication it is actually true. It might be a good indication they believe it... but that isn't the same thing. Suicide bombers, people of other religions, David Kuresh's followers, Japanese cult followers. All of these are willing to die for what they believe... that doens't mean that all of them are right... merely that all of them have a very strong belief. As for the other bit, I'm going to assume god gave me free will, and if he does exist then he guides me when he tells me to "do unto others", and i'm going to quote wise old Bob and say: Preacherman, don’t tell me, Heaven is under the earth. I know you don’t know What life is really worth. ... Most people think, Great God will come from the skies, Take away everything And make everybody feel high. But if you know what life is worth, You will look for yours on earth: And now you see the light, You stand up for your rights. A world where people do good deeds is good. A world where good deeds are rewarded would be even better. A world where deeds don't matter and rewards are based on arbitrary conditions doesn't seem that appealing to me. Hang on, sounds like a good description of your idea of Heaven... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Whether it's telling me that i'm going to burn in hell if I don't follow their Dogma That's one thing I've never understood: If everyone who doesn't follow (monodominant) Christian dogma goes to hell, then all dead Communists would go to hell. And how can people 'burn in hell' if hell is overrun and ruled by Communists? After all, we all know that there's never enough coal to go around in Communist countries... openly admit that they havn't read the Bible. Which is probably because a religion's doctrine is very rarely relevant to a discussion of said religion. Phreak, last time I checked you were a guy. So... you can't have an abortion. Are you gay? If not, whats the big deal? 1) That's the 'if you have nothing to hide' fallacy. 2) What if I have a friend/colleague/family member who is gay, or a girlfriend/friend/colleague/family member who wants an abortion? You still don't think I should care that the Inquisition v. 2.0 wants them to burn at the stake? The religion part is irrelavent. Islam was born from Christianity, and athiests know what Christianity is about. I detest the implied insult. Not to mention, Islam nor athiesm never played a huge role in this country And other countries are utterly irrelevant to this discussion \end{sarcasm} Coincidentally, when people embraced Christianity more "openly" these problems (rape, et criteria) occured less than when people stopped embracing Christian rules. In other words, the problem increased when Christianity was thrown "out the window." Correction: Coincidentally, when people embraced Christianity more "openly" these problems (rape, et criteria) occured were discovered and stopped less than when people stopped embracing Christian rules. In other words, the problem increased dark numbers decreased when Christianity was thrown "out the window." As for Skins long post, anyone can claim to be Christian. Its too complicated to explain what a true Christian really is. You can't just call yourself a Christian and be one. You can't just go to a Christian church and you become one. It doesn't work like that! You have to be saved by the Holy Spirit. Its all about the experience. This is precisely the kind of arrogance that ticks off civilized and intelligent people. Who are you to judge what it takes to be a Christian/Muslim/whatever? Interestingly, this fallacy is equally often observed amongst "moderates" attempting to distance themselves from the atrocities their religion has inspired in others... The truth is, a Pastor and a Murderer can both be on the same path to Hell. Yes, they are completley different people, What about a pastor who is also a murderer? :-) You either accept Christ (by doing that you choose Heaven) I seem to recall a fable from the New Testament where one of the main characters said something to the effect of: "No-one can know aforehand whether he is saved, for salvation is the providence of JAHVE alone"... But, of course, I could just have missed the point completely... Read Galations 5: 22-26 [...] You guys really need to drop this "christian serial killer" "Christian genocide attack" bullcrap. Matt 5:29-30, Matt 7:15-20 Oh, and here's a link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 The original poster began with the question "What’s up with the hostility toward Christianity around here?" While listening to Pat Robertson, as I so often do when ever his 700 Club is on in the mornings (yeah, right), I heard him say this: “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war… We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” -Pat Robertson, 8/22/05 A so-called Christian, a Christian cult-leader no less, calling for the murder of a Head of State. And I ask you, WWJD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 A so-called Christian, a Christian cult-leader no less, calling for the murder of a Head of State. Not a 'so-called' Christian, Skin. A Christian. I'll bet you he believes in Jesus as Christ, in the Ressurection and the Holy Trinity. Which - last time I checked - were what defined a Christian. Link More link And remember that Robertson's moral indignation is selective. In 2003--a busy year for him--he slammed the Bush administration's calls for Liberian President Charles Taylor to resign. A UN-backed tribunal had indicted Taylor for war crimes in Sierra Leone. You see, some of Robertson's financial investments happened to be tied up in Liberia. Ah, morality is in the details. Yet more link When a good friend referred to Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, as a "declaration of a fatwah on a president" I laughed, appreciative of the irony. In the minutes since then, however, I've had to agree that the words are less than a hair's width from total accuracy. Remember Rushdie anyone? One last link “It’s huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.” [...] Rangel called Robertson “a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country,” adding sarcastically that his words were “very Christian.” Courtesy of Google News. I suppose this has just turned Google into one of those nasty, satanical influences that corrupt American society? \end{sarcasm] And I ask you, WWJD? ? On a different note, when people tell me that I go to Hell, I can at least find solace in the fact that I'll be joined by som damn fine people: Gallilei was a Catholic, Brahe was a Protestant, Salah Eddin was a Muslim, Sun Tzu was a Confucian, Einstein was a Jew and Bohr was something else entirely. Since no two of these people can be simultaniously right (I'm not even invoking sophisticated philosophical maxims here, just plain, old, Boolean logic), I'll be accompanied by at least 5 of them on the road to Hell.* I could think of worse company. *Unless of course Jahve/God/Allah/Karma/Vishnu/whatever makes special permits for particularily talented physicists and strategists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Many Christians want gay marriage to be (and remain) against the law. This is not because they want to discriminate against homosexuals. It is not because they hate or fear homosexuals. It is because Christianity holds marriage to be more than just a government contract of convenience that two people enter into in order to receive certain social and economic benefits, and to allow people engaged in a relationship that the Bible repeatedly defines as abominable would cheapen the institution more than it already has been. And, in fact, the recognition of the institution of marriage by the government springs directly from its importance in Christianity, lending credence to their concerns. The last time I checked, muslims could get married too. But they don't follow the christian bible. So they aren't bound by its laws. Technically, under your arguments, couldn't a same-sex union where both parties are muslims be ok? They aren't, after all, practicing "your version" or marriage. Personally, I believe that the whole marriage thing shold be thrown out "from the government" and be called "civil-unions", where everyone could receive them. People can stil be "married" in their respective houses or worship, and still be legally and spiritually bound together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 A so-called Christian, a Christian cult-leader no less, calling for the murder of a Head of State. And I ask you, WWJD? Uhh.. not kill him. I don't watch the show. When you take all the verses in the NT regarding faith and combine them with the verses in James 2 (which clearly states that faith without works is dead) - HOW do you come to the conclusion that the above statement is wrong?! Yes - faith (according to the Bible) is required to return back to God, but faith without works is dead. i.e. it very much matters how you live and what you do. It's obvious to me, and I'm not even a believing Christian. ...I'd check your interperetation of the Bible. There's every chance your gonna get to the judgement bar and be told 'Sorry, you thought faith without works was enough. You got it wrong. Have a nice life in hell'. In short, I'm worried for your eternal salvation And dont' start getting angry at me for stating my beliefs, I'm just telling you what the bible says... Aren't faith and Salvation two different things? I thought they were, last time I checked. Maybe I am totally missing your point. I know what your saying, and I think they go hand in hand. But, the only requirement is that you accept Christ. Sure, you got to have faith, and do good deeds as well, but that alone won't get you in. You have to accept Christ (according to the religion. My verses posted say this) You state that the bible is a collection of things like letters and private diary thoughts that were never meant to be made public. But then you appear (i may be wrong) to be one of those christians who believe that every word in the bible is "the litteral word of god" and as such it infallible. Not diarys, but letters and historys and such. Basically, God would speak through the authors in the letters. Some of the stuff written is really amazing. Im not saying a human couldn't write it. But yeah, when Paul would write a letter I think God spoke through him in the letter. The same with Moses.. and other authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Sure, you got to have faith, and do good deeds as well, but that alone won't get you in. You have to accept Christ (according to the religion. My verses posted say this) And txa doesn't accept Christ? He said he was a Christian :/ OK - spare me my confusion, and just explain - clearly and simply - what you actually think txa said that was wrong - cos I'm totally missing it. Whether it's your stupidiy, or mine, is yet to be seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 And txa doesn't accept Christ? He said he was a Christian :/ OK - spare me my confusion, and just explain - clearly and simply - what you actually think txa said that was wrong - cos I'm totally missing it. Whether it's your stupidiy, or mine, is yet to be seen Like you quoted: I believe that it very much matters how you live and what you do - because of the basic teachings throughout the bible emphasize the correct ways for living in a way that emphasizes Jesus golden rule - love god above all else and your neighbor as yourself. Im saying, what he said doesn't mean you get into Heaven. Like you said, Good works alone can't get you into Heaven. On the contrary, I never said do whatever you want, accept Christ, and enter proudly.While yes, your actions matter, you are accountable for what you do, the Bible says the requirement for entering Heaven is accepting Christ. That is all. In other words, you can't just be good and go in. Its all about the relationship with Christ. Like I said to TXA, if I could just be good and get into heaven by being good, whats the point of a savior? I mean, your saving yourself right? It starts messing the whole system up. And txa doesn't accept Christ? He said he was a Christian :/ If he has, fine, then its all cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 If he has, fine, then its all cool. Yes - it is, which is why I was confused about the disagreement. You basically said 'You only need faith' TXA said 'Ermm - no. It matters what you do'. He wasn't, however, saying you don't need faith. He is - after all - a Christian. So why did you then say 'Na man - your wrong'?! To me you just made a disagreement where there wasn't even a disagreement to have. But meh - you argue it out amongst yourselves. Oh, and make sure you keep your little arguments out of the more important secular affairs. Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Not diarys, but letters and historys and such. Basically, God would speak through the authors in the letters. Some of the stuff written is really amazing. Im not saying a human couldn't write it. But yeah, when Paul would write a letter I think God spoke through him in the letter. The same with Moses.. and other authors. But why would you think god spoke through them in their letters? Neither they, or jesus, or anyone else that I know of in the bible ever claims that god was speaking through them. Only Timothy and Revelations make any claim that the words of scripture (though they don't define which scripture) are the direct unchangable word of god. And the new testament didn't exist at that point. I know that the story of Moses is told in the bible, but as far as i know nowhere does it say that anything in the bible was actually written by Moses. I wonder if the fact it is all in the third person is an indication of this, or if there is a peculiarity in the original language that means its hard to tell first from third person? (say like japanese) Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. And people warry about Ilsamic Extremists??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I wonder if the fact it is all in the third person is an indication of this, or if there is a peculiarity in the original language that means its hard to tell first from third person? (say like japanese) Well, I think there's also a bit of a clue at the end of Deuteronomy (the 5th book of 'Moses') Dut. Ch.34 5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over. I mean, I'm sure Moses was a pretty hefty power-house OT prophet, but I think even he would have had trouble writing about his own death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 The deliberate movement in public schools to combat the teaching of traditional moral values, mainly (but not limited to) the teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle Tolerance means people you don't agree with, too:rolleyes:. Phreak, last time I checked you were a guy. So... you can't have an abortion. Are you gay? If not, whats the big deal? The big deal is, as was said, that you're supposed to care about other people than you. I won't just sit about and let people suffer. A Nordic author once said "Du skal ikke tåle så inderlig vel/den urett som ikke rammer deg selv". Which roughly translates to "You shall not tolerate so very well/the violation that does not harm yourself". Hmm. Dang. It doesn't rhyme in English:p. The religion part is irrelavent. Islam was born from Christianity, and athiests know what Christianity is about. You realize, of course, that very little in Christianity, either, is original? And are you saying that Hindus and Buddhists and atheists don't get taught moral values, but refrain from murdering because they happen to have heard some Christian say murder is wrong? Sorry, pal, but I don't buy that. For the thousandth time (and listen up this time): Christians do not have a monopoly on moral values! Not to mention, Islam nor athiesm never played a huge role in this country. But Muslims have achieved a good deal of great things, which affected Europeans and Christians in turn. Coincidentally, when people embraced Christianity more "openly" these problems (rape, et criteria) occured less than when people stopped embracing Christian rules. In other words, the problem increased when Christianity was thrown "out the window." Likewise, there are high-crime areas where Christianity is widespread. OK, so a group of people joined a Christian community and it gave them hope, a place to go, friends, and love. But that could have been achieved by joining a Muslim, Hindu, or Baptist religious group, or a YMCA swim team, for that matter. Sure, if someone is being robbed in the street you should do something... but gay marriage? What, do you want me to wed them? Nope. Just condone gay marriage. There is not a thing I can do [for gay marriage]. There are tonnes of things everyone can do for civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 But Muslims have achieved a good deal of great things, which affected Europeans and Christians in turn. If it wasn't for christianity, there would be no muslims (at least, not as we know it today) and the world would be a completley different place, it is truly amazing the impact that one man has had on the world (Jesus) whether you believe his teaching or not, the whole world would be different. Crap, whole countries may not have been formed. In fact, there really wouldn't have been any reason to leave England to come here (the 3 Gs... God, Gold, and Glory...) meaning, the 3 main reasons people came here were for Religious Freedom from England, Gold (to be rich, lol) and Glory (fame, I guess) The only thing they got in the long run was God. There was no Gold... and not a lot glory involved. Take out God, and most people would have only come for Gold, when they found out there wasn't any... well... who says they would have stayed. You realize, of course, that very little in Christianity, either, is original? Yeah, I know. But I was speaking about Islam. And are you saying that Hindus and Buddhists and atheists don't get taught moral values, but refrain from murdering because they happen to have heard some Christian say murder is wrong? Sorry, pal, but I don't buy that. Didn't say that.. didn't mean that. In the long run a lot of it was common sense, when you hurt someone else it tells you it wasn't the smartest thing to do, by there reaction. But you need laws to make sure people understand. Tolerance means people you don't agree with, too. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to believe what they believe, otherwise we would all be in trouble. I know that the story of Moses is told in the bible, but as far as i know nowhere does it say that anything in the bible was actually written by Moses. Not that I know of. I've always thought it weird that Moses wrote his own death. I mean, Its possible, since God told him he was going to die, that he wrote it before he died... but unlikley. Perhaps Johnathon just finished up the book. I wonder if the fact it is all in the third person is an indication of this, or if there is a peculiarity in the original language that means its hard to tell first from third person? (say like japanese) Well, possibly. John writes of himself in third person, not even calling himself by his name. We can tell its John by comparing other gospels, but he writes himself at "The Desciple whome Jesus loved" But why would you think god spoke through them in their letters? Neither they, or jesus, or anyone else that I know of in the bible ever claims that god was speaking through them. Only Timothy and Revelations make any claim that the words of scripture (though they don't define which scripture) are the direct unchangable word of god. And the new testament didn't exist at that point. Hmmm, interesting. Well, Jesus was God... so, lol, thats pretty much the word of God there. In some areas the Bible says something like "And then they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak...." or something like that. That tells me God has spoken through them. In other areas people like Paul were filled with the Holy Spirit... and God pretty much entrusted the prophets to write down and record the history (people like Obadiah, Ezekial... or even Moses) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Tolerance doesn't mean you have to believe what they believe, otherwise we would all be in trouble.True, but it does mean not stifling their beliefs either. Just because you don't agree with them, does that give you the right to stop them doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Even though luke is outnumbered here and some of us can be harsh, luke is holding his ground and I applaud him for doing so. We need some opposing views in here to keep the Senate alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 If it wasn't for christianity, there would be no muslims Possibly correct, although undoubtedly for other reasons than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Christians and atheists seek out support groups. And this is only natural, folks like to congregate around people that agree with them and reinforce their views. People who enjoy participating in (not just watching) debate are rare it seems. Many folks just don't know how to debate or can't handle it for very long. I will be the first to admit it can become taxing, either because you can't get your point across or because people just end up repeating themselves or fighting instead of making good points and making both sides think. Another issue is time involved. Two people can go at it for hours, days, weeks, etc. in ongoing arguments. Not everyone has the patience for it. Does the first one to "give up" thus lose? Is their point of view now invalide? A lot of people will home in on debates, but don't really have anything to add, they just have anger and passion, but nothing really useful to say. Because of this, the number of honest, open, and intellectual debates on the internet (which is a big free for all most of the time anyway) are few and far between. Some would say that "debates" are pointless because they are a test of personality (pleasing the crowd) and who can use better speech (a test of writing or speaking skills, not logic or good arguments). They also say how they are appeals to popularity, and how people like to "gang up" on others in discussions to shout down views that are unpopular. These are all valid concerns. That's why any true debate must have rules, and the audience must be made to understand that there are not just two sides or two spokespersons to every issue, as if they were all black & white. It's not without its flaws, but it can work reasonably well if regulated properly and people are educated about it. So yes, there is hostility here, because there are atheists who feel they must "debunk" religion, and there are Christians who feel they must "convert" non-Christians. As you can see, these folks aren't out to debate, but rather to get their "message" across. With this mindset, no real discussion is possible, it's merely talking at people and preaching to the choir. Now Skinwalker has rightly pointed out to me that this isn't just a "debate forum." But then it isn't a prosetylzing forum or a rant forum either. It's a mixture. Though personally I find the debate portion to be the most interesting. Anyone can rant, anyone can preach. That is just a one way street, requiring no input or feedback, it's just like a soap box. While we all have at times to get things off our chest, what good does it really do in a forum? A forum is about discussions. Anyone can make a blog and just rant about their various opinions. They usually have comment sections too. What we have here is an opportunity for something more though, and that's why I like it. Since everybody's different, everybody has their own biases and presuppositions brought to the table and their own cliques and alliances, friends and enemies, it is always a different dynamic when discussing any issue. It's an odd experiment, but a useful one. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone speaks out about it. And not everyone chooses to express it in the same fashion. Tolerance in a debate format is different than tolerance in everyday interaction. I might really want to argue with a pro-choice or pro-war politico for example, but I may simply have to put up with our difference of opinion and let it go in order to do my day to day stuff. I can't just drop everything I'm doing to argue somebody blue in the face every second of every day, because there are that many people one that will disagree with them on something. And most of these people won't change their mind just because you gave them a good tongue lashing about it. In fact such an outburst may make them believe more strongly in their contentions. Now I'm not talking about "tolerance" in the sense of threatening somebody's life or limb because of a difference of opinion or cultural difference. I'm not talking about trying to take away someone's free speech because their view is different or unpopular... those things are wrong. I'm talking about "tolerance" in the sense that you don't start arguing with somebody and making them feel uncomfortable because you disagree. I think that's what people are getting at when they talk about "tolerance." Many will say that free speech isn't freedom from being offended. There's a debate in the public square about whether or not "hate speech" is protected, and then what "hate speech" is and other issues. But there you have my two cents and change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Luke's doing a pretty good impersonationo of that jedi kid whith all the clones closing in on him... It does get taxing, and sometimes it can be very hard when something seems so blatantly obvious to you, yet you just don't seem to be able to get the other person to accept it. Probably exactly what they are feeling about you. In my view tollerance isn't accepting other people's viewpoints... its allowing them to have them. So I can call out what i see as flaws in religious arguments, but I can't stop people making those religious arguments. But equally, while they can call out flaws in my arguments, they can't stop me making or believing them. Otherwise you end up in a world where people are called heretics and put to death for pointing out things like "the earth going around the sun". As for gay marriage, which appears to have become a bit of a figurehead for both sides, I'd say tollerance would mean that church leaders should be able to warn their followers that it was bad... but they shouldn't be able to stop anyone (especially those who aren't their followers) from doing it if they so wish. Same could be said for abortion - tell people in church you feel it's wroong, but leave those outside church to make the decision for themselves. They can take your views into account if they wish, as well as any other views they wish. hey luke, I think 1.8billion muslims would argue that Mohammed had a pretty big effect on the world as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boinga1 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Wow. I never knew how serious it was over here in the Sentate. I'm learning more here than in high school. Tolerance... frankly, it's the one thing most humans aren't. Throughout history, fighting with those different from each other has led to conflict. Heck, some folks think that's why homo sapiens became dominant over the other early man-like creatures. You can't talk about European or American history without learning about one group conquering or forcing its beliefs on another. Not to sure about the other continents, but I imagine it's similar. Truthfully, we live in relatively tolerant times. Black man sits down with the white man in a restaurant, that sort of thing. That being said, we are far from perfection. But I'm sure everyone is familiar with this. When considering impact on the world, Christianity (in large part Catholics) has had an effect probably as great as any other. This is as much a negative as a positive impact. The Crusades, the slave trade, even the decimation of Native Americans, were all in the name of Christian religion. Christianity is not evil in itself. If followed moderately and observed properly, it teaches excellent moral standards and encourages tolerance. However, many people (not just Southern Baptists ) are either too liberal or too strict in their interpretation of faith. They justify actions which their faith does not condone, or condemn any and all beliefs different from theirs. Personally, I have little doubt that Christianity is good, in principle.So many things are. It is the human element which causes problems. It is tragic, really, how many horrible deeds have been done in the name of Jesus Christ, a man (or god) who eximplified love and compassion for all people. Even if not real, he can be seen as a role model for all people. For the record, I am a staunch Christian, and I will gladly attempt to defend the faith if neccessary. (Are there really 1.8 billion muslims? I had no idea the number was so high!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 hey luke, I think 1.8billion muslims would argue that Mohammed had a pretty big effect on the world as well... Yeah, well.. he did. 1.8 billion? Hmmm... isn't that larger than Christianity? Luke's doing a pretty good impersonationo of that jedi kid whith all the clones closing in on him... *gulps* I might really want to argue with a pro-choice or pro-war politico for example, but I may simply have to put up with our difference of opinion and let it go in order to do my day to day stuff. Yeah, I waste a lot of time in the Senate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I think christianity is the largest religion (2-3billion, can't be bothered to look it up) the Islam is the second biggest, then there is a fairly large gap until the next few religions. Though of course both christianity and Islam have splintered into a fairly large number of factions, some of which have such major differences in their interpretaions of their faith that they could practically be called seperate religions. its a little odd to use the "without christianity there would be no islam" argument, as that kind of implies that christianity is actually Islam version 0.5. Which i guess is a valid argument. *gulps* Watch your neck kid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 2.1*10^9 Christians and .9-1.5 Muslims according to the Wiki. Whether the lesser accuracy in the figures for the Muslims are due to problems with making accurate census or an overly optimistic accuracy estimate with respect to the number of Christians, I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 It must be remembered that, at least in the UK, most people who claim they are christian don't go to church, thereby demonstrating that they are not devout, and many just put 'christian' because they were baptised as one, not because they actually believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 To be honest, considering Christ is God, by believing in God you believe in Christ... so... ? Not if you don't believe in Christ.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.