Did the bold and underlined part of my reply not make the difference clear enough for you? I'm ready when you are.. you wanna make this actually relevant and stick to the last couple hundred years? See which religion has evolved and which hasn't?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes.........and?
Do you want to go into what Christians have done in the name religion (we'll start with the Crusades, shall we?)?
Last edited by Vax (2008-05-19 21:16:12)
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If we're sticking to the last couple hundred years Mohamed doesn't come into it.
But sure, let's do that. And whilst we're at it, let's see which religion is mainly popular in wealthy societies, and which is mainly popular in poor societies.
Hell man! I say we can talk when they stop bombing innocent people and cutting off heads because they don't think the same way.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If we're sticking to the last couple hundred years Mohamed doesn't come into it.
But sure, let's do that. And whilst we're at it, let's see which religion is mainly popular in wealthy societies, and which is mainly popular in poor societies.
There are wealthy Islamic states and there are extremely poor Christian states. Personal accountability is a rarity for that religions leaders. They must blame away their incompetence.. When the majority of Islam starts accepting responsibility for their failings and equal rights for their women maybe.. just maybe we can really start to compare.
It's because they are poor don't ya know. Nothing satisfies the need to feed my family quite like driving a chlorine gas filled truck into my neighbors marketplace.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Hell man! I say we can talk when they stop bombing innocent people and cutting off heads because they don't think the same way.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If we're sticking to the last couple hundred years Mohamed doesn't come into it.
But sure, let's do that. And whilst we're at it, let's see which religion is mainly popular in wealthy societies, and which is mainly popular in poor societies.
There are wealthy Islamic states and there are extremely poor Christian states. Personal accountability is a rarity for that religions leaders. They must blame away their incompetence.. When the majority of Islam starts accepting responsibility for their failings and equal rights for their women maybe.. just maybe we can really start to compare.
You're the one who suggested limiting the time period.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If we're sticking to the last couple hundred years Mohamed doesn't come into it.
But sure, let's do that. And whilst we're at it, let's see which religion is mainly popular in wealthy societies, and which is mainly popular in poor societies.
You'll not I said societies, not states. There are a lot of poor Muslims, and you'll likely find harsh social rules in poor Christian states.Turqoise wrote:
There are wealthy Islamic states and there are extremely poor Christian states. Personal accountability is a rarity for that religions leaders. They must blame away their incompetence.. When the majority of Islam starts accepting responsibility for their failings and equal rights for their women maybe.. just maybe we can really start to compare.
Negative, you are the one who ignored my original point of looking at their prophet. It was only then you attempted to muddy the water by interjecting the crusades. I suggest you do a review.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You're the one who suggested limiting the time period.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If we're sticking to the last couple hundred years Mohamed doesn't come into it.
But sure, let's do that. And whilst we're at it, let's see which religion is mainly popular in wealthy societies, and which is mainly popular in poor societies.
It sets the tone doesn't it? Idols are emulated.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
My god man You're right! How do we appease them as so they show us mercy (like the did to all the rest)?Kmarion wrote:
It's because they are poor don't ya know. Nothing satisfies the need to feed my family quite like driving a chlorine gas filled truck into my neighbors marketplace.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Hell man! I say we can talk when they stop bombing innocent people and cutting off heads because they don't think the same way.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.
There are wealthy Islamic states and there are extremely poor Christian states. Personal accountability is a rarity for that religions leaders. They must blame away their incompetence.. When the majority of Islam starts accepting responsibility for their failings and equal rights for their women maybe.. just maybe we can really start to compare.
4,000 year old Islamic bloodfeuds require great appeasement. Even if said appeasers have only existed just over 200 years.DBBrinson1 wrote:
My god man You're right! How do we appease them as so they show us mercy (like the did to all the rest)?Kmarion wrote:
It's because they are poor don't ya know. Nothing satisfies the need to feed my family quite like driving a chlorine gas filled truck into my neighbors marketplace.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Hell man! I say we can talk when they stop bombing innocent people and cutting off heads because they don't think the same way.
You're absolutely right. It should be judged by it's members. So lets take the nations closest to the origin of the religion... they invented it, so they should know how best to practice it. That gives us Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We'll give Israel a pass (they're obviously not very muslim there) and Turkey's right across the border from Europe, so their tainted (too democratic or something).ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
Kmarion wrote:
Negative, you are the one who ignored my original point of looking at their prophet. It was only then you attempted to muddy the water by interjecting the crusades. I suggest you do a review.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You're the one who suggested limiting the time period.Kmarion wrote:
Sure let's get rid of the original point. Tossing Mohamed out would be a very good idea for you. You would have a very tough time comparing him to his Christian counterpart anyways. You've got nowhere to go on that one.
Ho hum............Kmarion wrote:
Did the bold and underlined part of my reply not make the difference clear enough for you? I'm ready when you are.. you wanna make this actually relevant and stick to the last couple hundred years? See which religion has evolved and which hasn't?
Which explains why the Christian US is so willing to turn the other cheek.Kmarion wrote:
It sets the tone doesn't it? Idols are emulated.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
We could offer them jobs as tech's for our computer companies. They could learn US ways and culture.Kmarion wrote:
4,000 year old Islamic bloodfeuds require great appeasement. Even if said appeasers have only existed just over 200 years.DBBrinson1 wrote:
My god man You're right! How do we appease them as so they show us mercy (like the did to all the rest)?Kmarion wrote:
It's because they are poor don't ya know. Nothing satisfies the need to feed my family quite like driving a chlorine gas filled truck into my neighbors marketplace.
And that whole rant is wasted, because the Christian fundamentalists have control of the most powerful nation on Earth, and lack most of the socio-economic factors associated with crime and terrorism.iamangry wrote:
You're absolutely right. It should be judged by it's members. So lets take the nations closest to the origin of the religion... they invented it, so they should know how best to practice it. That gives us Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We'll give Israel a pass (they're obviously not very muslim there) and Turkey's right across the border from Europe, so their tainted (too democratic or something).ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
Well, it seems to me that you have a bunch of nations whom oppress their women, their poor. You have a bunch of nations who make it a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. You have a bunch of nations who still have public executions by various forms. You have a bunch of nations who would rather let a bunch of school girls burn to death than risk having them be tainted or spoiled by the men of their country (rampant pedophilia, or rampant irrational paranoia, your choice there). You have a bunch of violent, backward people who support the use of bombs on busses and in school yards to promote political platforms. You have a bunch of people who riot and kill over cartoons. FRIGGIN CARTOONS.
Everyone reminds me that there are fundamentalist and violent christians, jews and even bhuddists. The notable difference however, is that there are not entire nations of those crazies, like there are with Islam. I'll start respecting Islam when their nations stop this junk. And I don't have 700 years for them to catch up, reform, go through the necessary religious wars, and modernize like the west did. They need to get with the program, or gtfo this planet, cause they're holding us all back in the meantime.
</rant>.
Thats right everyone, Bush is a cross burning, infidel beheading, suicide bombing insurgent.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And that whole rant is wasted, because the Christian fundamentalists have control of the most powerful nation on Earth, and lack most of the socio-economic factors associated with crime and terrorism.
Or maybe it has to do with him being religious in the "normal" non crazy sense. And not some sort of zealot for protestantism. Don't get me wrong, hes neither intelligent nor a very good president IMO, but hes certainly no Osama with a suit. Maybe you need to think before you jump on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Your right, he doesn't behead people. Perhaps that has something to do with have access to the most powerful conventional army in the world.
No, no, that makes too much sense.
Last edited by iamangry (2008-05-19 22:09:58)
Didn't I say "Sure let's get rid of the original point. " Hence my willingness to compare the last couple hundred years.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Negative, you are the one who ignored my original point of looking at their prophet. It was only then you attempted to muddy the water by interjecting the crusades. I suggest you do a review.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You're the one who suggested limiting the time period.Ho hum............Kmarion wrote:
Did the bold and underlined part of my reply not make the difference clear enough for you? I'm ready when you are.. you wanna make this actually relevant and stick to the last couple hundred years? See which religion has evolved and which hasn't?
We continue to ignore the examples each prophet set. Which religions followers would be logically emulating their prophets in terms of violent behavior.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Which explains why the Christian US is so willing to turn the other cheek.Kmarion wrote:
It sets the tone doesn't it? Idols are emulated.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
Oh, wait.................
I'm equally impressed.. seeing where the whole thing started. It took you three replies to address my original post (the difference in the teachings/actions of each prophet). If it wasn't so transparent I would be congratulating you on a nice job. Pot Kettle Black.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm also impressed by how you've managed to completely ignore my actual point regarding poverty: crime, hardline religious fanatacism, and violence have all been linked to poverty.
And how is it that this young and poor Judea-Christian society rose to become the most powerful nation in the world? Could it be that we took to the fields and built a society based on equal rights?ZombieVampire! wrote:
And that whole rant is wasted, because the Christian fundamentalists have control of the most powerful nation on Earth, and lack most of the socio-economic factors associated with crime and terrorism.iamangry wrote:
You're absolutely right. It should be judged by it's members. So lets take the nations closest to the origin of the religion... they invented it, so they should know how best to practice it. That gives us Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We'll give Israel a pass (they're obviously not very muslim there) and Turkey's right across the border from Europe, so their tainted (too democratic or something).ZombieVampire! wrote:
Further, I don't see how a religious group should be judged by their founder.
Well, it seems to me that you have a bunch of nations whom oppress their women, their poor. You have a bunch of nations who make it a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. You have a bunch of nations who still have public executions by various forms. You have a bunch of nations who would rather let a bunch of school girls burn to death than risk having them be tainted or spoiled by the men of their country (rampant pedophilia, or rampant irrational paranoia, your choice there). You have a bunch of violent, backward people who support the use of bombs on busses and in school yards to promote political platforms. You have a bunch of people who riot and kill over cartoons. FRIGGIN CARTOONS.
Everyone reminds me that there are fundamentalist and violent christians, jews and even bhuddists. The notable difference however, is that there are not entire nations of those crazies, like there are with Islam. I'll start respecting Islam when their nations stop this junk. And I don't have 700 years for them to catch up, reform, go through the necessary religious wars, and modernize like the west did. They need to get with the program, or gtfo this planet, cause they're holding us all back in the meantime.
</rant>.
Good point, its obviously a serious drain on your intellectual resources to do so. Please now return to your brawndo. It's got electrolytes.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I fail to see why I should think hard about disliking someone who does a great many things I hate.
I disagree, i'd say american foreign policy, anyway, is much more secular than fundamentalist drivenZombieVampire! wrote:
And that whole rant is wasted, because the Christian fundamentalists have control of the most powerful nation on Earth, and lack most of the socio-economic factors associated with crime and terrorism.
*sighZombieVampire! wrote:
He believes that the US has to help Israel to bring on the apocalypse.
Define "normal" and "non crazy".
Further, Osama Bin Laden is hardly a religious nutcase. He's somebody who doesn't like the US constantly trying to control the ME and uses religion as a tool to fight them.
Like the rights afford to gays? Or perhaps the rights afforded to the innocent people in Guantanamo Bay?Kmarion wrote:
And how is it that this young and poor Judea-Christian society rose to become the most powerful nation in the world? Could it be that we took to the fields and built a society based on equal rights?
Allow me to rephrase: if I disagree with everything he does, and his motivation for doing it, why shouldn't I dislike him?iamangry wrote:
Good point, its obviously a serious drain on your intellectual resources to do so. Please now return to your brawndo. It's got electrolytes.