BF2S Forums religions of violence

lowing wrote:

Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown.

lowing wrote:

... Christianity's message...
...compare the teachings of the 2 major religions...
... the teachings and actions of Christ and the teachings and actions of Muhammad...

lowing wrote:

Stop squirming and accept Islam for what it teaches and practices in Islamic run nations

FEOS wrote:

burnzz wrote:

i think all we've proved so far is humans use religions = among other things, to justify violence.
GG

fixed.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-08-11 05:06:51)

judeo-christian religions are poison, islam is not an exception so much as the norm.

Stingray24 wrote:

Ok, comedy routine taking the Bible completely out of context and making typical false assumptions.  Next?

Stingray24 wrote:

I've already seen just about every comedy routine that says religion is bs.  Not very convincing in debate tbh.  Care to share some of your own thoughts?

steelie34 wrote:

when it comes to religion, believe whatever you want, but don't

a) try to get me to believe in the same thing and
b) ask me for money

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown.

you do not need to re-research anything - you need to read the bloody thing to form your, the mighty lowing's own opinion. you do know the difference between some phrases that've been taken out of context and posted on the internetz, and first hand experience, don't you?

lowing wrote:

... Christianity's message...
...compare the teachings of the 2 major religions...
... the teachings and actions of Christ and the teachings and actions of Muhammad...

had you actually read them "holy" books you'd have known that there is no christianity's or islam, or any other religion's "message". all, a hundred bloody percent, of so called religious teachings are utter nonsence, as are any other information and public opinion manipulation tools - obtuse, self contradictory, easily turned around to support whatever agenda those in power may have. basically, you are comparing one set of nonsence-texts to another, dude, by picking random sentences and setting them against each other in an attempt to see which one's more "violent". um... lulz?

lowing wrote:

Stop squirming and accept Islam for what it teaches and practices in Islamic run nations

islam doesn't run nations - religious nutjobs do.

FEOS wrote:

burnzz wrote:

i think all we've proved so far is humans use religions = among other things, to justify violence.
GG

fixed.

/thread

edit: one of these days i should start using a spellchecker...

Krappyappy wrote:

human action as inspired by scripture always involves interpretation, whether literal or metaphorical.

it's amusing how people will discount the violent themes in the bible for frivolous reasons.

'it's in the old testament so it doesn't count'
'it's in revelations so it doesn't count'
'it is a teaching of one of the apostles so it doesn't count'
it might as well be 'i don't agree with it so it doesn't count.'

as if it made any difference. did christ reject the old testament as untrue? does the modern church reject the teachings of paul, or the act of revelations?

or is it simply convenient to willfully ignore those passages in the bible that are at odds with your conviction that christianity is peaceful?

the central theme of christianity is that mankind's sins can only be redeemed and forgiven through violence. god, as an omnipotent being, is unable [or unwilling] to absolve humans of their inherent evil, to the point that he had to resort to ritual human sacrifice to do it.

there is also the inherently violent threat of damnation, as in 'believe in what i say or i will torture you for eternity.'

these are the core beliefs of christianity. compare that with other religions where man can achieve apotheosis through self-actualization [like buddhism] and the contrast is stark, even obvious.

all this word mincing is pointless. what makes one religion peaceful and another one violent? the writing is open to interpretation and we can sit here and argue all day without getting anywhere.

if a religion is full of violent teachings, but no one has ever been harmed as a result, would you call that a violent religion?
how about if a religion doesn't explicitly instruct violence, but millions of people have been killed in its name, would that qualify as a violent religion?

i would sure as fuck call the second one violent. christianity [and judaism] have caused at least as many deaths as islam. all three are violent.

Krappyappy wrote:

human action as inspired by scripture always involves interpretation, whether literal or metaphorical.

it's amusing how people will discount the violent themes in the bible for frivolous reasons.

'it's in the old testament so it doesn't count'
'it's in revelations so it doesn't count'
'it is a teaching of one of the apostles so it doesn't count'
it might as well be 'i don't agree with it so it doesn't count.'

as if it made any difference. did christ reject the old testament as untrue? does the modern church reject the teachings of paul, or the act of revelations?

or is it simply convenient to willfully ignore those passages in the bible that are at odds with your conviction that christianity is peaceful?

DesertFox- wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Was posted earlier this page, ffs. He's using his status as a comedian as a soapbox to preach his beliefs anyway.

Dilbert_X wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bah, Christians are not laying waste to cities atm, or cutting the heads off Muslims.

No, they bomb from a great height, the effect is much the same.
For cities see Fallujah, Baghdad etc.

Kmarion wrote:

You yourself are willfully ignoring passages. Highlighting only the ones that seem to agree with your message. You're Ignoring the current teachings of Christianity. I see a great bit of hypocrisy here.. in your preaching. Read the rest of the book. It is relevant.