FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is Christianity less tolerant than Islam?






Is scripturally accurate Christianity less tolerant than scripturally accurate Islam?
Yes. Please explain
33%
 33%  [ 2 ]
No. Please explain
66%
 66%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 6

busman
I'm just positing a simple yet pretty deep question for many people including myself, and that is: AT ITS CORE, the very fundemental teachings, is Christianity less tolerant than Islam? In my opinion it very well can be at times and I would love to see a contrasting view point adequately expressed in a serious and worthwhile manner.

I would love scripture from both sides as well as historical evidence to prove your point. Thanks Very Happy
Hello_World
I don't know that much really about either to be an expert...

But I did read this morning a convincing article with the argument that the Bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.

http://www.equallovecampaign.com/the-facts/what-did-the-bible-really-say-about-homosexuality/

Unfortunately I don't know the bible well enough for myself to critique the arguments made.
Ankhanu
Both are fundamentally intolerant... but the more and less aspect requires some sort of enumeration of intolerance, and I'm unsure of what sort of scale or calculation would be used Razz Both clearly have intolerance oozing throughout their scriptures, but Christianity has some insertions that seem to contradict or negate some of it, and Islam has removed some of the more pacifist elements of Christianity in favour of a more pragmatic approach (which has been used to justify all kinds of terrible crap).

In short, I have no idea how to measure the levels of intolerance, and, in the end, I really don't think it matters, as they've both breached the threshold of acceptable limits.
busman
Ankhanu wrote:
Both are fundamentally intolerant... but the more and less aspect requires some sort of enumeration of intolerance, and I'm unsure of what sort of scale or calculation would be used Razz Both clearly have intolerance oozing throughout their scriptures, but Christianity has some insertions that seem to contradict or negate some of it, and Islam has removed some of the more pacifist elements of Christianity in favour of a more pragmatic approach (which has been used to justify all kinds of terrible crap).

In short, I have no idea how to measure the levels of intolerance, and, in the end, I really don't think it matters, as they've both breached the threshold of acceptable limits.


Tolerance is somewhat measurable, like which religion was more xenophobic, which religion scripturally provides more respect to other religious groups. Which religion has the upper hand in womens' rights? etc. etc..
Dialogist
But there's a lot more ramifications to consider here. Christianity is huge umbrella of many different dogmas, some a lot more passive or strict than others. Catholic means Universal, for example, but the stipulation Roman Catholic definitely stipulates. This is a form of intolerant tolerance which is paradoxically both solid and seemingly absurd, like many of the key tenets of the "Christian" faith. The faith (dogma, practice and standards) Vs the theology is where the conflicts begin to enter the equation. The difference between Christianity and Christians (in general) can be readily apparent in terms of human fallibility but that's not even counting the difference between scripture and dogmas and differing dogmas, the many branch-off versions and manifestations.

With something as widespread and universal as Christianity, it's going to win the battle of intolerance on ratio but I would say it is neither more intolerant than Islam in scripture, theology or practice. Actually that's kind of ridiculous and perhaps of little use to anyone other than maybe just experimental exercise in sophistry. Islam still stands behind its crimes and aberrations. It does so because it has to, because the Qu'ran is a surprisingly militant document in parts and is meaningless unless its inerrancy is upheld. This has Sharia Law governing most Islamic countries (as the law). Christendom doesn't stone homosexuals in the street. What it has done (historically) is rage against intolerance, whether it be fascist, communist or racial.

One of the beauties (and selling points) of Christianity (in all its incantations) is that the stuff you 'can do' is considerably larger than that you cannot, and the stuff you cannot do, most civilised secularist courts of law will find fault with too. There's basically ten things you can't do (6 realistically because 4 of the Ten Commandments now seem slightly archaic and redundant) and they are lay-ups anyway. Don't kill, don't steal, don't be a ____ in general. Everything else is cool. Where's the problem? If the west replaced Christianity (which is not even instrumental in law) with Islamic law (which is and in practice) then you'd see, hear and feel the difference. There's certain things you might not see, though. Like a woman's face, a man's chin or hair or alcohol, sexual promiscuity, people leading a passive or non-existent religious lifestyle. You wouldn't see any of that.

We (Christianity) don't particularly approve of the practice of homosexuality. That's the only thing in scripture that the Church still adheres to (again, in dogma but unfortunately not in practice). The Church just can't see it as viable or passable. The church has no problem with homosexuals themselves. And even if it did, unlike Islam, it can't do anything about it.

Ankhanu wrote:

they've both breached the threshold of acceptable limits.


No, they haven't. Both Christians and Muslims have done but Christianity and Islam in general have not. There's a case that Islam has and does but not Christianity. Christianity has no jihads (which are a mistaken concept) and Christianity commands no condemnation nor discrimination that is acted upon nor even acknowledged. There's many google searches into the defunct commentary of Leviticus who wrote a instructional book for priests (Jewish priests) who hadn't even devised the 613 mitzvot (commandments) yet (603 more than Christianity), pre-Jesus as a precursor to the kind of revolutionary ministry He was to address and fulfil. Between the sacrificial ox's blood and cleansing before ritual, Leviticus and all of the OT foreboders were prophets but they weren't after "He without sin shall cast the first stone". There was only one after that. From a Nazareth chav labour, to lepers, prostitutes, poor and dying a humiliating death with two criminals either side, for the very premise of unspeakable tolerance. Again John 18:36:

"My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world."

Pacifist, lamb, scapegoat who constantly preached about acceptance, compassion, equality and radical socialism (one that actually works). Compare and contrast with current day acceptable murder and/or corporeal punishment of your own siblings who don't obey you or your book.
busman
Dialogist wrote:
But there's a lot more ramifications to consider here. Christianity is huge umbrella of many different dogmas, some a lot more passive or strict than others. Catholic means Universal, for example, but the stipulation Roman Catholic definitely stipulates. This is a form of intolerant tolerance which is paradoxically both solid and seemingly absurd, like many of the key tenets of the "Christian" faith. The faith (dogma, practice and standards) Vs the theology is where the conflicts begin to enter the equation. The difference between Christianity and Christians (in general) can be readily apparent in terms of human fallibility but that's not even counting the difference between scripture and dogmas and differing dogmas, the many branch-off versions and manifestations.

With something as widespread and universal as Christianity, it's going to win the battle of intolerance on ratio but I would say it is neither more intolerant than Islam in scripture, theology or practice. Actually that's kind of ridiculous and perhaps of little use to anyone other than maybe just experimental exercise in sophistry. Islam still stands behind its crimes and aberrations. It does so because it has to, because the Qu'ran is a surprisingly militant document in parts and is meaningless unless its inerrancy is upheld. This has Sharia Law governing most Islamic countries (as the law). Christendom doesn't stone homosexuals in the street. What it has done (historically) is rage against intolerance, whether it be fascist, communist or racial.

One of the beauties (and selling points) of Christianity (in all its incantations) is that the stuff you 'can do' is considerably larger than that you cannot, and the stuff you cannot do, most civilised secularist courts of law will find fault with too. There's basically ten things you can't do (6 realistically because 4 of the Ten Commandments now seem slightly archaic and redundant) and they are lay-ups anyway. Don't kill, don't steal, don't be a ____ in general. Everything else is cool. Where's the problem? If the west replaced Christianity (which is not even instrumental in law) with Islamic law (which is and in practice) then you'd see, hear and feel the difference. There's certain things you might not see, though. Like a woman's face, a man's chin or hair or alcohol, sexual promiscuity, people leading a passive or non-existent religious lifestyle. You wouldn't see any of that.

We (Christianity) don't particularly approve of the practice of homosexuality. That's the only thing in scripture that the Church still adheres to (again, in dogma but unfortunately not in practice). The Church just can't see it as viable or passable. The church has no problem with homosexuals themselves. And even if it did, unlike Islam, it can't do anything about it.

Ankhanu wrote:

they've both breached the threshold of acceptable limits.


No, they haven't. Both Christians and Muslims have done but Christianity and Islam in general have not. There's a case that Islam has and does but not Christianity. Christianity has no jihads (which are a mistaken concept) and Christianity commands no condemnation nor discrimination that is acted upon nor even acknowledged. There's many google searches into the defunct commentary of Leviticus who wrote a instructional book for priests (Jewish priests) who hadn't even devised the 613 mitzvot (commandments) yet (603 more than Christianity), pre-Jesus as a precursor to the kind of revolutionary ministry He was to address and fulfil. Between the sacrificial ox's blood and cleansing before ritual, Leviticus and all of the OT foreboders were prophets but they weren't after "He without sin shall cast the first stone". There was only one after that. From a Nazareth chav labour, to lepers, prostitutes, poor and dying a humiliating death with two criminals either side, for the very premise of unspeakable tolerance. Again John 18:36:

"My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world."

Pacifist, lamb, scapegoat who constantly preached about acceptance, compassion, equality and radical socialism (one that actually works). Compare and contrast with current day acceptable murder and/or corporeal punishment of your own siblings who don't obey you or your book.


I wanted scripture of tolerance in either religion, christianity has crusades which are the equivelent of a jihad btw. This post was shifting the point. I didn't ask about denominations, I asked for a very specific and litteral reading of the scripture to see which one had a better record on tolerance, human rights etc.. TBH you didn't really address the point made you side stepped it with a lot of writing.

Quote:
Actually that's kind of ridiculous and perhaps of little use to anyone other than maybe just experimental exercise in sophistry.


That was exactly the point and it's not ridiculous at all. I was seeing if christians/muslims could give me actual verses supporting their claims and you have given one that doesn't even pertain to the topic at hand. That would be ridiculous. The things you "can do" in any religion tend to be larger than the things you cannot do hence the living of a pretty normal life for most muslims/christians.

Quote:
There's a case that Islam has and does but not Christianity


BS at it's finest, I'll give you examples- The inquisitions, Galileo, Sodomy Laws, ID in schools, the US presidents have ONLY been christian and also legislated bills from this outlook and gone to war because "god told them so", no homosexual marriage (a legal matter not a religious one), molestation of children etc. etc..

Not following the old testament laws is also BS to the max and it's a good attempt to make the religion more cuddly and tolerable to the more passive folks and I'll give you a verse that sets it in stone (and this would be Jesus btw)

Quote:
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

So if you wish to post, I would first ask you not to disregard what Jesus says and then give me scripture backing your point up, as far as I can see it now your point is completely fallacious.
Dialogist
busman wrote:

I wanted scripture of tolerance in either religion,


Tolerance in The Bible:

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34) is a classic but it's almost like a synopsis for the whole ministry of Jesus in one simple soundbite. There's millions of similar examples.

Intolerance in The Bible:

"It's not right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:26) Arguably a racial slight (and quite possibly was for that time, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't) however for the all-seeing Son of God to be saying it, it sits unkindly. I think the context is vital personally. The pigs He drove off the cliff possessed by demons seemed innocent too (to me). The story was parabolic to me. And for sure, rooted in political cultural climate too. The Good Samaritan was positively-discriminatory (by our modern PC standards).

Tolerance in the Qu'ran:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and " “Forgive and show indulgence to them" (2:109)

Intolerance in the Qu'ran:

"Kill them wherever you find them" 2:191 (it goes on to say Allah loveth not transgressors - 2:190 as it's essentially a self-defense battle-cry and it no way prescribes terror attacks)


busman wrote:

christianity has crusades which are the equivelent of a jihad btw.


I don't think they are equivalent. The jihad means "struggle". It is the western media and small factions of Islamic Extremism that have convoluted it with terror. It doesn't mean that all. The crusades were real terrorism but it takes two to tango and Salahudin could definitely dance.

The Crusades were a product of Urban II (1071) and hardly scripture. This wasn't theology, it wasn't even misinterpretation. Similarly Jihad wasn't even misinterpreted. It was willfully misunderstood and selectively read. The Bible comes out on top (slightly) as opposed to being scriptural, the crusades were not prescribed until 1000 AD, by a Pope, not Christ, an apostle and definitely not a prophet. In other words, it's not theological at all. Neither of them are.

All the Crusades and the media's take on "Jihad" have in common is that they were both products of a misled, over-defensively confused bunch of zealous idiots who thought their scriptures were so inerrant that they ignored ALL of it to protect and enforce its absolute truth that they seemingly didn't bother reading or felt themselves fit to discard.

busman wrote:

I asked for a very specific and litteral reading of the scripture to see which one had a better record on tolerance, human rights etc.. TBH you didn't really address the point made you side stepped it with a lot of writing.


You asked which was the least tolerant - Christianity and Islam. I believe we need to specify what "Christianity" and "Islam" are. Christianity means the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never ordered a crusade, homophobia or any kind of tolerance that I can think of (other than the gray-area one I've already posted). He did the exact opposite. My reading of the Qu'ran is considerably sparse in comparison so I can only speak in terms of verses which I have read that I've had a reason to read (the dramatic or sensational ones) and I have to say there's really no contest in terms of scriptural theology. The Qu'ran is far more intolerant but saying that, I have to say that it is careful to bury it's own poop immediately after its curled one, almost like a vain feline proudly covering its own tracks. And because it does so and does so often justly, I have to say it's not as aggressive as a lot of people think it is and take it for. If you really want to conflate fallible Muslim followers with the key principals of the Islam teaching itself - which is unfair to their faith as a theology and in the same way, unfair to the faith of Christianity, then I wouldn't bother. You can't blame the fresh apples for the cider hangover.

busman wrote:

That was exactly the point and it's not ridiculous at all. I was seeing if christians/muslims could give me actual verses supporting their claims and you have given one that doesn't even pertain to the topic at hand. That would be ridiculous. The things you "can do" in any religion tend to be larger than the things you cannot do hence the living of a pretty normal life for most muslims/christians.


I'm saying if society is to continue benefiting from a past-religious ethical influence within its ideological principals and moral standards, it would do well to adopt Christianity or just keep it in the background and appeal to it in times of crisis like it currently does. It would say Christianity rather than any other (major) religion, as it is by far the most accepting, forgiving, liberal and respectable of the 'serious' religions.

Whether you are asking this for the East or West's benefit is another factor seemingly left unconsidered. What is tolerant for a gay liberal male living under the legacy blanket of formerly heavily Christian society in the States enjoying all its holidays and freedoms might seem utterly repugnant to a pious, devout muslim male living in Iran. So geographically, the question of tolerance changes. I assume you're asking for the west, but one's meat is another man's Halal. If Christianity is more tolerant to Christians than Muslims then that becomes intolerant of Muslims and vice versa because values are values and you can't hold to a belief (nor discard one) and please everyone.

busman wrote:

BS at it's finest, I'll give you examples- The inquisitions, Galileo, Sodomy Laws, ID in schools, the US presidents have ONLY been christian and also legislated bills from this outlook and gone to war because "god told them so"...


...But He didn't!

And that's the cusp of my whole post. God and the Bible and often the Qu'ran (from what I've read) said no such thing. You can't then turn around and pin that on the Bible. That's like blaming JD Salinger for Mark Chapman shooting John Lennon. They are confused members. Nothing more, nothing less. Some aren't. Some (most) are extremely devious and use the sentiment and guilt that comes with religious belief as platitudes to garner popularity and especially in politics, moral justification. It is BS. But it's not the scripture's fault. It's not the religion's fault and its certainly not God or Allah's fault.

busman wrote:

no homosexual marriage (a legal matter not a religious one), molestation of children etc. etc..


Where is this taught in the Bible? The Church is a legacy of St. Peter but we know from the early Popes that we've had more than just a few rotters. They are humans, like the apostles yet not as divinely inspired. They make mistakes. I don't see any kiddie-fiddling smiled on in the Bible.

busman wrote:

ot following the old testament laws is also BS to the max and it's a good attempt to make the religion more cuddly and tolerable to the more passive folks and I'll give you a verse that sets it in stone (and this would be Jesus btw)

Quote:
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.


I know it's Jesus. He's saying that Heaven might away (why? Because it never will?) Matthew uses the exact same line. It's Aramaic prose using a fully-intended impossibility figuratively for drama and theatre. Jesus is also confirming that "The Laws" have not been accomplished yet. He's very clear about that. He was saying that they to be fulfilled once he is crucified and salvation is complete. So in Leviticus was "the law" why then did he call it incomplete? Why did he say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and directly contradict him? Because Leviticus law wasn't complete. It was a precursor to Jesus and Jesus would have to be radical to the saviour or otherwise, why didn't Leviticus just save us all? The argument is silly. If Christ entered a perfect world, he needn't have bothered right? If the law was accomplished without him, why show up? Because it wasn't. The law was the law. Jesus was the saviour. Jesus was the New Testament because the Old one needed a revolutionary. This is Christ. This is Christianity. If you like the Old Testament so much, maybe you should just become a Jew. Christians, on the other hand, follow Christ. Not the Pentateuch, not the bloody unforgiving, intolerable world he was sent to save. I mean let's just be clear about that. Jesus was and is Christianity. While I prefer the Old Testament in literary prose, all you really need to read about it is "Everything sucks so far..." and then bang straight into the New Testament to be a half-decent Christian.

busman wrote:

So if you wish to post, I would first ask you not to disregard what Jesus says and then give me scripture backing your point up, as far as I can see it now your point is completely fallacious.


I can't really translate and give commentary on the whole of the Bible and Qu'ran for you as you seem to misunderstand the little you have read, but wow, what can I tell you, the whole New Testament is about tolerance. It is the tolerance handbook, and for the time and climate it was written in, that's really something to behold. The problem is that there is too many Biblical quotes that show you that is an incredibly tolerant book, from Jesus' relationship and empathy with every downtrodden, leper, prostitute, sinner and peasant he met, to the fact that he selected his ministers from a bunch of fisherman. That women were chosen as the witnesses of his resurrection. That he knew Judas through-and-through and even told him how he'd betray him. That he told Peter he'd deny him thrice. That he fixed the Roman soldier's ear that Peter sliced off who was about to scourge him. That he prayed for their forgiveness on the cross. That he promised the thieves dying next to him paradise. That he constantly preached love and forgiveness throughout his sermons and only once lost his temper when he thought somebody was tearing him a new one (and the money changers were). He understood Pilate's position. He understood Barabas. He rose Lazarus from the dead. He was, all in all, a pretty easy going kind of dude.

And he never says anything to the contrary. Christianity is following Christ. We know it's not done right hardly ever, but when it is done right, it's a magical thing and even half-doing it is better than decrying it or trying to remove it entirely because some of it's practitioners failed. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if it is comparable with Islam, then Islam has its qualities too. Just not as many and a lot more faults. But that's not just my opinion. The scriptures speak for themselves and the populations of religions do too. Neither of them is perfect in either scripture (loss of translation, cultural differences, archaic values or literary styles of differing preferred prose of writers) or their followers, whom, many of which, know what they follow, just not who they follow. But nothing is perfect on Earth. I'd still rather aim to be 1% more like Jesus than 100% anything like His detractors, or the detractors of people who at least try to be as respectable as Him. I mean, let's get it straight. Failing to be more Jesus is better than succeeding to be more like Herod.

And the truth about the complexity of information and data required in animo acids should be taught schools as much as Darwin's theoretical tree of life should be. Actually no, more. Way more. Because it's actually a scientific fact.
busman
Quote:
"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV)


Cut off your own genitals to recieve the kingdom of god? HUH?

Quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)


Once again promoting the evil in the Old Testament as a forever binding law for all of humanity.

Quote:
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


You are not allowed to question Jesus when he says that the Old Testament laws are to be followed and are not allowed to interperet these texts in the way that YOU would see fit, there is no room for interperetation.

Quote:
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)


Jesus talking about disorderly children and promoting their murder.

Quote:
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)


Jesus speaking to the pharoh after he critisizes Jesus for not washing his hands before grubbin, Jesus says well it's ok you didn't murder your disobediant children.

Quote:
“Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine." Matthew 10:34


All he is saying here is that YOU BETTER love Jesus more than any in your family because if you don't he will bring war to you PERSONALLY.

Quote:
20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[a] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” Matthew 11:20-30


Jesus getting pissed because a town wasn't ready for his preaching telling them that they forever will burn in hell(hades) because they have not heeded his message. Basically he is saying "Screw you guys when I'm going home cause you didn't listen to me"

Quote:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[a] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. Matthew 19:29


If you leave your family in neglect and leave everything you are RESPONSIBLE for taking care of (children esspecially) and have made your whole life, you will get a better sitting in heaven because of said actions.

So how is the New Testament the handbook for tolerance again? Yes these are all hand picked and there is peaceful messages in the Bible I understand that, but to say Jesus was always tolerant or preached peace all the time is patently false. So how many more ancient backwards and hateful laws do we need before it is all fufilled?

I asked for specific verse about cildren, women etc., because I wanted to see if there was more verses in the bible or quran that may give specific examples of how to treat such people than ones telling how you SHOULDN'T treat them. Just because a book was the golden example of tolerance at the time (the quran was too) does NOT make it a good example of tolerance at all.

Quote:
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if it is comparable with Islam, then Islam has its qualities too. Just not as many and a lot more faults. But that's not just my opinion. The scriptures speak for themselves and the populations of religions do too.


It is your opinion, and as being a christian you would probably be biased towards christianity... Easy one to figure out. But if you think not, then provide examples about the specific set of criteria I gave, because I can provide the very same but in a negative light and I would love to see the good honestly.

Quote:
And the truth about the complexity of information and data required in animo acids should be taught schools as much as Darwin's theoretical tree of life should be. Actually no, more. Way more. Because it's actually a scientific fact.


What would your "truth" be? Fine tuning is an arguement against god I hope ya know. So tell me what this "truth" is that has been repeatedly tested over and over again using observations made and gathered over time.
nickfyoung
busman wrote:
I'm just positing a simple yet pretty deep question for many people including myself, and that is: AT ITS CORE, the very fundemental teachings, is Christianity less tolerant than Islam? In my opinion it very well can be at times and I would love to see a contrasting view point adequately expressed in a serious and worthwhile manner.

I would love scripture from both sides as well as historical evidence to prove your point. Thanks Very Happy



Christianity is the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. You can substitute the word Bible for God and say God says. What the Bible says, God says. It is God speaking.
If you accept the Bible fundamentally, of course it is more intolerant than Islam. God says, I am a jealous God, thou shalt not.
God forbids homosexuality, forbids women teaching in church, hates sinners, condemns many to hell.
The fundamental teachings in the Bible are very strict and intolerant. There are no options, no watered down possibilities. You want to get into heaven there is only one way, no options. It's my way or no way.
busman
nickfyoung wrote:
Christianity is the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. You can substitute the word Bible for God and say God says. What the Bible says, God says. It is God speaking.
If you accept the Bible fundamentally, of course it is more intolerant than Islam. God says, I am a jealous God, thou shalt not.
God forbids homosexuality, forbids women teaching in church, hates sinners, condemns many to hell.
The fundamental teachings in the Bible are very strict and intolerant. There are no options, no watered down possibilities. You want to get into heaven there is only one way, no options. It's my way or no way.


Ty for this post, at least you are very honest and are not mincing words as @Dialogist has done.
Dialogist
busman wrote:

Cut off your own genitals to recieve the kingdom of god? HUH?


Matthew is not advising self castration, especially in Biblical times where you'd surely bleed to death after cutting your own balls off with a sharp stone. He's talking metaphorically as usual. The "eunuchs by men" are everyone he knows, including Jesus, the Jews. He was a jew, they were all jews and all circumcised. He's asking if you wanting to adopt asexuality. Render your genitalia non-exint. Become asexual and give up the poon. This is where the priest's vow of celibacy comes from. They all have fully functioning genitalia as we've unfortunately found out from some who didn't read:

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matthew 18:6

Where Matthew warns against ANY kind of scandal, wrong doing, pollution or deviancy to the young. The Bible writers all view the raising as children simply. Let them be, and stay pure. They are already pure and Godly:

"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." - Matthew 19:14

The whole point is not how to raise and treat children from Matthew but how to actually BE one. Return to an innocent, children-like state (hence asexuality) and then you're assured the Kingdom of Heaven. Mess with their purity and meet the worst fate.

The Bible warns as harsh as it possibly can against deviation of purity. It does so because that's mainly the literary style and prose of the day (in Aramaic) but also because yes, this is vengeful God. Why would you think GOD sentimental? What a ridiculous proposition. God is God. And you need somebody cracking a whip over you. Everyone does. We've seen what happens when people answer to nobody and nothing: "Do what thou wilt"? BLAH

busman wrote:

Once again promoting the evil in the Old Testament as a forever binding law for all of humanity.


I've already told you that can't fulfil something that is already complete and something is already fulfilled then it doesn't need fixing. Jesus fulfilled the prophets. All of them. He was clear to contradict the militant ones and say exactly how, why and where. There's no evil in Jesus' words. What a remarkably ignorant thing to say. Even if Jesus' words were attributed, we're talking about somebody writing a messiah. Several men, they are not going to write that nonsense and shoot themselves in the foot.

busman wrote:

You are not allowed to question Jesus when he says that the Old Testament laws are to be followed and are not allowed to interperet these texts in the way that YOU would see fit, there is no room for interperetation.


There's no personal interoperation needed. Leviticus was cruel. He was supposed to be. He was Jew administering laws to Jewish priests. Jesus wasn't hated by the jews for agreeing with him. They didn't crucify Jesus because of excellent Judeo people-pleasing. Everything is in context. Context. Leviticus is as important, instrumental and VITAL as Judas is. Facilitators of salvation, each and every one of them.

busman wrote:

Jesus talking about disorderly children and promoting their murder.


busman wrote:

Jesus speaking to the pharoh after he critisizes Jesus for not washing his hands before grubbin, Jesus says well it's ok you didn't murder your disobediant children.


In ye olde Aramaic prose again. I didn't see him or any of his practitioners murdering children. Actually, in modern times, I think you're confused about who is linking arms outside the abortion clinics. Amusing, we should hear this complaint from a non-christian. Islam actually still murders its own children, lawfully in some countries. Christianity never has and never will. Theologically, dogmatically or actually. What's your point here? That Islam is more tolerant? Not doing great at that are you? Some guy had his hand cut off yesterday in the middle east for stealing a motorbike. Doesn't happen in Christendom I'm afraid.

busman wrote:

All he is saying here is that YOU BETTER love Jesus more than any in your family because if you don't he will bring war to you PERSONALLY.


You need to read up on your ones and twos. "The sword" is a cliche Christian Biblical metaphor for "Truth" (this is well known and you can check it out) The double-edged sword ect. He's no war monger. Just a truth-monger.

busman wrote:

Jesus getting pissed because a town wasn't ready for his preaching telling them that they forever will burn in hell(hades) because they have not heeded his message. Basically he is saying "Screw you guys when I'm going home cause you didn't listen to me"


Comparatively, the town is worse than SODOM because it was given greater and dwindled away more. Do the math.

busman wrote:

If you leave your family in neglect and leave everything you are RESPONSIBLE for taking care of (children esspecially) and have made your whole life, you will get a better sitting in heaven because of said actions.


"My people's kindgom is not of this world"

^Can't stress how many times that is reiterated by Jesus. Earthly, worldly "by men" things are redundant and always described as such. Again with the metaphorically emphasised prose too. I think you need to read the Bible properly. I think you're reading it like an extension of the Qu'ran. It's not. That was written literally violently. The Bible actually had poetic, talented, divinely inspired pensmiths writing that. That's why it's the most famous, revered, important and owned book in the entire history of the world.

Furthermore, every one of your complaints are not misinterpreted by Christians, only ignored when some shouldn't be. Christianity never acts on these things and it was never dogma and never practice because they understand how to read the Book. The context and chronology and purpose of the testaments. They understand the WHOLE thing as a complete book and story. They don't cherry-pick verses off the internet. They get it.

That's why it's not Islam, literally injuring, maiming and killing in the name of Allah to this very day (LAWFULLY). And even doing so in the west where it isn't lawful. This is the more tolerant religion?

Islam has more instructions of violence and intolerance and it's followers act them out. The bible has no literal ones and it's followers act out none of them. This is obvious. It is also common knowledge. I do suggest you read the Bible properly or just with the grain of salt I read the Qu'ran with - You might like it.


The truth of "ID" is for another thread. I think the facts of complexity, sequencing and requirements for the early stages of even the simple cell should be taught to children. Everything should be laid on the table. Darwin, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, everything. Tell them everything we know and everything we believe (and never conflate the two like we currently do). Everyone has a right to all of the information to decide for themselves.
busman
Dialogist wrote:
Matthew is not advising self castration, especially in Biblical times where you'd surely bleed to death after cutting your own balls off with a sharp stone. He's talking metaphorically as usual. The "eunuchs by men" are everyone he knows, including Jesus, the Jews. He was a jew, they were all jews and all circumcised. He's asking if you wanting to adopt asexuality. Render your genitalia non-exint. Become asexual and give up the poon. This is where the priest's vow of celibacy comes from. They all have fully functioning genitalia as we've unfortunately found out from some who didn't read:


That would be YOUR interpertation, I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists of any religion would say that you were interperating that in the way you see fit and the fact that eunuch DOES NOT and NEVER will mean what you are saying it will. Unless Jesus spoke in metephors to confuse I would say this verse was pretty clear.

Dialogist wrote:
"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matthew 18:6

Where Matthew warns against ANY kind of scandal, wrong doing, pollution or deviancy to the young. The Bible writers all view the raising as children simply. Let them be, and stay pure. They are already pure and Godly:

"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." - Matthew 19:14

The whole point is not how to raise and treat children from Matthew but how to actually BE one. Return to an innocent, children-like state (hence asexuality) and then you're assured the Kingdom of Heaven. Mess with their purity and meet the worst fate.


Then where is a verse on how to treat children? You cannot be completely innocent and pure and raise a self-sufficient child, it doesn't work like that. The world is f*d up and you need those experiences to be able to raise your child accordingly. Once again this is YOUR personal interperation, and YOUR interperation leaves much to be desired I might add.

Dialogist wrote:
The Bible warns as harsh as it possibly can against deviation of purity. It does so because that's mainly the literary style and prose of the day (in Aramaic) but also because yes, this is vengeful God. Why would you think GOD sentimental? What a ridiculous proposition. God is God. And you need somebody cracking a whip over you. Everyone does. We've seen what happens when people answer to nobody and nothing: "Do what thou wilt"? BLAH


So then God is not sentimental right? But he is vengeful? Those are contradictions, one cannot have vengance without a sentiment to the ones they are vengeful too i.e a reason to be vengeful cannot be carried out without sentiment or else there would be no reason for the vengance. Secondly God HAS to be sentimental if he "loves" all of his children. Your point falls in upon itself sir.

Dialogist wrote:
I've already told you that can't fulfil something that is already complete and something is already fulfilled then it doesn't need fixing. Jesus fulfilled the prophets. All of them. He was clear to contradict the militant ones and say exactly how, why and where. There's no evil in Jesus' words. What a remarkably ignorant thing to say. Even if Jesus' words were attributed, we're talking about somebody writing a messiah. Several men, they are not going to write that nonsense and shoot themselves in the foot.


Provide scripture on where he SPECIFICALLY contradicts exactly what I have posted and we'll talk until then your are suppositioning YOUR interperatation of what he said and once again I think a bible litteralist would again be at odds with what you are saying, unless again Jesus spoke to confuse the masses or the people who wrote these books did. One of the two.

Dialogist wrote:
There's no personal interoperation needed. Leviticus was cruel. He was supposed to be. He was Jew administering laws to Jewish priests. Jesus wasn't hated by the jews for agreeing with him. They didn't crucify Jesus because of excellent Judeo people-pleasing. Everything is in context. Context. Leviticus is as important, instrumental and VITAL as Judas is. Facilitators of salvation, each and every one of them.


So Jesus DID AGREE with Leviticus? Then wow... All your other posts about the tolerance in his message have become null and void. Also, Leviticus as a facilitator of salvation? Wtf? Really, the man told you that you couldn't eat shellfish and that is somehow supposed to garner salvation with your "loving" god? How does that make any sense? What about the people that only have access to the food Leviticus specifically denies? Are they supposed to starve then?


busman wrote:

Jesus talking about disorderly children and promoting their murder.


busman wrote:

Jesus speaking to the pharoh after he critisizes Jesus for not washing his hands before grubbin, Jesus says well it's ok you didn't murder your disobediant children.


Dialogist wrote:
In ye olde Aramaic prose again. I didn't see him or any of his practitioners murdering children. Actually, in modern times, I think you're confused about who is linking arms outside the abortion clinics. Amusing, we should hear this complaint from a non-christian. Islam actually still murders its own children, lawfully in some countries. Christianity never has and never will. Theologically, dogmatically or actually. What's your point here? That Islam is more tolerant? Not doing great at that are you? Some guy had his hand cut off yesterday in the middle east for stealing a motorbike. Doesn't happen in Christendom I'm afraid.


Doesn't matter what happens IN PRACTICE, it matters what was said sir. Your getting the two confused AGAIN. What Islam does IN PRACTICE has nothing to do with Christianity and has nothing to do if scripturally they are both INSANELY violent. Theologically the study of what Jesus said would come to the same conclusion, that with a strict interperatation (which is all Jesus allows I might add) of what he said, you should murder unruly children, it's really very simple. Again what happens in Islamic countrys under their "man-made" laws has NOTHING to say of Christianity's "god-ordained" laws. You seem to be getting that concept mixed up as well.

Dialogist wrote:
You need to read up on your ones and twos. "The sword" is a cliche Christian Biblical metaphor for "Truth" (this is well known and you can check it out) The double-edged sword ect. He's no war monger. Just a truth-monger.


Why did Jesus speak in so many metaphors if not to obsfucate the path to salvation for those who read his word with a litteral meaning like he himself had wished?

Dialogist wrote:
Comparatively, the town is worse than SODOM because it was given greater and dwindled away more. Do the math.


So still very facist in the message. No room for error, no room to move, you don't listen once you go to hell. Only one chance right?

Dialogist wrote:
"My people's kindgom is not of this world"

^Can't stress how many times that is reiterated by Jesus. Earthly, worldly "by men" things are redundant and always described as such. Again with the metaphorically emphasised prose too. I think you need to read the Bible properly. I think you're reading it like an extension of the Qu'ran. It's not. That was written literally violently. The Bible actually had poetic, talented, divinely inspired pensmiths writing that. That's why it's the most famous, revered, important and owned book in the entire history of the world.

Furthermore, every one of your complaints are not misinterpreted by Christians, only ignored when some shouldn't be. Christianity never acts on these things and it was never dogma and never practice because they understand how to read the Book. The context and chronology and purpose of the testaments. They understand the WHOLE thing as a complete book and story. They don't cherry-pick verses off the internet. They get it.


First off, who are you to say I AM reading the Bible wrong? Do YOU have the only method for reading the Bible, because I'm pretty sure Jesus said there was NO room for interperatation and that's all you have been doing this whole time. Btw the Bible was pretty litteraly damn violently written as well, for you to say it's not is a complete joke. The Bible is ONE OF the most important books in the world because it was FORCIBLY shoved down the throats of every indiginous peoples in the world who had been unconverted at the moment of western Europe meeting them i.e. the norse, the native americans, the native south americans, the filipinos, Eygpt (used to be CHristian) etc. etc.. Christianity was FORCIBLY spread at the edge of a sword/gunbarrel AND FORCED to be the most imporatant book in these peoples lives because they were NOT ALLOWED to read anything from their own culture because that was seen as blasphemy. To tell this cuddly message is a complete and AWFUL rewrite of history and a laughable atempt at making the religion seem more important than it actual is/was.

Dialogist wrote:
That's why it's not Islam, literally injuring, maiming and killing in the name of Allah to this very day (LAWFULLY). And even doing so in the west where it isn't lawful. This is the more tolerant religion?

Islam has more instructions of violence and intolerance and it's followers act them out. The bible has no literal ones and it's followers act out none of them. This is obvious. It is also common knowledge. I do suggest you read the Bible properly or just with the grain of salt I read the Qu'ran with - You might like it.


This is complete logical fallacy. First off, many churchs in the world read the Bible VERY LITTERALY and would say that you AGAIIIIINNNN are suppositioning what YOU want the Bible to mean therefor not common knowledge among fundamentalist Christians. Secondly, I would take both books with a grain of salt and anyway, way to insult the validity of a religion that is growing FAR FASTER than Christianity and has had JUST AS LARGE as of world impact (albeit not very good). You have just insulted close to 1.5 BILLION people. Enjoy your hypocrisy much sir?


Dialogist wrote:
The truth of "ID" is for another thread. I think the facts of complexity, sequencing and requirements for the early stages of even the simple cell should be taught to children. Everything should be laid on the table. Darwin, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, everything. Tell them everything we know and everything we believe (and never conflate the two like we currently do). Everyone has a right to all of the information to decide for themselves.


That is completely fine, IN A PHILOSOPHY CLASS not a science one. ID IS NOT science and has NO RIGHT to be allowed or introduced into SCIENCE class.
nickfyoung
You guys can certainly get yourselves into a debate over the Bible. I guess that is nothing new, it has been the cause of much heated debate since day one. Even today amongst Christians and theologians there is much debate as to what it says and what it means.

Sure the Old Testament was pretty gory with lots of lovely gory stories. Lots of lovely stories not so gory too. It is a complete package. I like that book that gives you the sexual instruction on how to love your lady.

God instructed His people to completely annihilate neighboring countries and kill them all, men, women and children but their was a purpose in it. David had to cut off bits of the genitals of all those he killed in war and bring them back as proof of his conquests. That same guy, when he was king fancied another mans wife when she was having a bath on a roof top. You can imagine him up there on his roof with a telescope. When he had this woman he then arranged to have her husband killed so he wouldn't find out. All very human.

In all these gory stories there is complete instruction to live a healthy life. The shell fish you mentioned shouldn't be eaten because they are bottom feaders and eat rubbish. We all know that the quickest way to get food poisoning is to order oysters in a restaurant. God even said at one point when you poop make sure you dig a hole and cover it over so I don't walk in it. Basic hygiene. He taught that kids have to be disciplined with a rod if necessary and all that has been removed today and we are suffering the consequences.

Then we talk about Jesus in the New Testament. Same guy, Same God who has been around since dot. God and Jesus are the same. He was there at creation and right through the Old Testament. That is the difference. Christianity is the only religion with an empty grave. He said I come now to fulfill my rules of old. Same God. Can't confuse the two.

Sorry to go on so.
Dialogist
busman wrote:

That would be YOUR interpertation


As opposed to yours? I'm sorry I read it in the traditional and popularly understood sense, as evidenced by follower's actions, theology, Biblical scholarly commentary, dogma and the Catacism of the Roman Catholic Church and how they all prove through their peaceful, charitable, placid and benevolent nature and teachings that the only one(s) who seem to misinterpret the Bible are non-christians? The irony. The irony of how they became non-christians (anti-christian) vs the vast majority of them being raised catholic by the same values they were incapable of aspiring to? This is remarkable how all these institutions (the only ones that anyone takes seriously) all concur on one reading of the Bible that concurs with my 'interpretation' and opposes yours? I thought you said that Jesus said that I was only allowed to read the Bible in the way that you see it?

George Bernard Shaw once had a great quote. He said, "Better see rightly on a pound a week than squint on a million." He's talking about the same perspective you squint on the Bible with. How can you possibly see any positives in when you're already squinting at it through the eyes of hatred and resentment? This also runs parallel with the Sodom analogy earlier. You lose more by squandering more. This also runs parallel with the parable of The Widow’s Mite in Mark 12:41-44 (it is a reoccurring literary 'twist' that the Bible writers used to do regularly by creating a seemingly-bad situation, where somebody seems like a crappy person, and then redeem them and teach how and why this became so). Mark did it by making the peasant woman a skinflint and cheap for only giving a penny and then redeemed her as righteous with the punch line, "It was all she had". This is what is intended by the Sodom comparison and < Vs >. It is a theme that appears often. It also inspired the "Emperor's New Clothes" tale from folklore. That uses the exact same literary device.

This is why I'm advising that you read the whole Book and not just cherry-pick it and why I am emphasising that everything is in context. It is a simple book to the simple and an absolute brain rattler to those who read with seasoned eyes. I hope I'm not being patronising with Courtier's replies. I'm saying you're reading it like an atheist. You're only going to get a BS vanishing point out of a BS perspective. Read it like a scholar. It will unravel like a magic-eye illusion.

busman wrote:

Then where is a verse on how to treat children? You cannot be completely innocent and pure and raise a self-sufficient child, it doesn't work like that. The world is f*d up and you need those experiences to be able to raise your child accordingly. Once again this is YOUR personal interperation, and YOUR interperation leaves much to be desired I might add.


No, you are wilfully misunderstanding me on purpose. I'm saying they teach leave a child alone in his purity until he's not a child, which by then he'll be impure anyway. Pollution does not have to be less clean or more clean than other pollution to not pollute the child. This is not about the adult's attributes or capabilities, it's about letting the child keep theirs, and also, the adults are advised to attempt to emulate the child's nature. Mainly it is that children are pure, don't pollute them with nonsense because they are geniuses and it is you, child-minder, who is the one who needs minding. Again, with the 'twist' see? This is how you read it.

busman wrote:

So then God is not sentimental right? But he is vengeful? Those are contradictions


YAY! Now you're getting the hang of it! God is a contradiction, a paradox and therefore a perfect truth. This is exactly right. I'm glad you've finally joined us! Smile

busman wrote:

one cannot have vengance without a sentiment to the ones they are vengeful too i.e a reason to be vengeful cannot be carried out without sentiment or else there would be no reason for the vengance. Secondly God HAS to be sentimental if he "loves" all of his children. Your point falls in upon itself sir.


a God, you're accepting (for the sake of your argument) who doesn't exist outside of space time, chronology, causality and logic itself: might adhere to this earthly you've decided to later constrict Him by, but why now? I'm talking about GOD (Yahweh, Elo, Allah, Buddha etc, whatever your fancy) as Creator of Heaven (Mecca, Nirvana etc) and Earth so if you hold to any of them (or just for the sake of argument) why restrict that being paradoxically? OH... I see. Wow, you're getting great at this! He could create the beginning of time as eternal infinite being and still make a stone that He couldn't lift? Excellent.

My point doesn't fail. By the logic of Church's teaching, God's nature is love. That nature doesn't require sentiment to love everyone. That is the nature itself. That nature doesn't require sentiment to punish failure either. If he loves everyone, why punish anyone? I don't know. It's one of the great riddles. Even The Problem of Evil doesn't come close to it. If you figure it out, let me know. My take on it is from an old Irish Priest's joke: "God loves everyone, but he prefers Catholics".

busman wrote:

Provide scripture on where he SPECIFICALLY contradicts exactly what I have posted



A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:27 (Old Testament)

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." - Jesus in John 8:7 (New Testament)

Blatant polemic shift and forceful contradiction. No, Jesus says, none of you hypocrites are throwing shit at shit. So...

busman wrote:

Jesus DID AGREE with Leviticus?


I really don't think he did, do you? Did Jesus Fulfil the prophets? Yes, to the brim. You ask me why Leviticus is so critical to the story of Jesus? This is why. This is precisely why the Old Testament stands proudly as a contextual piece of historical literature. As a vital piece of historicity concerning the New Testament. You see why, right? I don't have spell it out? It's like Star Wars without Darth Vader, if that makes it any clearer? Martin Luther King without race problems. Gandhi without the Indian Raj. Nelson Mandella without apartheid. John Lennon without crap music. etc

busman wrote:

Doesn't matter what happens IN PRACTICE


Oh, but it does. I'd buy L. Ron Hubbard's silly book if Scientologists were all massive on charity and pro-life. I'd think, they are all peace loving and awesome. What have they been smoking? Or in the very least: How come they all follow a certain understanding of a Book and do charity, preach about loving thy neighbour, forgiveness, humility and acceptance etc and it's the same book that I read but I read nothing but hatred in it? Wow, I dunno. Maybe independent testimony and mutual witness verdict proves that I'm the one who's wrong. Maybe you are wrong. Maybe (definitely) you're reading it wrong because some laughable, pantomine horse's arse like Sam Harris told you to before he put on his clown shoes and wrote another a little funny book about how his catholic parents neglected him (probably to preserve his purity right? lol). It matters how practitioners practice the Book because that tells you what the book is about (the actual meaning), and let's face it, you haven't even read it! LOL. A triple bypass operation cannot be performed from instructions from the back of cereal packet. That's why the practised work is telling of the instructional documentation.

busman wrote:

What Islam does IN PRACTICE has nothing to do with Christianity and has nothing to do if scripturally they are both INSANELY violent.


They are not both insanely violent. The Qu'ran is violent and the Old Testamant are both violent. Christianity is non-violent. Christianity follows the ministry of Jesus Christ (New Testament) How many times do I have to spell this out for you? Christianity is non-violent (as you know) and Islam is violent (as you know). Both religious scriptures have violent parts. One is in a before-and-after context (and Christianity only follows the after and the precursors to bringing about the After Job, Moses, the bloodline of David and John the Baptist etc are respected and holy, but not God! Christianity only kneels to HE) Islam still likes it's violence, it sent no revolutionary to alter the violence, no prince of peace and still acts (although wrongly) on what it believes Allah prescribes, and YES it does prefer to stone impure women in the street like Leviticus said and not be humble, exercise empathy with the sinner and admit your own shortcomings as a sinner yourself). Your thread asks specifically "Is Christianity less tolerant than Islam" and I'm telling you: Emphatically, NO!

busman wrote:

Theologically the study of what Jesus said would come to the same conclusion, that with a strict interperatation (which is all Jesus allows I might add) of what he said


So why do you think yours is correct when everyone who is authority on these matters disagrees with you and yet yours is correct: The Christian Nazi party hell bent on world domination:

busman wrote:

it was FORCIBLY shoved down the throats of every indiginous peoples in the world who had been unconverted at the moment of western Europe meeting them i.e. the norse, the native americans, the native south americans, the filipinos, Eygpt (used to be CHristian) etc. etc.. Christianity was FORCIBLY spread at the edge of a sword/gunbarrel AND FORCED to be the most imporatant book in these peoples lives because they were NOT ALLOWED to read anything from their own culture because that was seen as blasphemy.


LOL! It's like they started slavery just to spread Christianity! The 4 apostles, that is, who spoke no other languages, who travelled from Coast to coast, speaking in tongues, getting their asses kicked out of everywhere, and finally beheaded and executed, those Nazi's convinced Constantine to sign the Edict? Those Nazis invaded William Wilferforce's British offices and convinced him to stop slavery? Is that right? I don't know who your sources are, but I wouldn't hire them make paper weights, because there's absolutely no weight in this BS! It's like how much money, machine, boat and manpower did the BRITISH EMPIRE really invest in re-appropriating and 'culturising' (enslaving) the third worlds to get the message of Christendom out there? Was that the purpose? Honest? It wasn't about crops, plantations, imports, exports and overall status, hubris and ego generally? Because it seems like a lot of expense and effort to go to for simply...

Quote:

...making the religion seem more important than it actual is/was.


Do also add History to your "To Read:" list, please.

busman wrote:

This is complete logical fallacy. First off, many churchs in the world read the Bible VERY LITTERALY


And they are all anti-abortion and extreme Pro-Life campaigners. So then, the question arises, yet again: If they are reading the Bible LITERALLY and NOT murdering their disobedient children and actually cringe at the idea of any life, whether born, terminal or unborn being slaughtered, then please tell me: Who ISN'T reading the Bible literally? Them or YOU. Actions speak louder than words. They can't read the Bible literally and not murder children right? Which is it to be? Is the Bible evil and you've read it right? Or is the Bible ultra caring and you've read it horribly wrong? Measure it by those who "read it literally", OK? Afterall, Jesus said Himself, you can only read it literally. Is that a bullethole in your foot?

busman wrote:

way to insult the validity of a religion that is growing FAR FASTER than Christianity and has had JUST AS LARGE as of world impact (albeit not very good). You have just insulted close to 1.5 BILLION people. Enjoy your hypocrisy much sir?


Would you care to name this mysterious religion? Is it really a religion or one you've just made up?

busman wrote:

That is completely fine, IN A PHILOSOPHY CLASS not a science one. ID IS NOT science and has NO RIGHT to be allowed or introduced into SCIENCE class.


Biology isn't science? Wow. Darwinism must be really be struggling lately. Is this what it's come to?



How is that not scientific enough for you? Because you watch it and think, wow, there's no chance in a billion years that could evolve, accidentally or even purpose. Is that why? Well I'm sorry, but that's biology. That's science as we know it.

Nobody mentions God. Nobody needs to. And Darwin is more philosophical than this because you can't observe what you can't see. And since you can't see 5 million years happening, I guess that's a theory, right? The above is not a theory, the above is a scientific fact. Now, one of them has to be right. The theory of Natural selection, or whatever laid out the floor plan and complex self-dependant information sequencing for the process above from parts (incredibly complex in information and mechanics and sequencing within themselves) which previously didn't exist. This is how Life originally had to have began. So which is it? Natural selection which only discards attributes which are not beneficial to survival or this, which seems like "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." - Hoyle ? I think we know which seems like the "Inference to the best explanation" - Darwin. So why isn't this taught in schools? Because Leviticus runs the schools, Sir. And we'll crucify anyone who says anything otherwise. We'll call them "a creationist". Point is, nobody needs to even mention the agent. It could be an alien, it could be Mother Nature/Father Time, it could be the man in the moon. It doesn't matter who or what. All that matters is IS. It IS this way. Teach that it at least IS this way. If the students decide an intellect did it, then I'm sorry, but that's a perfectly rational assumption. My care is not what they decide. I just want the info on the table and I want it accompanied by a cliff note that says "This scientific fact makes first instance of natural selection absolutely impossible". There. A solid education most have to find for themselves after years of BS prince and toad stories.
busman
I will get back to this when I have the time. I don't hate the Bible at all. I just don't beilieve in it because of the paradoxes. Secondly I'm not interperating anything, just reading AS IS and letting that speak for itself. Thirdly IT DOESN'T MATTER about what happens IN PRACTICE, this question was specifically about scripture hence why followers are null and void in this argument.

Quote:
I'm saying they teach leave a child alone in his purity until he's not a child, which by then he'll be impure anyway.


I didn't willfully misunderstand you, I simply misunderstood you. Were good.

And btw Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the religion of close to 1.5 billion people. I didn't make that up, those are facts. Like I said I'll come back with more later.
Dialogist
busman wrote:
I will get back to this when I have the time. I don't hate the Bible at all. I just don't beilieve in it because of the paradoxes.


You know it has to ring of absurd and illogical truth to be a paradox right? The whole faith is built upon paradoxes. That's what's so intriguing about it. The only real truth is the one that devours itself. There is nothing on this earth or out of it that is unequivocally true without it being some kind of paradox and I can prove that because it is unequivocally true and only true in the sense that it isn't false, therefore insufficient to qualify for false, hence limited and nothing unequivocally true is limited. So it is false in its truth and true in its falsehood as it truly falsifies its own falsehood so therefore it is a paradox.

busman wrote:

Secondly I'm not interperating anything, just reading AS IS and letting that speak for itself.


But you can't just dive in wherever you please and take "The sword" (truth) as a literal weapon of savagery and violence, as you have done. I do understand that it is the literal reading, but I am not leading you down the garden path to score a point. The Sword is a well known symbol. This is know (by any layman) from a complete reading of the Books as a whole:

So when you see a verse like,

Psalm 45:3 wrote:

Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendor and majesty


It's not ordering a crusade. It speaking how it usually speaks:

Psalm 149:6 wrote:

May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands,


From:

Hebrews 4:12 wrote:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.


And the Aramaic prose I've already alluded to is always violent, vehement and hyperbole. That is how they emphasise everything. Death. Blood. Wrath. Vengeful. Sword. They want you to take heed.

busman wrote:

Thirdly IT DOESN'T MATTER about what happens IN PRACTICE, this question was specifically about scripture hence why followers are null and void in this argument.


But your title and poll and question is "Is Christianity less tolerant than Islam?" Christianity is not The Bible. "Christianity" is the collective following of Christ. You can't have Christianity without followers. Likewise, "Islam" is not the Qu'ran. It is the people who adhere to it. So you asked which was less tolerant and I told you. Now you're stipulating that you meant something you never originally stipulated (something else entirely, due to the Bible believed to be the exact word of God and what we know about the 7 language translations, amendments, archaic references, apocrypha, loss of translation etc and also the tendency for human error). But the thing is, even if you did originally mean scripture only, the answer is still exactly the same. The Qu'ran condones murder. The Bible post-Jesus does not. And again, then you say "scripture only" but the scripture is indicative of the following (even pre-following) because it is compiled in terms of context and the context of Christianity is the birth of the messiah who challenged a lot of old belief systems, moral standards and laws which He was supposed to be a follower of Himself. So if Christianity is the following (which it is, because it can't be defined any other way, by anyone because you need humans) then the tenets of the scripture forming Christianity owe a debt to the devised method of understanding and valuing them. In order, context and meaning. Semantics and syntax, semiotics and language. This is why the dichotomy of followed and follower are mutually dependent (and paradoxically) exclusive but not why the general definition of Marxism is the legacy of Marx and a Marxist is somebody who follows Marx. That's just obvious.


Quote:

And btw Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the religion of close to 1.5 billion people. I didn't make that up, those are facts. Like I said I'll come back with more later.


I know the figures vary drastically from census to census so I won't question you because they only go up from 1.2 billion and sometimes double that. My contention is simply that Islam is not the fastest growing religion (in America - which is the full proposition). My contention is that Mormonism is. Not just because Mitt Romley but also because of the vast amount of social networking they are now doing. I recently read a post on a Catholic site asking if we (Catholics) were out of touch and losing the next generation by being technophobes (compared to the Mormons). I said, no. People still come to us and we don't have to go door to door in MIB uniforms recruiting and we certainly don't need a twitter account. The reason Catholicism is the target of the majority of religious vitriol and iconoclast diatribe is because it is the biggest and best. "Don't read what they say about you," said Warhol, "Just measure it in inches".
loveandormoney
busman wrote:
I'm just positing a simple yet pretty deep question for many people including myself, and that is: AT ITS CORE, the very fundemental teachings, is Christianity less tolerant than Islam? In my opinion it very well can be at times and I would love to see a contrasting view point adequately expressed in a serious and worthwhile manner.

I would love scripture from both sides as well as historical evidence to prove your point. Thanks Very Happy


Sorry, this is wrong.

Good morning.
Pontius Pilatus is tolerant.
But Jesus never is or Jesus never was tolerant.

The typical Atheist is tolerant.

I hope, You argue against me.
mqmpakistani
I have not studied enough of bible and other topics about christianity.

But I know Islamic Texts much better (as I am myself a Muslim).


We should also divide the discussion into two parts (i.e. what the religious texts say, and how the followers behave).

For example, I have seen a Huge Huge difference of behaviour among the Practicing Muslims.

The majority of Pakistanies say they are Muslims. But they have not gone to the extent of extremism and do recognise Humanity. But then we also have 10-20% Taliban supporters, who are nowhere close to the level of humanity.

Following is an example of how low Taliban like Muslims have gone.


Warning: Extreme Extreme Graphic

http://www.shaheedfoundation.org/image/Para19june08/pict12.jpg



The role of the Religious Texts in becoming Extreme


Western people only look for Quran.

But Quran is a small book. There are hundreds of times more religious text preserved in form of "Prophet Traditions". Actually, this is also not the end, but then comes the lives of the "Companions" of the Prophet and their actions and saying are also considered Religious Texts upon which one has to act upon with closed eyes.

Yes, closed eyes is the message of Mullahs (Islamic priests).

Mullahs say, if we accept that there exists a "God", then it is enough for us. After that we have no right to question the Islamic Sharia Rulings, or Quran, Prophetic traditions, acts of companions etc.


In brief, Mullahs are very very very successful in Brainwashing the normal people in name of Religion. If you are a Muslim and believe in a "God", then you have absolutely no chance to challenge the Mullahs.

Unfortunately, MEDIA has become the Mullahs greatest weapon. This is really unfortunate. Media is causing a lot of problems in Islamic World today and a cause of rapid conversion towards extremism of the Islamic societies.
deanhills
That photo doesn't make sense to me. No blood marks or scratches on the limbs. They seem to be very pale whereas the faces seem to be very dark. I'm sorry, doesn't look authentic to me at all.
mqmpakistani
deanhills wrote:
That photo doesn't make sense to me. No blood marks or scratches on the limbs. They seem to be very pale whereas the faces seem to be very dark. I'm sorry, doesn't look authentic to me at all.


I am afraid that this Photo is 100% authentic and correct. Several Websites host this photo.

Actually, this is universal truth about Taliban how they are slaughtering the living people (Pakistani soldiers and other civilians who oppose them).

You should not have a single doubt about butchery of Taliban and about this photo. It is unfortunate, but it is also true.
mqmpakistani
deanhills wrote:
That photo doesn't make sense to me. No blood marks or scratches on the limbs. They seem to be very pale whereas the faces seem to be very dark. I'm sorry, doesn't look authentic to me at all.


Please also note that according to Muslim rituals of funeral, it is obligatory to wash the dead body before burial.
That is why you are unable to see the blood anywhere any more.
Taliban killed these people and then sent their body parts to the their families. There they were washed, and this photo was taken just before their burial.
Dialogist
Quote:
this photo was taken just before their burial.


It's beautiful, thank you for sharing. Now can we replace it with a link with a NSFW disclaimer or something?
nickfyoung
It is a very gory picture. Reminds me a bit of the massacre in the Philippines a couple of years back. There were lots of gory photos of that too.

What is it with these people. Are the Taliban Muslim albeit extreme.
deanhills
loveandormoney wrote:
The typical Atheist is tolerant.
I don't agree. Think Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson gives a good illustration below of how tolerant they are. Not that Christians are tolerant either - I just don't think one should stereotype to that extent. I'd go as far to say that a "typical" atheist is "tolerant" statement is intolerant of those who are not typically atheist.
mqmpakistani
Dialogist wrote:
Quote:
this photo was taken just before their burial.


It's beautiful, thank you for sharing. Now can we replace it with a link with a NSFW disclaimer or something?


Sorry dear, I have removed it.

We saw every day such things happening in Pakistan. Therefore, we are now somewhat used to it.
mqmpakistani
nickfyoung wrote:
It is a very gory picture. Reminds me a bit of the massacre in the Philippines a couple of years back. There were lots of gory photos of that too.

What is it with these people. Are the Taliban Muslim albeit extreme.


Yes, Taliban are Muslims.

And yes, they are top class extremists.

Unfortunately, whole Muslim world is turning towards this extremism.

It started with the Wahabi (Saudi) version of Islam, and now spreading in all Muslim countries.

Their Agenda in simple words:

... Spread Islam through sword .... and any one who resists, he should be beheaded.


Sooner or later, these extremist Muslims will overcome liberal Muslims (who are already very weak in front of extremists and could not fight any war against the extremists).


And it is unfortunate, but reality, that sooner or later these extremist Muslims will also have a war with Europe and all other non Muslim countries. I am not exaggerating, but only telling you the reality as I know these Extremist Muslims, their ideology, their aims, their hatred for the WEST.....
Dialogist
mqmpakistani wrote:

Sorry dear, I have removed it.

We saw every day such things happening in Pakistan. Therefore, we are now somewhat used to it.


Well that's great, but when I'm eating a plate of sausages, I'm not really looking to be seeing mutilated human corpses.

I am actually supposed to report stuff like that (read TOS), rather than backseat moderate like I did do. So I risked getting myself into trouble on your behalf to stop you getting into trouble. So you don't need to patronize me with "dear".
mqmpakistani
Dialogist wrote:

Well that's great, but when I'm eating a plate of sausages, I'm not really looking to be seeing mutilated human corpses.

I am actually supposed to report stuff like that (read TOS), rather than backseat moderate like I did do. So I risked getting myself into trouble on your behalf to stop you getting into trouble. So you don't need to patronize me with "dear".


I am little unaware of the manners of western culture and English language. Thanks for pointing out that this is not considered a good form of addressing. And also thanks for telling me about the TOS which I didn't read before.
deanhills
mqmpakistani wrote:
I am little unaware of the manners of western culture and English language. Thanks for pointing out that this is not considered a good form of addressing. And also thanks for telling me about the TOS which I didn't read before.
Nothing wrong with your English, you write well. Probably better than I do. And you are right of course, Muslim extremists are a serious problem. As are any other extremists in this world, including that strange guy (Anders Behring Breivik) who went on a killing spree in Norway. I wonder how many other bored Europeans are plotting and planning as Breivik has done. I'd say however that Western Intelligence Services are very much aware of both versions of extremists.
Dialogist
mqmpakistani wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

Well that's great, but when I'm eating a plate of sausages, I'm not really looking to be seeing mutilated human corpses.

I am actually supposed to report stuff like that (read TOS), rather than backseat moderate like I did do. So I risked getting myself into trouble on your behalf to stop you getting into trouble. So you don't need to patronize me with "dear".


I am little unaware of the manners of western culture and English language. Thanks for pointing out that this is not considered a good form of addressing. And also thanks for telling me about the TOS which I didn't read before.


I've only read it because I've been forcefully linked to it about 100 times Very Happy
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
mqmpakistani wrote:
I am little unaware of the manners of western culture and English language. Thanks for pointing out that this is not considered a good form of addressing. And also thanks for telling me about the TOS which I didn't read before.
Nothing wrong with your English, you write well. Probably better than I do. And you are right of course, Muslim extremists are a serious problem. As are any other extremists in this world, including that strange guy (Anders Behring Breivik) who went on a killing spree in Norway. I wonder how many other bored Europeans are plotting and planning as Breivik has done. I'd say however that Western Intelligence Services are very much aware of both versions of extremists.


I would say that there's an institutionalized racism which suspects the Muslim more than it suspects the aryan though, if I'm being honest. Naturally, if whitey pings their radar on consecutive occasions, he's going to stand out. However, regardless of his views, he was able to land on that island with a ridiculous arsenal.

Chris Rock wrote:
You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.


So when you say...

deanhills wrote:
I wonder how many other bored Europeans are plotting and planning as Breivik has done.


I imagine many, and I would also suggest that it shouldn't matter.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Chris Rock wrote:
You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.


So when you say...
deanhills wrote:
I wonder how many other bored Europeans are plotting and planning as Breivik has done.


I imagine many, and I would also suggest that it shouldn't matter.
I don't agree. Any form of extremism, whether left or right should matter a lot as it is a threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the country. I'd agree with you in general that people are more sensitive and tuned in with Islamic extremism than people are with local right-wing extremists in Europe, however that may be because there have been less incidences of the Breivik kind relative to acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Chris Rock wrote:
You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.


So when you say...
deanhills wrote:
I wonder how many other bored Europeans are plotting and planning as Breivik has done.


I imagine many, and I would also suggest that it shouldn't matter.
I don't agree. Any form of extremism, whether left or right should matter a lot as it is a threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the country. I'd agree with you in general that people are more sensitive and tuned in with Islamic extremism than people are with local right-wing extremists in Europe, however that may be because there have been less incidences of the Breivik kind relative to acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists.


No I meant that a terrorist with just a water pistol isn't a terrorist. He's just a clown. You can't control people's views and thoughts, and really, would you want to? I have some old fashioned, politically incorrect views (nothing to the extremity of his) but I never voice them and I wouldn't ever consider acting on them (because they are admittedly inane) but they're my right, to have, in my own house. Anders is an a-hole. I'm just saying that's passable as long as he isn't armed. You can and should control that. But we're not. As for talking about him - that's his biggest weapon. I don't support Anonymous' flagrant tech-orism anymore than I support his, but one thing they did get absolutely right was hacking his twitter, simply typing "You'll never be famous, Anders" and then deleting it. So stop feeding that lunatic's dream. That's what it was all for. This. People talking about him. Copy cat assassins. His deluded revolution that will never happen. Anonymous knew that too. So to hell with the devil. Boycott his name and let him drift back into insignificant obscurity, where he belongs.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
No I meant that a terrorist with just a water pistol isn't a terrorist. He's just a clown. You can't control people's views and thoughts, and really, would you want to? I have some old fashioned, politically incorrect views (nothing to the extremity of his) but I never voice them and I wouldn't ever consider acting on them (because they are admittedly inane) but they're my right, to have, in my own house. Anders is an a-hole. I'm just saying that's passable as long as he isn't armed. You can and should control that. But we're not. As for talking about him - that's his biggest weapon. I don't support Anonymous' flagrant tech-orism anymore than I support his, but one thing they did get absolutely right was hacking his twitter, simply typing "You'll never be famous, Anders" and then deleting it. So stop feeding that lunatic's dream. That's what it was all for. This. People talking about him. Copy cat assassins. His deluded revolution that will never happen. Anonymous knew that too. So to hell with the devil. Boycott his name and let him drift back into insignificant obscurity, where he belongs.
Agreed. People should have the right to voice their opinions, however if someone like Breivik has quite obviously been riled up by an organisation, I'd be wary if any one else of the same organisation came up with similar thoughts. I wouldn't go on to arrest people or ban the organisation, but I'd be watching them very carefully. I'd also educate the public to watch out too. What's that saying about "once bitten .... twice shy".
nickfyoung
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
No I meant that a terrorist with just a water pistol isn't a terrorist. He's just a clown. You can't control people's views and thoughts, and really, would you want to? I have some old fashioned, politically incorrect views (nothing to the extremity of his) but I never voice them and I wouldn't ever consider acting on them (because they are admittedly inane) but they're my right, to have, in my own house. Anders is an a-hole. I'm just saying that's passable as long as he isn't armed. You can and should control that. But we're not. As for talking about him - that's his biggest weapon. I don't support Anonymous' flagrant tech-orism anymore than I support his, but one thing they did get absolutely right was hacking his twitter, simply typing "You'll never be famous, Anders" and then deleting it. So stop feeding that lunatic's dream. That's what it was all for. This. People talking about him. Copy cat assassins. His deluded revolution that will never happen. Anonymous knew that too. So to hell with the devil. Boycott his name and let him drift back into insignificant obscurity, where he belongs.
Agreed. People should have the right to voice their opinions, however if someone like Breivik has quite obviously been riled up by an organisation, I'd be wary if any one else of the same organisation came up with similar thoughts. I wouldn't go on to arrest people or ban the organisation, but I'd be watching them very carefully. I'd also educate the public to watch out too. What's that saying about "once bitten .... twice shy".



A guy did that in Tasmania a few years back. He is still in prison and the government used it to bring in gun control.
deanhills
nickfyoung wrote:
A guy did that in Tasmania a few years back. He is still in prison and the government used it to bring in gun control.
I'm not much for gun control. But am happy to hear the guy is still in prison. Breivik can still come out of prison due to very lenient Norwegian law. This is what his sentence looks like:

Quote:
Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian far-right extremist, has been sentenced to at least 21 years in prison after a court declared he was sane throughout his murderous rampage last year that killed 77 people and wounded 242.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/breivik-verdict-sane-21-years
loveandormoney
Quote:


I have not studied enough of bible and other topics about christianity.

But I know Islamic Texts much better (as I am myself a Muslim).


We should also divide the discussion into two parts (i.e. what the religious texts say, and how the followers behave).




Peace!
Good morning.

We should also divide the discussion into two parts (i.e. what the religious texts say, and how the followers behave).
We should also divide the discussion into two parts (i.e. what the religious texts say, and how the followers behave).

Sorry.
This is wrong or said in other words: There is no meaning.
Why?
If You would say something like this then the books are bad.
Example.
Moses.
Moses is so stupid, that he cannot understand that followers are doing nonsence because of the books of Moses.
This is no good.
So
please dont say
Moses and the others are not intelligent enough
for write the so called "Old Testament" in a way, that does make followers bad things.


Thank You very much.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
obviously been riled up by an organisation, I'd be wary if any one else of the same organisation came up with similar thoughts.


Of course an organization is more potentially dangerous and influential than any one individual wing nut, but still, what usually happens is that we watch them and wait for them to overstep their freedom of speech. We still can't stop the freedom to the speech, only ridicule it ad populum. This is similar to what we have now with the National Front in the UK. Everyone knows they are a racist ring wing extremist group, but you can't shackle their right to speak, only their right to act (they are actually in parliament which befuddles me to no end). You also can't deny that there is eccentric factions it appeals to which may not be racist, but rather just nationalists, with antiquated views on immigration. I'm not playing devil's advocate, just illustrating that we can't absolutely stamp out their right to free speech under the hypocritical premise that it seems 'fascist' to condone it.

So a collective is more worrying, but controlling the view shared collectively is still unmanageable. I find, from observation that these groups themselves, being of an extreme ideology, usually tend to wedge their own foot in their own mouths. And for what I was saying about institutionalized racism, if that kid who ran through the london underground just after 7/7 hadn't have been dark-skinned (he turned out to be Brazilian) he wouldn't have been shot in the head. And if Nick Griffin was dark-skinned, he'd have been deported by now.

deahills wrote:
still come out of prison due to very lenient Norwegian law


But how does this usually pan out? Stay in the Norwegian Embassy for the rest of your entire life and set one foot out of it and your ass is ours? Look at Assange. There's laws which are idealistically envisaged, and there's then UN laws, and there's super powers within the UN who decide that since they own all the money, oil and resources and certain countries owe other certain countries favors, or will be depending upon them in the future; that the laws are made by America, UK and France and if Russia and China want to protect their respective esoteric totalitarian states, they'd do well to trade us for the rest of the world. In short, we own Breivik because we own Norway.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Of course an organization is more potentially dangerous and influential than any one individual wing nut, but still, what usually happens is that we watch them and wait for them to overstep their freedom of speech. We still can't stop the freedom to the speech, only ridicule it ad populum. This is similar to what we have now with the National Front in the UK. Everyone knows they are a racist ring wing extremist group, but you can't shackle their right to speak, only their right to act (they are actually in parliament which befuddles me to no end).

Just for the informative benefit of international readers of these forums, the racist National Front has never had a candidate elected as a Member of Parliament and never as a County or Local councillor, but did win a seat in a tiny Parish council where 10 positions were available and only 9 candidates stood for election.
The National front has always gained less than 1% of the vote in every national election in the UK.
Dialogist
National Party, National Front, Creationists, Intelligent Design, a rose by any other name, etc.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
obviously been riled up by an organisation, I'd be wary if any one else of the same organisation came up with similar thoughts.


Of course an organization is more potentially dangerous and influential than any one individual wing nut, but still, what usually happens is that we watch them and wait for them to overstep their freedom of speech. We still can't stop the freedom to the speech, only ridicule it ad populum. This is similar to what we have now with the National Front in the UK. Everyone knows they are a racist ring wing extremist group, but you can't shackle their right to speak, only their right to act (they are actually in parliament which befuddles me to no end). You also can't deny that there is eccentric factions it appeals to which may not be racist, but rather just nationalists, with antiquated views on immigration. I'm not playing devil's advocate, just illustrating that we can't absolutely stamp out their right to free speech under the hypocritical premise that it seems 'fascist' to condone it.

So a collective is more worrying, but controlling the view shared collectively is still unmanageable. I find, from observation that these groups themselves, being of an extreme ideology, usually tend to wedge their own foot in their own mouths. And for what I was saying about institutionalized racism, if that kid who ran through the london underground just after 7/7 hadn't have been dark-skinned (he turned out to be Brazilian) he wouldn't have been shot in the head. And if Nick Griffin was dark-skinned, he'd have been deported by now.

deahills wrote:
still come out of prison due to very lenient Norwegian law


But how does this usually pan out? Stay in the Norwegian Embassy for the rest of your entire life and set one foot out of it and your ass is ours? Look at Assange. There's laws which are idealistically envisaged, and there's then UN laws, and there's super powers within the UN who decide that since they own all the money, oil and resources and certain countries owe other certain countries favors, or will be depending upon them in the future; that the laws are made by America, UK and France and if Russia and China want to protect their respective esoteric totalitarian states, they'd do well to trade us for the rest of the world. In short, we own Breivik because we own Norway.



Is every kind of organisation dangerous?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Is every kind of organisation dangerous?


Yup. You know what's more dangerous? Chaos.

I say this because my grandma's knitting circle used to gather every Thursday night for tea, biscuits and scones until one night, Mavis suggested to Doris that her crosshatching needed a little bit of inspiration. Doris didn't take to this too kindly and rival factions began to form within the group. Thursday became Mavis' night and Doris moved her inside circle to Tuesdays. Doris' group became ever more subversive and eventually formed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Knitting_Circle

Their original goal was to address climate change with a few provocatively embroided chintz but the government ignored them. Here they are about to bomb 4 trains in Piccadilly.



All because somebody didn't follow the pattern.
loveandormoney
Quote:

Yup. You know what's more dangerous? Chaos.

I say this because my grandma's knitting circle used to gather every Thursday night for tea, biscuits and scones until one night, Mavis suggested to Doris that her crosshatching needed a little bit of inspiration. Doris didn't take to this too kindly and rival factions began to form within the group. Thursday became Mavis' night and Doris moved her inside circle to Tuesdays. Doris' group became ever more subversive and eventually formed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Knitting_Circle

Their original goal was to address climate change with a few provocatively embroided chintz but the government ignored them. Here they are about to bomb 4 trains in Piccadilly.




Good morning. Let us talk about chaos.
Why adults are afraid of chaos and they do and love chaos?
What is the relationship between government and chaos?

Regards
Dialogist
Guten morgen, liebeundodergeld.

loveandormoney wrote:
Why adults are afraid of chaos and they do and love chaos?


I think adults are afraid due a herd mentality that naturalists might attribute to a tribal mentality that may or may not infer a herding homeostasis that seems to have skipped a few incarnations. Still, from looking at my budgie's feet, they are kind of prehistoric looking so I guess the YEC's are right about dinosaurs still existing. In any case, it's true that when budgies escape or fly away, they predestination seems to usually be met at the hands of crows or blackbirds who single them out due to their flamboyant feathering and they attack and kill the outsider like some stark raven nationalists. Most animals and humans have a natural fear of standing out from the herd and being outside of their comfort zone. This may stem from the reducto ad absurdium, "Without rules, they'd be chaos". or "Without religion, they'd be peace". Lack of rules don't ensure chaos. You know what the terrifying part is? Lack of rules ensure artistry. And we can't have that. Needless to say, even when Picasso painted Guernica and turned the art world upside-down; he still had to paint inside the frame. Not because he's a human conformist, but because his validation of himself as a superior free-thinking artist depends on human conformists agreeing that he isn't. Herd mentality.

loveandormoney wrote:
What is the relationship between government and chaos?


A revolutionary murders a revolutionary murdering despot and takes his throne only to become a revolutionary murdering despot [1]. A government only exists to defend itself from itself. Governments need chaos from time to time to slap down the iron fist and justify itself in the process. If you saw those student riots in the UK a few years ago, some of the footage first showed a group of peaceful, well-to-do, middle class teenagers with placards holding a peaceful protest. They eventually grew in numbers. Again, the numbers kept increasing. All of sudden, the whole of Westminister had been brought to halt by a mass peaceful protest. How to combat this? Later footage was revealing: Some fully grown men (all masked) started kicking off majorly (smashing, rioting, vandalising). They didn't look like students to this cynical onlooker. Of course, herd mentality was anticipated (possibly instrumented). Some of the peaceful teenagers started to follow the aggressor's lead and riot mentality spread. By which point, its then it's extremely straightforward to deal with: Start beating the crap out of everybody, problem solved. Governments know how to do that. They don't know about dealing with peaceful protest. Or what Gandhi referred to as, "Sitting down". They know how fight chaos with chaos because they ironically 'control chaos'. That's their relationship with it. And perhaps even more ironically, is that they can only be overthrown (temporarily) with chaos (because that's the nature of the beast). And I say temporarily, because it is exactly that [1]. That's why France and Cuba have had more revolutions than we've had general elections. A brute was needed to overthrow one and inevitably, spawn more would-be brutes.



Regards.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
Guten morgen, liebeundodergeld.

loveandormoney wrote:
Why adults are afraid of chaos and they do and love chaos?


I think adults are afraid due a herd mentality that naturalists might attribute to a tribal mentality that may or may not infer a herding homeostasis that seems to have skipped a few incarnations. Still, from looking at my budgie's feet, they are kind of prehistoric looking so I guess the YEC's are right about dinosaurs still existing. In any case, it's true that when budgies escape or fly away, they predestination seems to usually be met at the hands of crows or blackbirds who single them out due to their flamboyant feathering and they attack and kill the outsider like some stark raven nationalists. Most animals and humans have a natural fear of standing out from the herd and being outside of their comfort zone. This may stem from the reducto ad absurdium, "Without rules, they'd be chaos". or "Without religion, they'd be peace". Lack of rules don't ensure chaos. You know what the terrifying part is? Lack of rules ensure artistry. And we can't have that. Needless to say, even when Picasso painted Guernica and turned the art world upside-down; he still had to paint inside the frame. Not because he's a human conformist, but because his validation of himself as a superior free-thinking artist depends on human conformists agreeing that he isn't. Herd mentality.

loveandormoney wrote:
What is the relationship between government and chaos?


A revolutionary murders a revolutionary murdering despot and takes his throne only to become a revolutionary murdering despot [1]. A government only exists to defend itself from itself. Governments need chaos from time to time to slap down the iron fist and justify itself in the process. If you saw those student riots in the UK a few years ago, some of the footage first showed a group of peaceful, well-to-do, middle class teenagers with placards holding a peaceful protest. They eventually grew in numbers. Again, the numbers kept increasing. All of sudden, the whole of Westminister had been brought to halt by a mass peaceful protest. How to combat this? Later footage was revealing: Some fully grown men (all masked) started kicking off majorly (smashing, rioting, vandalising). They didn't look like students to this cynical onlooker. Of course, herd mentality was anticipated (possibly instrumented). Some of the peaceful teenagers started to follow the aggressor's lead and riot mentality spread. By which point, its then it's extremely straightforward to deal with: Start beating the crap out of everybody, problem solved. Governments know how to do that. They don't know about dealing with peaceful protest. Or what Gandhi referred to as, "Sitting down". They know how fight chaos with chaos because they ironically 'control chaos'. That's their relationship with it. And perhaps even more ironically, is that they can only be overthrown (temporarily) with chaos (because that's the nature of the beast). And I say temporarily, because it is exactly that [1]. That's why France and Cuba have had more revolutions than we've had general elections. A brute was needed to overthrow one and inevitably, spawn more would-be brutes.



Regards.







Good morning.

"I think adults are afraid due a herd mentality that naturalists might attribute to a tribal mentality that may or may not infer a herding homeostasis that seems to have skipped a few incarnations. Still, from looking at my budgie's feet, they are kind of prehistoric looking so I guess the YEC's are right about dinosaurs still existing."

Thank You for the post.
This is sounding very complicated. Is this taught in schools?

"In any case, it's true that when budgies escape or fly away, they predestination seems to usually be met at the hands of crows or blackbirds who single them out due to their flamboyant feathering and they attack and kill the outsider like some stark raven nationalists. Most animals and humans have a natural fear of standing out from the herd and being outside of their comfort zone. "
So the butterfly does have family and home? Also TV?


"This may stem from the reducto ad absurdium, "Without rules, they'd be chaos". or "Without religion, they'd be peace"."
Who is interested in a peaceful community?
Rabbit and Lion dont like it, isnt it?

"Lack of rules don't ensure chaos. You know what the terrifying part is? Lack of rules ensure artistry."
Is this art?

"And we can't have that. Needless to say, even when Picasso painted Guernica and turned the art world upside-down; he still had to paint inside the frame. Not because he's a human conformist, but because his validation of himself as a superior free-thinking artist depends on human conformists agreeing that he isn't. Herd mentality."
Did Picasso want to sell his pictures?



"A revolutionary murders a revolutionary murdering despot and takes his throne only to become a revolutionary murdering despot [1]"
OK.

" A government only exists to defend itself from itself."
OK

"Governments need chaos from time to time to slap down the iron fist and justify itself in the process."
OK

"If you saw those student riots in the UK a few years ago, some of the footage first showed a group of peaceful, well-to-do, middle class teenagers with placards holding a peaceful protest."
OK

"They eventually grew in numbers. Again, the numbers kept increasing. All of sudden, the whole of Westminister had been brought to halt by a mass peaceful protest. How to combat this? Later footage was revealing: Some fully grown men (all masked) started kicking off majorly (smashing, rioting, vandalising). They didn't look like students to this cynical onlooker. Of course, herd mentality was anticipated (possibly instrumented). Some of the peaceful teenagers started to follow the aggressor's lead and riot mentality spread. By which point, its then it's extremely straightforward to deal with: Start beating the crap out of everybody, problem solved. Governments know how to do that. They don't know about dealing with peaceful protest."
OK
Caesar also did.


"Or what Gandhi referred to as, "Sitting down". They know how fight chaos with chaos because they ironically 'control chaos'"
OK

" That's their relationship with it. And perhaps even more ironically, is that they can only be overthrown (temporarily) with chaos (because that's the nature of the beast). And I say temporarily, because it is exactly that [1]. That's why France and Cuba have had more revolutions than we've had general elections. A brute was needed to overthrow one and inevitably, spawn more would-be brutes.2
OK
Who has the profit now?
The goverment?
The students?
The customer?
The soldiers?


Regards
Dialogist
wrote:
This is sounding very complicated. Is this taught in schools?


One would hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

loveandormoney wrote:

So the butterfly does have family and home? Also TV?


They already had ancestry but I think acquiring a TV set would be the least remarkable of their evolutionary steps so far.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/butterfly_surveys_find_design052661.html

loveandormoney wrote:
Who is interested in a peaceful community?


The despot.

loveandormoney wrote:
Rabbit and Lion dont like it, isnt it?


That's a fair point. The Lion would starve, however, human peace and animalistic peace aren't the same thing as there is a readily apparent moral distinction.

loveandormoney wrote:
Is this art?


Nothing is art.

loveandormoney wrote:
Did Picasso want to sell his pictures?


He did indeed, but moreover, he wanted people to know that Pablo Picasso painted them.

loveandormoney wrote:
Caesar also did.


Jules came, saw and conquered everything and all - except the fat servile dumbass stood just behind him.

loveandormoney wrote:
Who has the profit now?
The goverment?
The students?
The customer?
The soldiers?


The monk in the monastery picking potatoes. He doesn't need any of them. He needs his land and his sunrise. His soul and his God.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
wrote:
This is sounding very complicated. Is this taught in schools?


One would hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

loveandormoney wrote:

So the butterfly does have family and home? Also TV?


They already had ancestry but I think acquiring a TV set would be the least remarkable of their evolutionary steps so far.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/butterfly_surveys_find_design052661.html

loveandormoney wrote:
Who is interested in a peaceful community?


The despot.

loveandormoney wrote:
Rabbit and Lion dont like it, isnt it?


That's a fair point. The Lion would starve, however, human peace and animalistic peace aren't the same thing as there is a readily apparent moral distinction.

loveandormoney wrote:
Is this art?


Nothing is art.

loveandormoney wrote:
Did Picasso want to sell his pictures?


He did indeed, but moreover, he wanted people to know that Pablo Picasso painted them.

loveandormoney wrote:
Caesar also did.


Jules came, saw and conquered everything and all - except the fat servile dumbass stood just behind him.

loveandormoney wrote:
Who has the profit now?
The goverment?
The students?
The customer?
The soldiers?


The monk in the monastery picking potatoes. He doesn't need any of them. He needs his land and his sunrise. His soul and his God.








Good morning.

The despot.
This is very interesting.
Peace is a bad thing.
I think, 90% of all families agree with You.


Nothing is art.

This sentence is great. I am using it as scr.


"The monk in the monastery picking potatoes."
But the monk is a bad animal, because he is interested in peace.

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
wrote:
This is sounding very complicated. Is this taught in schools?


One would hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

loveandormoney wrote:

So the butterfly does have family and home? Also TV?


They already had ancestry but I think acquiring a TV set would be the least remarkable of their evolutionary steps so far.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/butterfly_surveys_find_design052661.html

loveandormoney wrote:
Who is interested in a peaceful community?


The despot.

loveandormoney wrote:
Rabbit and Lion dont like it, isnt it?


That's a fair point. The Lion would starve, however, human peace and animalistic peace aren't the same thing as there is a readily apparent moral distinction.

loveandormoney wrote:
Is this art?


Nothing is art.

loveandormoney wrote:
Did Picasso want to sell his pictures?


He did indeed, but moreover, he wanted people to know that Pablo Picasso painted them.

loveandormoney wrote:
Caesar also did.


Jules came, saw and conquered everything and all - except the fat servile dumbass stood just behind him.

loveandormoney wrote:
Who has the profit now?
The goverment?
The students?
The customer?
The soldiers?


The monk in the monastery picking potatoes. He doesn't need any of them. He needs his land and his sunrise. His soul and his God.








Good morning.

The despot.
This is very interesting.
Peace is a bad thing.
I think, 90% of all families agree with You.


Nothing is art.

This sentence is great. I am using it as scr.


"The monk in the monastery picking potatoes."
But the monk is a bad animal, because he is interested in peace.

Regards


Peace isn't a bad thing. Peace is a resolution of war. Without a prior pollution, it's merely just the default and has no meaning. Nothing is art. Nothing is the only no-thing that has ever been art. Ask Kalam. Ask science, the opposite of art is the only no-thing that it cannot pick apart, measure, weigh, test or explain. Some (all, especially myself) will tell you that is Nothing. Capital N. Nothing is Art. A monk in a monastery is the only true artist. He does mimic creation (like all artists) by growing organic remnants of the first seed of creation but his mimicry at least has an uniformal integrity. Because it emulates that which origins came from Nothing. Ex nihilo. But that's not why he's an artist. He's an artist because Nothing requires Nothing. He is not interested in peace because he is not confined to a situation which requires peace.

"The man who can live alone is either an animal or a god." - Aristotle
loveandormoney
Good morning.

"Peace isn't a bad thing."
You talk like a teacher. Look to real life. You will be surprised.


"Peace is a resolution of war."
Sorry, this is wrong.

"Without a prior pollution, it's merely just the default and has no meaning."
How about war is the default?

" Nothing is art."
OK

"Nothing is the only no-thing that has ever been art. Ask Kalam. Ask science, the opposite of art is the only no-thing that it cannot pick apart, measure, weigh, test or explain."
How about animals?

" Some (all, especially myself) will tell you that is Nothing. Capital N. Nothing is Art. A monk in a monastery is the only true artist."
Is this Your experience?
As audience or as monk?


" He does mimic creation (like all artists) by growing organic remnants of the first seed of creation but his mimicry at least has an uniformal integrity. Because it emulates that which origins came from Nothing. Ex nihilo. But that's not why he's an artist. He's an artist because Nothing requires Nothing. He is not interested in peace because he is not confined to a situation which requires peace. "
You again talk about Jesus Christ Superstar.
This is art.

Regards

Is it nothing?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

You talk like a teacher.


That's pretty harsh, man.

loveandormoney wrote:

How about war is the default?


If war was the default then peace would be even more needed, and the pursuit of it would be even more exhausting. That's also a false dilemma because the default doesn't have to be war or peace. It can be both or any number of 49 or 98 or whatever percentages either way, but I'm guessing since before life, the elements would have needed to be at war. And before them, physics, and before them God and his decisions, decisions... The default would have been:

loveandormoney wrote:

"art."
OK


loveandormoney wrote:

How about animals?


Animals aren't art no more than an idea is a space station.

loveandormoney wrote:

"the only true artist."
Is this Your experience?


Yeah.

loveandormoney wrote:

As audience or as monk?


I've done art. Completed it. Like cheap video game. It was found wanting. Now I want to become a monk.

loveandormoney wrote:

You again talk about Jesus Christ Superstar.
This is art.


It wasn't really though, was it? It was tripe. It was a fairly average musical with fairly decent soundtrack but failed to actually have any point to it. It gained a little bit of controversy when it started out due to hippies, gays and stoners being in it and Christ modern-anything is a controversy in the States. But that's why it wasn't art. It wasn't modern enough. I've yet to see a decent production about Jesus. Mel Gibson's was all right but I've already seen Robert Powell do it better. George Lucas took numerous subtle sabre swings at it but how dated are those futuristic Biblical tales now? The Matrix had a go but failed at trying to throw Buddhism and mysticism into the mix. The only barely adequate re-telling of the story of Jesus was Superman II.

Regards

loveandormoney wrote:

Is it nothing?


It? Obviously not.
loveandormoney
Quote:


If war was the default then peace would be even more needed, and the pursuit of it would be even more exhausting. That's also a false dilemma because the default doesn't have to be war or peace. It can be both or any number of 49 or 98 or whatever percentages either way, but I'm guessing since before life, the elements would have needed to be at war. And before them, physics, and before them God and his decisions, decisions... The default would have been:




Good morning.
The problem is, the people need war and fighting.
How is both possible: War and peace? Do You use the view of the victim?

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

The problem is, the people need war and fighting.


You'd have to qualify this for me.

loveandormoney wrote:

How is both possible: War and peace? Do You use the view of the victim?


I use the view of a god when viewing humanity. You have to take a step out to look in. You also have to assume some kind of idealistic moral excellence to hypothetically judge all of mankind at once, and in carrying any presumed authority to do so, you have view the idea of war as a creation gone wrong and the idea of peace as a temporary band aid.

I can't induct a victim's sympathies in my views, as fortunately, I've never had war forced on me and I've never had the traditional legacy of anything other than "V for Victory" to consult. The only sentiment I can adopt from a legacy of appropriation, re-appropriation, invasion, culturization and enslavement is a sentiment of appropriated guilt. Maybe you could teach me more about this, having access to a reality where fickle ignoramuses such as myself keep jibing, "Who won the bloody war anyway?" at you on message boards? And even if you don't run into xenophobes, with Godwin's law being what it is, how it feels to be unavoidably, unfairly stigmatized with sins that weren't and aren't your own, that you should be allowed to progress past? Is it like Original Sin?

War and peace are both possible at once. Most, if not all things are possible at once. Apart from them not being possible at once (I think?)
loveandormoney
Quote:

I use the view of a god when viewing humanity. You have to take a step out to look in. You also have to assume some kind of idealistic moral excellence to hypothetically judge all of mankind at once, and in carrying any presumed authority to do so, you have view the idea of war as a creation gone wrong and the idea of peace as a temporary band aid.

I can't induct a victim's sympathies in my views, as fortunately, I've never had war forced on me and I've never had the traditional legacy of anything other than "V for Victory" to consult. The only sentiment I can adopt from a legacy of appropriation, re-appropriation, invasion, culturization and enslavement is a sentiment of appropriated guilt. Maybe you could teach me more about this, having access to a reality where fickle ignoramuses such as myself keep jibing, "Who won the bloody war anyway?" at you on message boards? And even if you don't run into xenophobes, with Godwin's law being what it is, how it feels to be unavoidably, unfairly stigmatized with sins that weren't and aren't your own, that you should be allowed to progress past? Is it like Original Sin?

War and peace are both possible at once. Most, if not all things are possible at once. Apart from them not being possible at once (I think?)




"I use the view of a god when viewing humanity. "

Good morning.
Thank You for Your answer? Are You the sister or the brother of Your god. When did You meet Your brother for the first time?
Or is Your god a woman?
How old is Your god?
Does he have a good future?

"You also have to assume some kind of idealistic moral excellence to hypothetically judge all of mankind at once, and in carrying any presumed authority to do so, you have view the idea of war as a creation gone wrong and the idea of peace as a temporary band aid. "
Do You talk about fighting in relationships?
Is divorce gone?

"The only sentiment I can adopt from a legacy of appropriation, re-appropriation, invasion, culturization and enslavement is a sentiment of appropriated guilt."
Can You please explain this sentence to me? Can You please write an example?

" Maybe you could teach me more about this, having access to a reality where fickle ignoramuses such as myself keep jibing, "Who won the bloody war anyway?" at you on message boards? And even if you don't run into xenophobes, with Godwin's law being what it is, how it feels to be unavoidably, unfairly stigmatized with sins that weren't and aren't your own, that you should be allowed to progress past? Is it like Original Sin?"

No.


"War and peace are both possible at once. Most, if not all things are possible at once. Apart from them not being possible at once (I think?)"
Is not a family like this frustrated?

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

Are You the sister or the brother of Your god. When did You meet Your brother for the first time?


I guess you're going with the "brother" supposition? I've never really saw myself as that intimate or personal with God. I've always saw God as more of a father figure. But still not in an intimate way. I think intimacy requires a level of equality that I don't feel. Oh, and I am him. I have trust and faith, just not understanding. I can't sum God up. I can't logically place Him. I'm not William Laine Craig and I can't pop God in my top pocket. My matured view is more Aquinian, in terms of fathomability. He doesn't obey my logic and my arms aren't long enough to pull at his sleeve. I'm not standing on the shoulders of giants and we're certainly not walking hand in hand along a white sandy beach. My childlike view of God is a wonderment and appreciation of an artistic, comedic and intuitive creator that I do believe designed Tarsiers.

I didn't meet Him. I am him. I always have been. God was and is my default. I've never known anything else. This is why claims (in a philosophical sense) of "burden of proof" have never burdened me. God is as axiomatic to me as I am to me. That's always been my reality. And a question of existence then, is a question of my own existence, which I have never questioned. It's like asking me when I met myself.

loveandormoney wrote:
Or is Your god a woman?


You haven't seen her eyes when she smiles.

loveandormoney wrote:

How old is Your god?


4.54 billion years old, give or take an eternity.

loveandormoney wrote:

Does he have a good future?


I don't know, is infinity a Heaven or a Hell?

loveandormoney wrote:

Do You talk about fighting in relationships?
Is divorce gone?


Divorce is a sad end to an even sadder state of affairs, if that answers your question. It's not a good argument for dispute over peace, in any case. It's still more peaceful than it is warring, once it's done.

loveandormoney wrote:

"The only sentiment I can adopt from a legacy of appropriation, re-appropriation, invasion, culturization and enslavement is a sentiment of appropriated guilt."
Can You please explain this sentence to me? Can You please write an example?


I can give you a perfect example. Or better yet, you can give yourself a perfect example:

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

" Maybe you could teach me more about this..."

No.


You can't talk about it, can you? Because even though you know you should feel some level of guilt towards those events, you don't feel any guilt for those events. And why should you, really? It is appropriated guilt. It is guilt you 'borrow' from another man (like I 'borrow' from The British Empire enslaving two thirds of the entire world). It is exactly like Original Sin for the German. It's exactly like presuming a believer is guilt-ridden. You have to carry this cross of idiots constantly presuming that you are either a) guilty or stigma fearing or b) trying to evade talking about it. But nobody mentions the untried third option; C: You couldn't give two hoots. You're happy in your own skin.

I drew the comparison of Original Sin to flip it back on you. Not to score a point, but to ask you to understand that people x are not summed up by people y's perceptions of their reality of people x. See the part about "Burden of Proof".

What is reality to me is fantasy to you. Great. But your reality that my reality is fantasy - is your fantasy.

Regards.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
What is reality to me is fantasy to you. Great. But your reality that my reality is fantasy - is your fantasy.
Like the way you coined those words. Gotta remember it!

Also that there is a VERY thin margin between reality and fantasy. Reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
What is reality to me is fantasy to you. Great. But your reality that my reality is fantasy - is your fantasy.
Like the way you coined those words. Gotta remember it!

Also that there is a VERY thin margin between reality and fantasy. Reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm


Legend has it Paul Simon wrote Flowers Never Bend With The Rainfall based on Allegory of The Cave.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/flowers+never+bend+with+the+rainfall_20124734.html

I think he outdid it personally. I heard he was only 19 when he wrote that. I guess that means he was reading Plato aged 19. So yeah, while what came out was clearly great, it seems a bit sad looking in. And I guess he had to see sadness looking out to get that creativity inside of him... Perspectives.
deanhills
Those are great lyrics indeed along the Cave Allegory lines. Just checked out YouTube for the tune, nice vibes as well! Very Happy
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:

Are You the sister or the brother of Your god. When did You meet Your brother for the first time?


I guess you're going with the "brother" supposition? I've never really saw myself as that intimate or personal with God. I've always saw God as more of a father figure. But still not in an intimate way. I think intimacy requires a level of equality that I don't feel. Oh, and I am him. I have trust and faith, just not understanding. I can't sum God up. I can't logically place Him. I'm not William Laine Craig and I can't pop God in my top pocket. My matured view is more Aquinian, in terms of fathomability. He doesn't obey my logic and my arms aren't long enough to pull at his sleeve. I'm not standing on the shoulders of giants and we're certainly not walking hand in hand along a white sandy beach. My childlike view of God is a wonderment and appreciation of an artistic, comedic and intuitive creator that I do believe designed Tarsiers.

I didn't meet Him. I am him. I always have been. God was and is my default. I've never known anything else. This is why claims (in a philosophical sense) of "burden of proof" have never burdened me. God is as axiomatic to me as I am to me. That's always been my reality. And a question of existence then, is a question of my own existence, which I have never questioned. It's like asking me when I met myself.

loveandormoney wrote:
Or is Your god a woman?


You haven't seen her eyes when she smiles.

loveandormoney wrote:

How old is Your god?


4.54 billion years old, give or take an eternity.

loveandormoney wrote:

Does he have a good future?


I don't know, is infinity a Heaven or a Hell?

loveandormoney wrote:

Do You talk about fighting in relationships?
Is divorce gone?


Divorce is a sad end to an even sadder state of affairs, if that answers your question. It's not a good argument for dispute over peace, in any case. It's still more peaceful than it is warring, once it's done.

loveandormoney wrote:

"The only sentiment I can adopt from a legacy of appropriation, re-appropriation, invasion, culturization and enslavement is a sentiment of appropriated guilt."
Can You please explain this sentence to me? Can You please write an example?


I can give you a perfect example. Or better yet, you can give yourself a perfect example:

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

" Maybe you could teach me more about this..."

No.


You can't talk about it, can you? Because even though you know you should feel some level of guilt towards those events, you don't feel any guilt for those events. And why should you, really? It is appropriated guilt. It is guilt you 'borrow' from another man (like I 'borrow' from The British Empire enslaving two thirds of the entire world). It is exactly like Original Sin for the German. It's exactly like presuming a believer is guilt-ridden. You have to carry this cross of idiots constantly presuming that you are either a) guilty or stigma fearing or b) trying to evade talking about it. But nobody mentions the untried third option; C: You couldn't give two hoots. You're happy in your own skin.

I drew the comparison of Original Sin to flip it back on you. Not to score a point, but to ask you to understand that people x are not summed up by people y's perceptions of their reality of people x. See the part about "Burden of Proof".

What is reality to me is fantasy to you. Great. But your reality that my reality is fantasy - is your fantasy.

Regards.






Good morning.
Thank You for answer.
"I guess you're going with the "brother" supposition?"
Then the only explonation for Your last sentences is: You are the father or the teacher of Your god. This sounds very interesting.

"I've always saw God as more of a father figure."
Maybe now You can see my explonation.

" But still not in an intimate way."
Do You discuss in public together?

" I think intimacy requires a level of equality that I don't feel."
Yes.
This is impossible now.

" Oh, and I am him."
Did You teach god a lot?

" I have trust and faith, just not understanding. I can't sum God up. I can't logically place Him. I'm not William Laine Craig and I can't pop God in my top pocket. My matured view is more Aquinian, in terms of fathomability. He doesn't obey my logic and my arms aren't long enough to pull at his sleeve. I'm not standing on the shoulders of giants and we're certainly not walking hand in hand along a white sandy beach. My childlike view of God is a wonderment and appreciation of an artistic, comedic and intuitive creator that I do believe designed Tarsiers. "
Does Your god live a good relationship with You? Are You satisfied?
Is god satisfied?

"I didn't meet Him. I am him. I always have been. "
I can now understand.
This is more then god is Your brother or sister.

" God was and is my default. I've never known anything else. This is why claims (in a philosophical sense) of "burden of proof" have never burdened me. God is as axiomatic to me as I am to me. That's always been my reality. And a question of existence then, is a question of my own existence, which I have never questioned. It's like asking me when I met myself. "
This is very deep.


"You haven't seen her eyes when she smiles."
Does she or he have 2 eyes or one eye or more eyes?

"4.54 billion years old, give or take an eternity."
Is this a young god?

"I don't know, is infinity a Heaven or a Hell?"
Did Your pay Your house?

"Divorce is a sad end to an even sadder state of affairs, if that answers your question. It's not a good argument for dispute over peace, in any case. It's still more peaceful than it is warring, once it's done."
So I hope, You stay together with Your god for a long time.
Do You or Your god fresh up the relationship?

"You can't talk about it, can you? Because even though you know you should feel some level of guilt towards those events, you don't feel any guilt for those events. And why should you, really? It is appropriated guilt. It is guilt you 'borrow' from another man (like I 'borrow' from The British Empire enslaving two thirds of the entire world). It is exactly like Original Sin for the German. It's exactly like presuming a believer is guilt-ridden. You have to carry this cross of idiots constantly presuming that you are either a) guilty or stigma fearing or b) trying to evade talking about it. But nobody mentions the untried third option; C: You couldn't give two hoots. You're happy in your own skin."
This sounds like a big business. I wish You have successful tradings.


"I drew the comparison of Original Sin to flip it back on you. Not to score a point, but to ask you to understand that people x are not summed up by people y's perceptions of their reality of people x. See the part about "Burden of Proof".
What is reality to me is fantasy to you. Great. But your reality that my reality is fantasy - is your fantasy."
Yes.
Maybe I should now say: I am sorry.

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Then the only explonation for Your last sentences is: You are the father or the teacher of Your god. This sounds very interesting.


You're asking me to uncouple myself from my simultaneous dual boot relationship with my God (which is also a trinity in its own right) and unquadrupling from myself from myself is something you seem to think is a valid request. You might similarly ask it of my doppelgänger and be reading his words right now, because God, although external is still me. In the same way that the reflection of myself in a mirror is still me. I can assign hierarchy and rank to my face over my wisdom teeth, or my kidney over my apendix corporeally. I can assign hierarchy or rank of my soul over my intellect or my virtue over my vice, non corporeally, and yet is it all still "me". So if you're suggesting that assigning patriarch to a component of something that consider to be a dichotomy of Dialogist is counterproductive, we can assure that it is quite the opposite. You can remove my brain from my body and place my soul in a vat and it will aspire to the 'onward and upward' objectivity of striving to exist.

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

I've always saw God as more of a father figure.

Maybe now You can see my explonation.


No. See: Brain in a vat wondering if Schrödinger's cat could make Pavlov's dog drool if if it was raised by cats.

Maybe now you can see my exponential.

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

But still not in an intimate way.

Do You discuss in public together?


You'd be surprised at how many atheists appeal to ignorance during an orgasm.

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

I think intimacy requires a level of equality that I don't feel.

Yes.
This is impossible now.


If the impossible exists then the impossible is possible.
If the impossible doesn't exist then the impossible is possible.

loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

Oh, and I am him.

Did You teach god a lot?


We taught me that logic of self is subject to external peer review.

loveandormoney wrote:

Does Your god live a good relationship with You? Are You satisfied?
Is god satisfied?


Some days I might weigh Him down with the pathetic fallacy, and others days I might do it to myself. Of course this suggests that neither of us are satisfied. But satisfaction doesn't exist anyway.

loveandormoney wrote:

I can now understand.
This is more then god is Your brother or sister.


I don't think you understand.

loveandormoney wrote:

This is very deep.


What's your relationship with your outside perceived persona? Are you friends? Do you like him? Is he a strain? Are you brothers? Does he exist? What about the inside perceived persona? Does he truly reflect the man you envisage in the new clothing item? Using the new gadget? Is he James Bond? Do the girls sense his animal attraction in crowded rooms? Is he Tyler Durden? Does he exist?

loveandormoney wrote:

Does she or he have 2 eyes or one eye or more eyes?


All women harness The Third Eye and it becomes most potent when you are expressing your feelings toward them or about them to others. Western cultures call this Women's Intuition but the 'myth' gained ubiquity from a much older and deeper context than psychology uses to rationalise it. You'll notice that page redirects to all humans. Which is bollocks. Men can't see through compliments. If and if they could, they're too damned handsome, charismatic and intelligent to care that they're being cajoled, right Mr Durden?

Richard Rohr wrote:
"It happens whenever, by some wondrous "coincidence," our heart space, our mind space, and our body awareness are all simultaneously open and nonresistant. I like to call it presence. It is experienced as a moment of deep inner connection, and it always pulls you, intensely satisfied, into the naked and undefended now, which can involve both profound joy and profound sadness at the very same time." Rohr refers to this level of awareness as "having the mind of Christ"


loveandormoney wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

4.54 billion years old, give or take an eternity.

Is this a young god?


We can't tell. We urm Creationists and Catasrophists alike, are restricted in believing that the past wasn't created 5 minutes ago with appearence of age. Some of us like to posit 13-20 billion years as a Creation/Anti-Creation age. Others like to pretend that Carbon 14 has a half-life capable of determining the age of anything over 5,730 years of age and that Uranium 238 with a half-life of 4.468 billion years is sufficient in positing a 20 billion year old universe or even 4.54 year old earth. We like to imagine that they concur on anything other than anything found within the half-life capability of our weakest measuring device. So if I was to age God scientifically, fully aware that God doesn't scientifically exist, I'd probably adopt the same frivolity that I apply to causality and put him somewhere between 4.468-9 billion years old. Saying though, we didn't arrive until the Hominidae 14 million years ago, which by my Cartesian dualism, rendered us too pig-shit stupid to conceive of such an entity. So God regresses his own birthday. It seems to be going backwards like Jane Fonda's. I guess he's like 2.3 million years old by these conception limitations (the same that is used to posit his existence by Christian apologetics), until we learn that we didn't have the survival skills to invent agriculture for another 15 million years and we end up at Genesis 1.1. The humanity of it all.

The short answer is that those who believe that God began time also believe that He doesn't age inside of it.

loveandormoney wrote:

Did Your pay Your house?


I'm an artist who used to be in a band. I buy my jeans from supermarkets.

loveandormoney wrote:

So I hope, You stay together with Your god for a long time.
Do You or Your god fresh up the relationship?


Thank you, loveandormoney, I do too. We like to throw on some Burt Bacharach and dance the night away.

loveandormoney wrote:

This sounds like a big business. I wish You have successful tradings.


I'm not interested in evangelisation, loveandormoney.

loveandormoney wrote:

Maybe I should now say: I am sorry.


Thanks, loveandormoney, but your apology is not accepted because it isn't warranted. You only made the error of misunderstanding me. And hopefully after this post, you don't understand anything about anything anymore.

Regards.
loveandormoney
Quote:
Thanks, loveandormoney, but your apology is not accepted because it isn't warranted. You only made the error of misunderstanding me. And hopefully after this post, you don't understand anything about anything anymore.


Sorry again,
I understood.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
I understood.


I actually translated my post into German and then back to English to see what you were reading. It almost actually made sense.
loveandormoney
This is a funny idea.
I translated it to Spanish and showed it to my friends.
It sounds more interesting then in English language.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

Sorry there are many many many bad translations in the world.

90% of translations Spanish Vulgata English French are wrong

Example:



loveandormoney wrote:
I translated it to Spanish and showed it to my friends.
It sounds more interesting then in English language.


loveandormoney wrote:

This is a funny idea.


It is indeed.
mahmutabi1
OMG. Thank you I'm an Atheist now.
arfaiz
It depends on "what is tolerance"? Is it allowing as much as one desires or is it allowing something and restricting the other thing to keep everything in order objectively?

I think things like don't spill blood except in war, don't get drunk, don't hurt yourself, protect people in need regardless their background, and don't joke with lies is what tolerance is. Things like terrorism violates tolerance.

LGBT also violates tolerance. It is unproductive, source of diseases, and will lead into the fall of humanity. Like tribe of Sodom in the past, which is banished for its homosexual culture. Imagine if the tribe persisted. We might be not in this world right now.

I am not well versed in religion stuff. Don't fully trust information from internet and media. Find people who can - and really can, meaning that he has knowledge and deep understanding - teach you, and it is your task to comprehend and compare it in term of tolerance.
ryancrear
Blah blah blah ....

Of the several hundred pages of the Bible or the Koran that I have read I have found the following to have the most important meaning of all:

"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”


Plain and simple, Love God and love every human. If you love God you will follow him and commune with him. If you love yourself (which we all do) you will love the person next you you, regardless of language, colour, religion, etc.

If every human loved the next as they did themselves then there would be no war, hate, poverty.

The problem is not with any religion it is with the human and their interpreatation of the text. Tolerance is not in the human nature and therefore will never be achieved.

Nuff said.
Related topics
Europeans and Americans, your thoughts on "Eurabia"
Buddhism
Another religions
Christian radical says Amish girls deserved to be murdered
Imagine a world without Religion
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
You Probably Don't Know What Your Religion Really IS!
Sufi Muslims prove Islam is cool.
Is Atheism a Religion?
Tolerant Islam speaks out
Religious Intolerance at Frihost
Coming out and the people that come with it
Third World Christianity
Sorry frihostars
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.