Kayliea wrote:awesome!
Anything else I might be missing?
Advertisement
by Puff-Puff-Pass Land » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:08 am
Kayliea wrote:awesome!
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:11 am
by Puff-Puff-Pass Land » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:13 am
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:15 am
by Nulono » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:17 am
Utvara wrote:Namabia wrote:Utvara wrote:Iron Chariots wrote:Persecution of anybody is not okay.
But if you think that a few isolated murders constitute "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" (to quote wiki) then I have a hard time taking you seriously.
It's fucking ridiculous how, in a society where Christianity is so dominant that you are essentially required to be a Christian to hold elected office, they still so often think that they're the ones being oppressed.
This.
Really. I want a link that says you have to be Christian to hold office. Do you realise that politicians say they're Christian just to get our(Christian) votes?
It's de facto, not de jure.
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:22 am
Nulono wrote:Utvara wrote:Namabia wrote:Utvara wrote:Iron Chariots wrote:Persecution of anybody is not okay.
But if you think that a few isolated murders constitute "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" (to quote wiki) then I have a hard time taking you seriously.
It's fucking ridiculous how, in a society where Christianity is so dominant that you are essentially required to be a Christian to hold elected office, they still so often think that they're the ones being oppressed.
This.
Really. I want a link that says you have to be Christian to hold office. Do you realise that politicians say they're Christian just to get our(Christian) votes?
It's de facto, not de jure.
You don't understand the difference between "essentially" and "legally", do you?
by Farnhamia » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:23 am
Treznor wrote:Nulono wrote:Utvara wrote:Namabia wrote:Utvara wrote:Iron Chariots wrote:Persecution of anybody is not okay.
But if you think that a few isolated murders constitute "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" (to quote wiki) then I have a hard time taking you seriously.
It's fucking ridiculous how, in a society where Christianity is so dominant that you are essentially required to be a Christian to hold elected office, they still so often think that they're the ones being oppressed.
This.
Really. I want a link that says you have to be Christian to hold office. Do you realise that politicians say they're Christian just to get our(Christian) votes?
It's de facto, not de jure.
You don't understand the difference between "essentially" and "legally", do you?
So, you're making the claim that a non-Christian will find it just as easy to get elected to office as a Christian in the US?
by HayBal » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:15 am
Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista
A- HEM
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:18 am
HayBal wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista
A- HEM
These things were wrong but that doesn't mean the entire religion should be punished for them. I'm an atheist, I'll get that out of the way so nobody accuses me of bias. Christianity is just a religion, and even though it's brought about some horrible things, I would not persecute the followers. Plus, it brings about a question of where we stop. What about Universalist Unitarians, who identify with Biblical scripture, along with other religious scripture. Technically that's a form of Christianity. What about Mormons? Mormons have never had much power, but they're still Christians. The logic used to justify this is that because religious officials did something modern followers in the religion should be punished. But the modern Christians had nothing to do with it, and thus, shouldn't be punished.
by HayBal » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:22 am
Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista
A- HEM
These things were wrong but that doesn't mean the entire religion should be punished for them. I'm an atheist, I'll get that out of the way so nobody accuses me of bias. Christianity is just a religion, and even though it's brought about some horrible things, I would not persecute the followers. Plus, it brings about a question of where we stop. What about Universalist Unitarians, who identify with Biblical scripture, along with other religious scripture. Technically that's a form of Christianity. What about Mormons? Mormons have never had much power, but they're still Christians. The logic used to justify this is that because religious officials did something modern followers in the religion should be punished. But the modern Christians had nothing to do with it, and thus, shouldn't be punished.
What about Mormons? This.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:26 am
HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista
A- HEM
These things were wrong but that doesn't mean the entire religion should be punished for them. I'm an atheist, I'll get that out of the way so nobody accuses me of bias. Christianity is just a religion, and even though it's brought about some horrible things, I would not persecute the followers. Plus, it brings about a question of where we stop. What about Universalist Unitarians, who identify with Biblical scripture, along with other religious scripture. Technically that's a form of Christianity. What about Mormons? Mormons have never had much power, but they're still Christians. The logic used to justify this is that because religious officials did something modern followers in the religion should be punished. But the modern Christians had nothing to do with it, and thus, shouldn't be punished.
What about Mormons? This.
You still fail to respond to the logic about blaming Christians with nothing to do with Christian violence, most of whom don't even support it.
by HayBal » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:30 am
Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista
A- HEM
These things were wrong but that doesn't mean the entire religion should be punished for them. I'm an atheist, I'll get that out of the way so nobody accuses me of bias. Christianity is just a religion, and even though it's brought about some horrible things, I would not persecute the followers. Plus, it brings about a question of where we stop. What about Universalist Unitarians, who identify with Biblical scripture, along with other religious scripture. Technically that's a form of Christianity. What about Mormons? Mormons have never had much power, but they're still Christians. The logic used to justify this is that because religious officials did something modern followers in the religion should be punished. But the modern Christians had nothing to do with it, and thus, shouldn't be punished.
What about Mormons? This.
You still fail to respond to the logic about blaming Christians with nothing to do with Christian violence, most of whom don't even support it.
I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:34 am
HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
by Caninope » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:36 am
Kayliea wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
A- HEM
add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista to that list
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by HayBal » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:36 am
Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:45 am
HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
I know MODERATE Christians who are pro-gay and pro-abortion. You're using logic that lumps all Christians in one group. I know Christians who have protested FOR gay marriage and have spoken FOR abortion. Or do you know how every Christian in America votes?
by HayBal » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:46 am
Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
I know MODERATE Christians who are pro-gay and pro-abortion. You're using logic that lumps all Christians in one group. I know Christians who have protested FOR gay marriage and have spoken FOR abortion. Or do you know how every Christian in America votes?
And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.
by Kayliea » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:47 am
Caninope wrote:Kayliea wrote:Puff-Puff-Pass Land wrote:HayBal wrote:Persecution is wrong regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Unless the individual murdered somebody, there is no justification for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
A- HEM
add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista to that list
The Spanish hid behind conversion for colonization, but that wasn't their primary motive.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:48 am
HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
I know MODERATE Christians who are pro-gay and pro-abortion. You're using logic that lumps all Christians in one group. I know Christians who have protested FOR gay marriage and have spoken FOR abortion. Or do you know how every Christian in America votes?
And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.
But you do think, in defending Christian Persecution, that this minority should be persecuted?
by Illithar » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:48 am
Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
I know MODERATE Christians who are pro-gay and pro-abortion. You're using logic that lumps all Christians in one group. I know Christians who have protested FOR gay marriage and have spoken FOR abortion. Or do you know how every Christian in America votes?
And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.
by Illithar » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:50 am
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:58 am
Illithar wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:HayBal wrote:Treznor wrote:I was nitpicking, yes.
Do I blame the average Christian on the street for the Crusades? No. Do I blame them for supporting a religion that condones discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else they decide they don't like? Yes. Do I blame them for not setting their own houses straight when abortion doctors are killed? Yes. Do I blame them when they allow people to speak for them claiming religious persecution against Christians. Yes.
They're not responsible for what their forefathers did. They are responsible for what's being done in their name today, because they're not speaking up in protest of persecution against non-Christians and they're not disavowing themselves from the institutionally protected pedophilia of the Catholic Church or the rampant homophobia of the rest. The Unitarians are the closest I would come to a relatively benign branch of Christianity, and they're still not speaking up in protest of the crimes their fellows are committing.
There's a difference between not supporting the action and not leaving the religion. Most Christians do speak against the abortion doctor murders, they do speak against the Catholic Pedophilia, and even if they don't, they aren't doing it.
They enable it with their silence and their continued membership. They support it with their money and attendance. They vote to support laws that prevent homosexuals from sharing basic civil rights, repeat dogma about how homosexuality is abomination, then express "horror" when violence is committed against homosexuals. They vote to abolish abortion and talk about how it's murder, then again express "horror" when doctor performing medically necessary abortions are killed.
Yes, they're doing it. They're passive about it, but they are part of the problem.
I know MODERATE Christians who are pro-gay and pro-abortion. You're using logic that lumps all Christians in one group. I know Christians who have protested FOR gay marriage and have spoken FOR abortion. Or do you know how every Christian in America votes?
And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.
Its the same thing with Islam. The majority opposes terrorism, but mostly doesn't speak out against it. The majority of Christians oppose violence against homosexuals and abortionists and oppose the child molestation done by priests, but don't really speak out against it.
by Treznor » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:59 am
Illithar wrote:I don't think that people here grasp that people lie about their motivations for doing things. In a world where religion is of central importance, it is very easy to hide greed behind religion without giving an actual shit about the religion one claims to be spreading.
by Iron Chariots » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:02 am
Treznor wrote:Illithar wrote:I don't think that people here grasp that people lie about their motivations for doing things. In a world where religion is of central importance, it is very easy to hide greed behind religion without giving an actual shit about the religion one claims to be spreading.
That doesn't let religion off the hook, though.
by Illithar » Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:24 am
Iron Chariots wrote:Treznor wrote:Illithar wrote:I don't think that people here grasp that people lie about their motivations for doing things. In a world where religion is of central importance, it is very easy to hide greed behind religion without giving an actual shit about the religion one claims to be spreading.
That doesn't let religion off the hook, though.
And besides, as much as people don't like to face this fact, yes, sometimes people really do horrible things out of genuine religious belief. I know people like to say "nobody commits atrocities for religion; religion is just an excuse," but that's bullshit.
The same people, strangely, will often credit religion with inspiring people to charity or whatnot.
Well, yeah, sometimes religion inspires people to do good. Sometimes, however, it has the opposite effect-- there's no magical barrier that prevents genuine religious belief from motivating somebody to do ill.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Al-Haqiqah, Angora Guanaco, Daphomir, El Lazaro, Galatia-, High Earth, Hurdergaryp, Likhinia, MR BEAST country, Nova Zueratopia, Novarisiya, Sarduri, Shrillland, Simonia, Squirreltopia, Tarsonis, The All-Powerful Spiffing Brit, Umeria, Waffland
Advertisement