[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher

Uhhhh...

There is, and never has been a person or institution between a Christian and God.

There is only man and God.

Where do you get information like that?

The Roman Catholic Church is the institution spoken of. Those who do not believe in its autority are heretics and do Christianity great damage by calling themselves Christian.

The Church is a very important part of Christianity. Its purpose (among others) is to preserve the Faith and keep it from being misinterpreted or twisted by heretics.

In North America herecy is very common and it is sad. The Church does have some hold though and that is good.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

You couldn't be more wrong! Catholocism may have a pope...but the pope is not the leader of Christianity.

Of course the Pope Benedicto XVI is the leader of Christianity. He is not the leader of heretics and those who do not acknowledge the Church are heretics. They are not Christian and they do Christians a great disservice to claim to be Christian.

Probably only a little less than the insano-terrorists who claim to be Muslims do to the sane Muslim.

Most of the herecies stem from North America and the reson being that the founders of the USA were more often than not fleeing from Europe to practice their heretic belief. Like Islam, the heretics do not have any central authority, they just believe in the Book and like in Islam that breeds dodgy interpretations and fanatics who do not understand the context the Bible is meant to be in.

I saw a program on TV the other where a heretic TV evangelist was explaining how the Bible could really only be interpreted through the Book of Revelations. That is how twisted their interpretation of Christianity has become. The flirting with Judaesm is also quite strange. The Old Testament is there for reference against the New Testament, folks. In no way are they equal to Christians, for the New Testament (in light of the Old Testament) is a cornerstone of Christianity.

cheers

W-Y

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Of course the Pope Benedicto XVI is the leader of Christianity. He is not the leader of heretics and those who do not acknowledge the Church are heretics. They are not Christian and they do Christians a great disservice to claim to be Christian.

Probably only a little less than the insano-terrorists who claim to be Muslims do to the sane Muslim.

Most of the herecies stem from North America and the reson being that the founders of the USA were more often than not fleeing from Europe to practice their heretic belief. Like Islam, the heretics do not have any central authority, they just believe in the Book and like in Islam that breeds dodgy interpretations and fanatics who do not understand the context the Bible is meant to be in.

I saw a program on TV the other where a heretic TV evangelist was explaining how the Bible could really only be interpreted through the Book of Revelations. That is how twisted their interpretation of Christianity has become. The flirting with Judaesm is also quite strange. The Old Testament is there for reference against the New Testament, folks. In no way are they equal to Christians, for the New Testament (in light of the Old Testament) is a cornerstone of Christianity.

cheers

W-Y

I agree. Imo, it is more than time that ALL religious people got together to defend the concept of spirituality (as opposed to any specific religion) against those that so desperately want to eradicate it.

Just as there will always be 'heretics', there will always be those who see a 'Christian heretic' and use that to 'prove' Christ's message worthless. Same with Islam.

No religion can ever promote hate and violence for the sake of violence - to do so disqualifies it from being a religion. It's like saying "I'm a vegetarian - I'm a special type of veggie that eats meat."

No, you're not. You're a meat-eater.

And those that leap on your stupidity to say "see, see, told you vegetarianism was all about eating meat" are not stupid - (well, they are but you now what I mean), they have an agenda. The same agenda as the 'heretics': devaluing spirituality.

We need to forget sectarianism and stop them. Not because they are a danger, they are not, they have no power in spiritual terms, but because if their views become accepted then thousands of people will be lost. They have no answers. All they can do is hate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

No religion can ever promote hate and violence for the sake of violence - to do so disqualifies it from being a religion.

No it doesn't. What on earth are you babbling on about? Just because the vast majority of religions promote love and peace it doesn't mean that they're requirements for any particular belief to be classed as a religion.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No it doesn't. What on earth are you babbling on about? Just because the vast majority of religions promote love and peace it doesn't mean that they're requirements for any particular belief to be classed as a religion.

I say it does.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The Roman Catholic Church is the institution spoken of. Those who do not believe in its autority are heretics and do Christianity great damage by calling themselves Christian.

The Church is a very important part of Christianity. Its purpose (among others) is to preserve the Faith and keep it from being misinterpreted or twisted by heretics.

In North America herecy is very common and it is sad. The Church does have some hold though and that is good.

cheers

W-Y

As if the Pope's interpretations are never changed. The Pope is a human being, and as such, is fallible. There are different beliefs even within the Roman Catholic Church, because it is an institution comprised of people. The RCC is not an organized religion; it is a cult centered around a human being.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Ummm.... in case you forgot that general area, the Balkans has been the staging point for the muslim invasion of Europe for centuries. I would hardly consider the war and genocide solely the fault of the Europeans in that area. It did happen..... and you know what ? guess who made them pay ?....the oh so evil "west" and the "infidels". As a matter of fact.... guess who took them to task for war crimes. Now if only those pesky muslims in Afghanistan or S.Arabia would have done the same with demons like Osama Bin Laden....oh.....but what that ? he's fighting for Muslims ? maybe thats why there hasnt been a single mass demonstration against him in the muslim world.

In fact lets....expand on that....apart from all the "politicians" in the mid-east yapping and denouncing terrorism, i wonder what public opinion is.....Hammas still exists, Al Quadea still exists, The idiots in Indonesia still exists, and what have the 1 billion muslims done about all the genocides conducted by their brotherin ? *crickets chirping*

Empires have come andgone...the issue of race has waved it's ugly head time and time again throughout the ages. And yet.... there are people who made the right choices and did the right things..... Martin Luter king Jr.(Christian) and Ghandi(Hindu), all brought about dramatic social change not more than 55 years ago..... which is more than can be said of the hateful, spiteful, vengeful ways of people like OBL(muslim).

So yeah, Melosovich was a problem....guess who organized concerts to bring aid to the victims in that region ? Guess which troops were at the front lines fighting against that sort of behaviour against ANYONE IRRESPECTIVE OF RELIGION/RACE. Europe didnt want another Hitler......neither did the U.S. or Chrisendom.

So where are the muslims marching against Al Quadea and Hammas and OBL ? Where are the concerts in the middle east that will send aid to the civilian victims in Israel ? the U.S. ? Bali ? Delhi ? etc..... nowhere.

Speaking of French......10 days of rioting. what have they acheived ? im sure there was some reason. ive heard first hand accounts of racism against muslims by the police force in France. But why didnt the Indians do the same in India against the british ? Why did Rosa Parks and MLK fight even greater odds peacefully ?

So yeah.....poor victimized muslims.... get real. i say those civilians in the NYC, London, Bali, India, Madrid, Jerusalem, Armenia (which by the way was genocide that almost wiped out an entire community that Turkey(muslim) will not even admit to), etc,etc,etc.... have it just as bad. The difference ? Muslims communities do nothing about the killers on their side of the fence, and sometimes even go so far as to praise them.

Cheers

Seriously. Seek help. This hatred your parents have instilled in you will hurt you in the future. It's already made you blind to reality.

The Muslims in Bosnia were Europeans. They weren't immigrants or of another race. They were simply Muslim Europeans. Just like I'm a Muslim European. You actually defend the massacre of innocent civilians just because they were Muslims. You really need to seek help. You are in fact saying that it would be just if I would be slaughtered because of what Muslims did centuries ago. Don't you see how sick that is?

Again, seek help. Because this hatred in your heart will come right back at you in the future.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

This will be an interesting war to end all wars. The west with vastly superior firepower and technology vs the billions of emotional violent Muslims with swords and machine guns. The large areas like Indonesia will be nuked like the deserts of Iran and Syria. Our high tech sonic and EMF weapons will be put to the test, and the genetic warfare that so many have said wouldn't happen WILL!
Will it end in fire?

Again proof that although many of you claim this isn't racism it is. But as with the majority of racists you aren't intelligent enough to realise it. Or anything else for that matter.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

For instance, you are victim of your ignorance and your prejudice.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Doofy

*cough*

The IRA thing is nothing at all to do with religion - it's to do with whether the folks of Northern Ireland want to be controlled from Westminster or Dublin. The whole thing is no more religious than ETA's little campaign down in Spain/France is.

Very true and quoted for emphasis. The IRA has nothing to do with religion.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Very true and quoted for emphasis. The IRA has nothing to do with religion.

cheers

W-Y

Do you guys really believe this myth or are you sheltering behind the fact that it isn't Christian to kill innocent civilians?

The "clash" was between Catholics and Protestants. The IRA often referred to themselves as "Defenders of the Catholics".

[Y3a]

<< Again proof that although many of you claim this isn't racism it is. But as with the majority of racists you aren't intelligent enough to realise it. Or anything else for that matter. >>

More name calling from the Muslim...

Sorry you are 'too smart' to get the point.

[Y3a]

Since when does race equate to religion? Some education and communcation skills you have there.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KarlG

As if the Pope's interpretations are never changed. The Pope is a human being, and as such, is fallible. There are different beliefs even within the Roman Catholic Church, because it is an institution comprised of people. The RCC is not an organized religion; it is a cult centered around a human being.

The Pope is the steward of Christendom. As such he is more than just the head of the Church. One of the purposes of the Church is to maintain and preserve Christianity, to eradicate ambiguity and lead the heretics back to the path. It is an institution of the highest standards, where people devote their lives to serve God. They are scholars, experts, scientists and thinkers. They do not change the message of the Bible and as such it does not matter if they are fallable. The core does not change.

However when the people ask the Church questions on how they should lead their lives, the Church will answer after considering the matter. This is of course on matters that are ambiguous or not adressed in the Bible. Such as the use of contraception, abortion etc. After consulting the Bible, history, precidents and praying for guidance the Pope may decide on such an issue. This isn't done with everything, just those things that are deemed important enough, the Priests are well capable of guiding on their own.

Also, in the First Vatican council Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of Papal infallibility. The concept had a long history before that but there and then it was defined properly. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra he is speaking with the protection of the Holy Spirit and is there and then infallable. If you want to look at this as an atheist then you can see it as this: when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is making a prepared speech. This has already been processed by the Church and while one man is likely to make mistakes, he is speaking for many.

But if you do as I, then the Holy Spirit prevents fallacy when speaking ex cathedra. So the Pope is infallable in effect, even though he is human. Popes and the Church are not famous for changing their opinion. So it is strange that of all the accusations you bring up is one of not standing one's ground. By the Roman Catholic Church? Are you sure you are not confusing this with some other church? Change does happen but it usually takes centuries rather than decades. Even so like life itself nothing can stand still and not change. I think God realizes this and lets his steward know from time to time, no?

The Roman Catholic Church is not a cult, nor is it centered about any one person. It is the Church of God on Earth and the steward of Christendom.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Y3a.

Did you really need to posts to say that? And is quoting posts correctly too difficult for you? Look at your post again. You probably still won't get it but at least you tried.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Do you guys really believe this myth or are you sheltering behind the fact that it isn't Christian to kill innocent civilians?

The "clash" was between Catholics and Protestants. The IRA often referred to themselves as "Defenders of the Catholics".

Perdone señor, but the Irish Republican Army is a bunch of terrorists who are amazingly not above trying to use religion as means to enforce and support their cause. Note the actual name does not imply any religious connection, rather a nationalistic/romantic-freedom fighting agenda.

The history of the IRA is long and convoluted. Today we have the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, both of whom stem from a 1969 split of the Irregular IRA which in turn was a split from the IRA in 1922. Besides the two main splits there are a multitude of sub-groups who claim to be the "real" IRA. Not regarding those, it would be the Provisional IRA that I imagine you envision as the "IRA". The PIRA was to begin with considered by the Catholics in N-Ireland to be defenders of nationalist and Catholic people against aggression. I don't have to tell you that whatever they were, they were not protecting Catholics - rather for historical reasons the Irish are Catholic and the English Protestant. The IRA, PIRA and all its incarnations is a nationalistic terrorist organization. They could not care less about religion, unless it serves their purpose for a unified Ireland.

The Irish have traditionally been Catholic and indeed today of all the nations in Europe they are the most devout Catholics. Even I am most impressed over their devotion, for it is most unusal in 2005 to have more than 50% of the nation going more than once a month to church.

There was no clash between Catholics and Protestants. There was/is a clash between Irish people and British. The N-Ireland Catholics are a minority in N-Ireland and usually the poorest people. They have been kept in check by the British conquerers, but there is more than a religios difference between the two. There is another culture, history, language and tradition between the two. Then there is the wounded pride of having lost part of the island to the British and the romantic desire to have a united Ireland again. Religion is such a detail in all this that I applaud you for bringing it up :golfclap:

Want further evidence that these are two completely different groups of people that could almost not be less related? Just compare Irish girls to British girls.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Perdone señor, but the Irish Republican Army is a bunch of terrorists who are amazingly not above trying to use religion as means to enforce and support their cause. Note the actual name does not imply any religious connection, rather a nationalistic/romantic-freedom fighting agenda.

The history of the IRA is long and convoluted. Today we have the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, both of whom stem from a 1969 split of the Irregular IRA which in turn was a split from the IRA in 1922. Besides the two main splits there are a multitude of sub-groups who claim to be the "real" IRA. Not regarding those, it would be the Provisional IRA that I imagine you envision as the "IRA". The PIRA was to begin with considered by the Catholics in N-Ireland to be defenders of nationalist and Catholic people against aggression. I don't have to tell you that whatever they were, they were not protecting Catholics - rather for historical reasons the Irish are Catholic and the English Protestant. The IRA, PIRA and all its incarnations is a nationalistic terrorist organization. They could not care less about religion, unless it serves their purpose for a unified Ireland.

The Irish have traditionally been Catholic and indeed today of all the nations in Europe they are the most devout Catholics. Even I am most impressed over their devotion, for it is most unusal in 2005 to have more than 50% of the nation going more than once a month to church.

There was no clash between Catholics and Protestants. There was/is a clash between Irish people and British. The N-Ireland Catholics are a minority in N-Ireland and usually the poorest people. They have been kept in check by the British conquerers, but there is more than a religios difference between the two. There is another culture, history, language and tradition between the two. Then there is the wounded pride of having lost part of the island to the British and the romantic desire to have a united Ireland again. Religion is such a detail in all this that I applaud you for bringing it up :golfclap:

Want further evidence that these are two completely different groups of people that could almost not be less related? Just compare Irish girls to British girls.

cheers

W-Y

Copy pasting a lot of information from Wiki (or something similar) doesn't help your argument. Your first paragraph would have been enough. It's just sad (and sickening) that people that follow your line of thinking don't apply the same to the various "Muslim" terrorist groups.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Perdone señor, but the Irish Republican Army is a bunch of terrorists who are amazingly not above trying to use religion as means to enforce and support their cause. Note the actual name does not imply any religious connection, rather a nationalistic/romantic-freedom fighting agenda.

The history of the IRA is long and convoluted. Today we have the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, both of whom stem from a 1969 split of the Irregular IRA which in turn was a split from the IRA in 1922. Besides the two main splits there are a multitude of sub-groups who claim to be the "real" IRA. Not regarding those, it would be the Provisional IRA that I imagine you envision as the "IRA". The PIRA was to begin with considered by the Catholics in N-Ireland to be defenders of nationalist and Catholic people against aggression. I don't have to tell you that whatever they were, they were not protecting Catholics - rather for historical reasons the Irish are Catholic and the English Protestant. The IRA, PIRA and all its incarnations is a nationalistic terrorist organization. They could not care less about religion, unless it serves their purpose for a unified Ireland.

The Irish have traditionally been Catholic and indeed today of all the nations in Europe they are the most devout Catholics. Even I am most impressed over their devotion, for it is most unusal in 2005 to have more than 50% of the nation going more than once a month to church.

There was no clash between Catholics and Protestants. There was/is a clash between Irish people and British. The N-Ireland Catholics are a minority in N-Ireland and usually the poorest people. They have been kept in check by the British conquerers, but there is more than a religios difference between the two. There is another culture, history, language and tradition between the two. Then there is the wounded pride of having lost part of the island to the British and the romantic desire to have a united Ireland again. Religion is such a detail in all this that I applaud you for bringing it up :golfclap:

Want further evidence that these are two completely different groups of people that could almost not be less related? Just compare Irish girls to British girls.

cheers

W-Y

If you can conceive of that in relation to the IRA why not al-Qaeda?

When it is 'Christian terror' related they are a 'bunch of terrorists'.

When it is 'Islamic terror' they are a 'bunch of Muslims'.

[Hawkeye_a]

I'm Roman Catholic. I always thought the Pope was the "steward" of the Catholic Church, not all of Christianity. Anglicans got the Archbishop of Cantebury and the royal family(right?).

I was under the impression that the whole Protestant movement was because of the problem with "managment" (the institution of Catholicism) (and rightfully so i might add).

As far as Catholicism being a "cult"....lol...yeah....2000 year history dating back to the Christ.

Just to clarify, i thought "Chrisendom" includes all the denominations including Protestans, Orthodox, Catholics and other "institutions" founded on the teachings of Christ ?

As far as the IRA, there turned into terrorists in the second half of the 1900s, with "geographic" conflict as their basis (much like some other groups today). From what ive read & heard on Ireland, the British invaded after forming thr Anglican church and splitting from Rome, and it was only when the British king at that time tried to convert the Irish from Catholics to Anglicans that the problem actually started started. I still consider Michael Collins a freedom fighter, but i think initially the conflict was due to religious differences, which eventually gave way to just plain conflict. But i have to admit right here, that all i know on the subject is from a couple of books ive read on Ireland and heard from my high school teachers who were from Ireland/Wales/England. So yeah.

And i know many ppl like to pick on the Catholic Church, it's funny (South park ), but like any man made institution we/they have their problems. Like ive said earlier, change the institution, the dogma. But the basis is the "way of life"(the way to treat and live with others) that it teaches that i personally think and beleive is the best for me and servs people/families/communities rather well.

Cheers

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I'm Roman Catholic. I always thought the Pope was the "stewart" of the Catholic Church, not all of Christianity. Anglicans got the Archbishop of Cantebury and the royal family(right?).

I was under the impression that the whole Protestant movement was because of the problem with "managment" (the institution of Catholicism) (and rightfully so i might add).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Copy pasting a lot of information from Wiki (or something similar) doesn't help your argument. Your first paragraph would have been enough. It's just sad (and sickening) that people that follow your line of thinking don't apply the same to the various "Muslim" terrorist groups.

No, I wrote my post all by myself although I did find references for years and names. Also I am not arguing, I am correcting. The bottom line is that the IRA has nothing to do with Catholicism any more than the ETA in Spain has for they are Catholics as well.

The explaination of the IRA was for your benefit and others who might have thought the same as you, so if you did not appreciate it perhaps someone else will.

As for the last part of your post, you may have thing backwards. People in the Western world undoubtably understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. However it has not escaped my attention that their main concern is the lack of condemnation from Muslims, Muslim media and Muslim Clerics. Granted, Islam is based in another culture than the Western one and it is the Western Muslims who have been very vocal against violence and terrorism - at least most of them.

The question of why Muslims worldwide do not participate in the condemnation is beoynd me to answer, but clearly that is not happening. Perhaps it is because of the de-centralized structure of Islam or perhaps it is because condemning terrorism against the West isn't chic right now in the Middle East region. Perhaps there is another reason or many reasons. Personally, I don't mind that much whether they protest or not. It would be nice of them to raise their voice against mindless violence towards innocent civilians, but if they don't feel like it then they don't.

So while people in the West (and when I say West I mean from Greece to Hawaii) acknowledge that the Islamic terrorists are a fringe group the murmur or silence coming from Muslims in general feels like a nod of approvement even if they would not participate directly themselves. It is all a question of perception.

cheers

W-Y

[Y3a]

V W...

You are referring to this: ??


" and the genetic warfare that so many have said wouldn't happen WILL!
Will it end in fire? "

This is as close as it gets to anything like you refer to. it is a comment about the actual genetic based weapons that have been suggested don't exist, but seem to if you watch the technomedicine web sites, and watch the stocks climb. Are you suggesting that the islamic warriors are somehow organized, as suggested in the thread about France??

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The question of why Muslims worldwide do not participate in the condemnation is beoynd me to answer, but clearly that is not happening.

Why is it clearly not happening?

What would you like to see - I mean what exactly is the least you'd find acceptable and in who's terms?

Btw - I think you need to adjust your statement to something like "I see no reports of it happening...."

Then I would agree. There are none. That may be because, as you say, nothing is happening or it may be that nothing is being reported. As I know for sure of many examples of the ofrmer then I would go for the latter as closest to the truth.

Btw - could you give me an example of how you see the the Irish Christian community having 'spoken out' in condemnation of the IRA ? And when and where?

Perhaps that will help us find exact equivalents.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Here's a thought. Quit making excuses for extremist Islamists around the globe who keep refering to non beleivers as "infidels" and whos motivation to kill people is difference in religion(all other major world religions i might add), and geographic conquest. Luckily for me, the text that i base my life on, dosent leave itself open for interpretation so people can hide behind it when they are actually evil.

You seem convinced that im racist, when in fact im not. I am very disappointed in the fact that the muslim community has done almost nothing to try and get rid of the terrorists that keep attacking everyone else. I am also disappointed(and sickened) that there are in fact so many terrorists (who coincidently ) use islam and the quaran as their teachings and even justification, and nothing is being done to change that from muslims,which are 1 billion on this planet.

So my question to you is, do Muslims actually support these terrorists(who are in fact using Islam as the basis for their actions) ? if not, why dont they protest or do something concrete to stop them ? Dont label me a racist, i dont hate muslims (maybe just you)....but dont confuse that with disappointment that i express here towards the muslim community with reluctant to change this menacing global trent of islamist terrosist around teh world.

If "terrosist" are such a common phenomenon, why arent there as many religious terroist factions in Christianity (which also i might add are 1+ billion strong) or Hindus (which are also 1 billion strong) ?

The fact is, we base our lives on different codes of conduct that are greatly influenced by the holy texts we follow. The fact remains that when you look at the world, there are a lot more terrorists on the muslim side of the fence than on the other (everyone else). The cause could be either:
-a worldwide conspiracy to opress muslims around the world and this is responce. OR
-there might be a problem with the "institution" of Islam and maybe even a problem with the text itself("Jihad" as stated before).

Im not one to beleive in conspiracy theories, so a global conspiracy against muslims from Christians, Jews, Hindus and Budhists seems highly unlikely. That leaves one other logical explination for the fact that there ARE so many terrorist groups originating from the Muslim world. The terroists have the support of the majority of the muslim people in the world, and that support stems from a flawed holy text (referring to "Jihad" here).

So dont label me a racist, i dont hate muslim eventhough they dont seem to be doing anything to stop or curb the groups on their soil that target civilians around the world. I'm just..... very disappointed, that sheer stubborness(and probably fear) to change is keeping them from doing away with the notion of "Jihad" or at the very least changing it.

And beleive me when i say that im greatful that, at least i nthis day and age, Catholics dont supoort militias and terroists groups.....not in the institution, in the text or in the community.

Cheers

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by segovius

If you can conceive of that in relation to the IRA why not al-Qaeda?

Because unlike IRA, AQ is an Islamic terrorist group. It receives all its inspiration through their faith and use their faith as an excuse and reason for killing innocent civilians. The IRA was fighting against the UK because they wanted a united Ireland. Religion just doesn't enter into it. I don't doubt that the PIRA has used religion as a rallying call, but that does not make their core, their purpose or their drive. To put it another way, take the religion away from the IRA and they will continue fighting for a united Ireland, take away the religion from AQ and they wouldn't know what to do. That is the difference.

Originally Posted by segovius

When it is 'Christian terror' related they are a 'bunch of terrorists'.

Christian terrorism would have to be terrorism in the name of Christianity at the very least. Otherwise, why the religious label? OBL and AQ talk about their reasons for being in the terrorism biz and that reason is Islam. They look to their faith and find reasons to conduct terrorism because of them. While I most certainly acknowledge they are not true Muslims, they bear the classification of Islamic terrorists just fine.

I cannot think of any group who could be labeled a Christian terrorist group. The IRA and ETA are nationalists. Fighting either other Catholics or Protestants. Hardly religious terrorst groups. So to respond to your claim above: No, when it is Christian terror it is Christian terror, but there doen't exist any Christian terror. Unless of course you are just going to define the IRA and ETA as Christian terrorists - but you wouldn't because that would be incorrect.

When it is 'Islamic terror' they are a 'bunch of Muslims'.[/QUOTE]
When it is Islamic terror, they are a bunch of fanatic Islamic nutcases. Sociopaths, maybe even evil who know and who cares? They do consider themselves Muslims and are doing proper Muslims a big disfavor with it. The only thing proper Muslims can do to prevent this is to distance themselves from these nutcases. Of course when terrorsts act they get all the attention, they send letters or tapes or videos where they brag about their cause or whatever and this is on the news and the internet and on these tapes they declare themselves as Muslims.

I'm afraid you who consider them to be abominations will have to speak loudly against this. They are in fact declaring they are good Muslims and you are not. Perhaps that does not bother you as such, since you in your mind know this to be a lie. It does affect the way Muslims are perceived though and that is something you might care about. As I said before, this is all about perception and you are fighting an uphill battle against Islamic extremests who are doing a mighty fine job of introducing their version of Islam to the world.

cheers

W-Y

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

They do consider themselves Muslims and are doing proper Muslims a big disfavor with it.

The only thing proper Muslims can do to prevent this is to distance themselves from these nutcases. Of course when terrorsts act they get all the attention, they send letters or tapes or videos where they brag about their cause or whatever and this is on the news and the internet and on these tapes they declare themselves as Muslims.

They are in fact declaring they are good Muslims and you are not. Perhaps that does not bother you as such, since you in your mind know this to be a lie. It does affect the way Muslims are perceived though and that is something you might care about. As I said before, this is all about perception and you are fighting an uphill battle against Islamic extremests who are doing a mighty fine job of introducing their version of Islam to the world.

I question all this. That is to say, I do not deny it but I do question it. For the following reasons (among others):

1) The al-Q tapes. Many are undeniable fakes. I know this because I know that there are theological and grammatical errors that only a Muslim or arabic speaker would know.

I ask myself why a Muslim would make these errors.

I then see with my own eyes that there are at least three bin Ladens in the various videos.

A ask myself how this can be and what it means. presumably someone in the West felt it necessary to 'construct' this evidence (surely no Muslim would) but then I would ask myself why? Why, if such evidence really already existed?

2) I then read reports of the behaviour of (say) Muhammad Atta in the days before 911. I would expect a fanatical maniac who is preparing to sacrifice himself for the 'sake of Allah' to perhaps prepare himself for the next world, and perhaps in an extreme fashion.

I would not expect him to spend his last days on earth coked off his nut, picking up prostitutes in Florida bars and cursing God when the bar tender says he has had too much to drink.

3) I know what an Islamic Last Will is and having seen a transcript of Atta's I see very little similarity. Ditto the 'instructions' for the 911 operation - these are without doubt (to my mind) written by someone whose primary frame of reference is Western/Christian rather than Islamic. there simply are no such Islamic theological concepts as are outlined there.

But this is by the by. In all cultures the name of the religion serves two functions. Thus in the West the term 'Christian' is used in two different (and often contradictory) senses:

1) to apply to a believer such as yourself.

2) to apply to a nation - ie 'the UK is a Christian country'. That is not to say that everyone in it is a Christian but all the same, even the biggest sinner or thug will write 'Christian' when asked his religion at a hospital or on a passport.

Such people are also invariably accorded Christian burials. Are they Christians? No.

It is almost like there is some filter or implant preventing you from making a logical leap which would enable you to draw a parallel in the case of Islam. Curious.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I'm Roman Catholic. I always thought the Pope was the "steward" of the Catholic Church, not all of Christianity. Anglicans got the Archbishop of Cantebury and the royal family(right?).

I'm a Roman Catholic but you are only half right when you say that the Pope is the steward of the Catholic Church. He is the head of the Catholic Church and the steward of Christendom.

Anglicans have nothing to do with Protestantism, at least not from the beginning. King Henry VIII decided one day that the Catholic church was too powerful and rich and that this power and money would be far better off in his hands. And so he declared himself the head of the Church of England. A logical conclusion for sure but only if your name was Henry VIII and you happened to be the king. There was no honor or holiness in the creation of the Anglican church and it is quite the bastard like its father. After Henry VIII died his successors looked to the Protestant movement in Northern Europe for inspiration and that made the Church of England a near copy of Lutherianism.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I was under the impression that the whole Protestant movement was because of the problem with "managment" (the institution of Catholicism) (and rightfully so i might add).

Boy oh boy. You do consider youself to be a Roman Catholic? There was no problem with "management", but there was a problem with power. The Catholic Church had a lot of power and as demonstrated by Henry VIII, kings were not entirely pleased with this development. The Church owned land and collected a tithe and had immense influence over the people. It was a time of enlightenment, a time when a incredibly conservative institution like the Catholic Church was under pressure from within to modernise and embrace the new times. Many priests wanted Bibles in the local languages and the abolishment of the dubious sale of indulgence by the Church. Martin Luther was one of these Catholics and he fought for changes with the Church without much success. Instead he got support from local lords and kings to establish a new church, a protestant church which would hold no alliegence to Rome and have the Bible as the ultimate authority. There was nothing rightful about this. It was all based on the greed of kings. So ultimately they succeeded in splitting from the Catholic Church. Did away with many sacraments and simplified the institution. Through the years the Catholic Church has not stood still and compared to the original Protestants, today's Catholic Church is very liberal and understanding. It is perhaps better for it but Christendom has suffered for it. That is why I question you alliegence to the Church by stating that it was a rightful move by the protestants to split. It was not. I do hope you reconsider your stance towards this issue and maintain fidelity to the Church.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As far as Catholicism being a "cult"....lol...yeah....2000 year history dating back to the Christ.

I think he was implying that Catholicism is a personal cult of the Pope. If I misunderstood it, my apologies but that comment was not properly explained anyway. Of course Christianity is not a cult and Catholicism is Christianity.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Just to clarify, i thought "Chrisendom" includes all the denominations including Protestans, Orthodox, Catholics and other "institutions" founded on the teachings of Christ ?

That is not quite the case, but close. Christendom is a term used for God's Kingdom on Earth. It includes those who believe in the concept of the Church, so while it would include Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant countries, it does not include the heretics who denounce the Church. So for instance the USA is not a part of Christendom, while Norway is. There is more significance to the term but this covers the basic meaning of the term.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As far as the IRA, there turned into terrorists in the second half of the 1900s, with "geographic" conflict as their basis (much like some other groups today). From what ive read & heard on Ireland, the British invaded after forming thr Anglican church and splitting from Rome, and it was only when the British king at that time tried to convert the Irish from Catholics to Anglicans that the problem actually started started. I still consider Michael Collins a freedom fighter, but i think initially the conflict was due to religious differences, which eventually gave way to just plain conflict. But i have to admit right here, that all i know on the subject is from a couple of books ive read on Ireland and heard from my high school teachers who were from Ireland/Wales/England. So yeah.

King Henry VIII was about as Christian as Genghis Khan. He attacked Ireland and tried to convert them to the Church of England to maintain power. End of story. He did not attack because he was worried that his neighbors in the west believed in the wrong thing. Power and money. Religion used as a tool to split and unite. As I said before, take away the faith of everyone involved in the conflict in Ireland and you would still have a conflict. Religion doesn't really enter into it.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And i know many ppl like to pick on the Catholic Church, it's funny (South park ), but like any man made institution we/they have their problems. Like ive said earlier, change the institution, the dogma. But the basis is the "way of life"(the way to treat and live with others) that it teaches that i personally think and beleive is the best for me and servs people/families/communities rather well.
Cheers

No oh no. The Catholic Church is not a man made institution. That is the whole point my confused friend. It was founded by Christ, the Son of God. From Him it derives its holyness and authority. It is run by human beings and therein can problems arise. But the Church is not a man made institution.

The rest I agree with more or less, but atheists don't just attack the Catholic Church, they give everyone equal time. Although they tend to find the more exotic religions somehow more interesting.

cheers

W-Y

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm afraid you who consider them to be abominations will have to speak loudly against this. They are in fact declaring they are good Muslims and you are not. Perhaps that does not bother you as such, since you in your mind know this to be a lie. It does affect the way Muslims are perceived though and that is something you might care about. As I said before, this is all about perception and you are fighting an uphill battle against Islamic extremests who are doing a mighty fine job of introducing their version of Islam to the world.

Thank you for that, i couldnth ave put it bette myself. Instead of defending islam by rediculing everyone else, maybe some change needs to be made from within your communities.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq, what did the people in the U.S., Europe and Australia do ? they gathered in millions to protest the unjust(imo) invasion. We did the same for Vietnam. When Bosnia was the focus of misfortune, many musicians organized concerts to try and bring aid to them(even though on the religious divide the aid was going to the other side). (By the way, i did buy(and still own) the 'No Boundaries' CD to support the aid efforts for Bosnia). But thats how we handle it.

Someone here asked what could be done ? for one...how about mass protests against terrorist organizations in state capitals around teh middle east ? or even strikes until governments are forced to do something about it ? how about an advertizing campaign that denounces these terrorist orginizations or at the very least making the distinction between what the intrepretation of the Quaran "should" be as opposed to what the terroists use ?

I'll tell you one thing(just an example that comes to mind).... indonesian courts wernt as tough as they aught to have been against the Bali bombers.

I remember taking an anthropology class on "peoples of the world", and i remember talking about a group of Native Americans/Eskimos (n.American tribe). The way they would handle the bad Apple's in the tribe was to merely abandon them and force them to leave. The fact remains that dramatically more islamic terrorists continue to reside in the muslim world than "christian terrorists" in the Christian world or "hindu terrorists" in India or "Budhist terrorists" in south east Asia. it's been going on for quite some time now....the latest of which were bombs in Delhi ina friggon market place !!! i dont see muslims in India or kashmir or Pakistan protesting against such behaviour. I doubt it's a media conspiracy.

Cheers

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by segovius

I question all this. That is to say, I do not deny it but I do question it. For the following reasons (among others):

1) The al-Q tapes. Many are undeniable fakes. I know this because I know that there are theological and grammatical errors that only a Muslim or arabic speaker would know.

I ask myself why a Muslim would make these errors.

I then see with my own eyes that there are at least three bin Ladens in the various videos.

A ask myself how this can be and what it means. presumably someone in the West felt it necessary to 'construct' this evidence (surely no Muslim would) but then I would ask myself why? Why, if such evidence really already existed?

2) I then read reports of the behaviour of (say) Muhammad Atta in the days before 911. I would expect a fanatical maniac who is preparing to sacrifice himself for the 'sake of Allah' to perhaps prepare himself for the next world, and perhaps in an extreme fashion.

I would not expect him to spend his last days on earth coked off his nut, picking up prostitutes in Florida bars and cursing God when the bar tender says he has had too much to drink.

3) I know what an Islamic Last Will is and having seen a transcript of Atta's I see very little similarity. Ditto the 'instructions' for the 911 operation - these are without doubt (to my mind) written by someone whose primary frame of reference is Western/Christian rather than Islamic. there simply are no such Islamic theological concepts as are outlined there.

Questioning is all very well. If the roles were reversed and I would be reading about, hearing and seeing acts of terrorims declared to be in the name of the Catholic Church I would be very hard pressed to even start to consider it as a fact. It would be that much out of character.

You question that the people behind these recent acts of terrorism against the West are in fact Muslims at all. Fine by me and I completely understand that. You as a Muslim would know better than I. However that is just really rather irrelevant for this discussion because what you are seeing here is a lot of people who think Muslims in general support, condone or commit acts of terror. It is a matter of perception. That is why it is more important for Muslims to distance themselves from these atrocities than to lay blame. At least for now. Your credibility is down the drain and for some reason your voices of protest against these things are not heard or reported. Perhaps it is all a major conspiracy, but as I said it does not matter. To be heard these days you do not have to be the media's darling, nor do you have to have friends in high places. In fact those who protest against wars are rarely in that position, but through the years - since Vietnam at least - they have made themselves heard. They have worked on it and in the case of Vietnam they managed to get their country to withdraw and lose Vietnam to Communists. The very thing they went there to prevent.

It does not matter whether the tapes or terrorists are or were Muslims, even in their mind - at least not right now. Whether they were or were not they certainly tried to make sure everyone thought they were, so you as Muslims would be intrested in making sure everyone would think they were *not*. At least I would think so. Maybe I'm missing something that makes such an act absoloutly unnecessary, but I don't think so.

Originally Posted by segovius

But this is by the by. In all cultures the name of the religion serves two functions. Thus in the West the term 'Christian' is used in two different (and often contradictory) senses:

1) to apply to a believer such as yourself.

2) to apply to a nation - ie 'the UK is a Christian country'. That is not to say that everyone in it is a Christian but all the same, even the biggest sinner or thug will write 'Christian' when asked his religion at a hospital or on a passport.

Such people are also invariably accorded Christian burials. Are they Christians? No.

This I agree with, just as it is used with Muslim countries. I am not seeing your point here, because if it is supposed to distance AQ and co. from Islam well, no dice. They are firmly entrenced in Islam. As I said before, take away their faith and they are nothing. This not apply to the IRA or ETA for instance because when you take away their faith they are still nationalist. Like they have always been. That is their drive. ETA are Catholics fighting Catholics. It isn't about religion.

Originally Posted by segovius

It is almost like there is some filter or implant preventing you from making a logical leap which would enable you to draw a parallel in the case of Islam. Curious.

Not really, as I have explained quite clearly. The Islamic terrorist groups would not exist without their religion. What would they fight for then?

cheers

W-Y

[Hawkeye_a]

Weyland-Yutani,
I was told that Henry VII(or 8th) split from the Catholic church due to the fact that the church would not grant him a divorce or something to that effect. That coupled with the power dispute thing. Also, if i remember correctly the Irish(Celts) were the first slaves of the british, so it was more economically driven to invade Ireland. From what ive heard most Irish didnt have a problem with that. It's when the King tries to convert them to Anglican(obviously to reinforce control and cement their loyalty) that the freedom movement began.

When i say "institution" and "management", i am referring to the hierachy, which im pretty sure Christ didnt create....when i say that i mean cardinals>bishops>parish priests, etc.... that sort of thing.

Also, i am not entirely proud of the 'managment' and leadership of the Church through the middle ages and adark ages. taxes, inquisitions, "bad" Popes, etc. But thats the problem with any human beings. With John Paul II, i was truely proud to have him as my religious and spiritual leader.....and that was primarily because of his genuine effort to bridge the gap between the world religions.

The Church as an "instiution" (i might have different definition of it) was founded by Christ yes, with the first pope being St.Peter. totally agreed there.

Also, i consider myself a Catholic in that i follow the 10 commandments primarily, and other rules and laws passed by Rome. Thats religion (way of life) to me. Personally, i make a distinction between spirituality/supernatural/divinity and "religion".... the former is an ongoing journey/puzzle/enigma that i may ot may not figure out or come to peace with. But for sake of this argument, i decided to leave the spiritual/supernatural part out on purpose and concentrate on the "religion" and way of life thats preached in the world religions.

Cheers

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Thank you for that, i couldnth ave put it bette myself. Instead of defending islam by rediculing everyone else, maybe some change needs to be made from within your communities.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq, what did the people in the U.S., Europe and Australia do ? they gathered in millions to protest the unjust(imo) invasion. We did the same for Vietnam. When Bosnia was the focus of misfortune, many musicians organized concerts to try and bring aid to them(even though on the religious divide the aid was going to the other side). (By the way, i did buy(and still own) the 'No Boundaries' CD to support the aid efforts for Bosnia). But thats how we handle it.

Someone here asked what could be done ? for one...how about mass protests against terrorist organizations in state capitals around teh middle east ? or even strikes until governments are forced to do something about it ? how about an advertizing campaign that denounces these terrorist orginizations or at the very least making the distinction between what the intrepretation of the Quaran "should" be as opposed to what the terroists use ?

I'll tell you one thing(just an example that comes to mind).... indonesian courts wernt as tough as they aught to have been against the Bali bombers.

I remember taking an anthropology class on "peoples of the world", and i remember talking about a group of Native Americans/Eskimos (n.American tribe). The way they would handle the bad Apple's in the tribe was to merely abandon them and force them to leave. The fact remains that dramatically more islamic terrorists continue to reside in the muslim world than "christian terrorists" in the Christian world or "hindu terrorists" in India or "Budhist terrorists" in south east Asia. it's been going on for quite some time now....the latest of which were bombs in Delhi ina friggon market place !!! i dont see muslims in India or kashmir or Pakistan protesting against such behaviour. I doubt it's a media conspiracy.

Cheers

I think we see eye to eye here. It can't all be a massive conspiracy. On one hand between 1 billion Christans and 1 billion Muslims. Perhaps it is a cultural thing and that many Muslims live in non-democratic countries where protests are frowned upon traditionally. There are too many people involved for there to be a misunderstanding of this magnitude or a conspiracy to be going on. Conspiracies don't work well on a large scale. That is their weakness, while between a closed small group they can be quite effective.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Weyland-Yutani,
I was told that Henry VII(or 8th) split from the Catholic church due to the fact that the church would not grant him a divorce or something to that effect. That coupled with the power dispute thing. Also, if i remember correctly the Irish(Celts) were the first slaves of the british, so it was more economically driven to invade Ireland. From what ive heard most Irish didnt have a problem with that. It's when the King tries to convert them to Anglican(obviously to reinforce control and cement their loyalty) that the freedom movement began.

Yes it was Henry VIII (8th) who split from the Catholic Church and he used his desire for a divorce as an excuse. However England being far from Rome and him being king, well that is one awful reason to split your nation from the Holy Church when you can just park your wife somewhere and consort with your mistresses as you please.

No, like everywhere else in Norther Europe at this time the split from the Catholic Church came from the desire for power. Power over the people, power over land and power over taxes. Indeed Henry VIII didn't wait long before divorcing his wive but he also was pretty quick to abolish the monesteries and take over the Church's possessions. The church of England in his time was a church without morals. But then, none were needed because this wasn't about religion but power. Henry VIII wasn't a religious man.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

When i say "institution" and "management", i am referring to the hierachy, which im pretty sure Christ didnt create....when i say that i mean cardinals>bishops>parish priests, etc.... that sort of thing.

In way He did when He gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and made him the steward of Christendom. St. Peter announces his successor and so on and so forth. The current Pope is a man who derives his authority in a straight succession from St. Peter and thus from Christ Himself. The hierarchy is bound to Christ that way.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Also, i am not entirely proud of the 'managment' and leadership of the Church through the middle ages and adark ages. taxes, inquisitions, "bad" Popes, etc. But thats the problem with any human beings. With John Paul II, i was truely proud to have him as my religious and spiritual leader.....and that was primarily because of his genuine effort to bridge the gap between the world religions.

And you should be proud of the current Pope Benedicto XVI as well. A learned and wise man. A worthy successor to Juan Pablo II. You should also be proud of the Popes of the past. While some were not the best - as you say they are only human - they managed to hold the Church together through difficult times and keep its integrity and preserve the faith. At least even the worst of Popes managed that. As for Inquisitions and Crusades, I recommend you read more about them. It is quite surprising how honorable and fair they were considering how many boogieman stories we are told about them. The Church is not and was never a monster. it did what it had to do for Christendom. Do not think Inquisitions were anything like the Spanish Inquisition. That one was special and not under the supervision of the Church, but under los Reyes Católicos, Fernando y Isabel of Spain. There is quite a difference between that Inquisition and those conducted by the Holy See.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

The Church as an "instiution" (i might have different definition of it) was founded by Christ yes, with the first pope being St.Peter. totally agreed there.

Of course

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Also, i consider myself a Catholic in that i follow the 10 commandments primarily, and other rules and laws passed by Rome. Thats religion (way of life) to me. Personally, i make a distinction between spirituality/supernatural/divinity and "religion".... the former is an ongoing journey/puzzle/enigma that i may ot may not figure out or come to peace with. But for sake of this argument, i decided to leave the spiritual/supernatural part out on purpose and concentrate on the "religion" and way of life thats preached in the world religions.

Cheers

A wise choice and I wish you luck with it. Discovering religion is quite the journey, but those who are strong of faith, mind and spirit will make it.

cheers

W-Y

[olePigeon]

Not to mention that during the 15th century esepecially, anyone who wanted money and power became a Bishop. You didn't even have to be very Christian like to do it. Separation from the Roman Catholic Church ensured that the King, and not the Pope, was the one in power.

However, it's kind of a catch-22 because it's the Arch Bishop of the region (usually Canterbury) that would oversee the coronation. It's God's Will that you become King, so you kinda need the Pope to make sure God didn't change his mind.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The Pope is the steward of Christendom. As such he is more than just the head of the Church. One of the purposes of the Church is to maintain and preserve Christianity, to eradicate ambiguity and lead the heretics back to the path. It is an institution of the highest standards, where people devote their lives to serve God. They are scholars, experts, scientists and thinkers. They do not change the message of the Bible and as such it does not matter if they are fallable. The core does not change.

However when the people ask the Church questions on how they should lead their lives, the Church will answer after considering the matter. This is of course on matters that are ambiguous or not adressed in the Bible. Such as the use of contraception, abortion etc. After consulting the Bible, history, precidents and praying for guidance the Pope may decide on such an issue. This isn't done with everything, just those things that are deemed important enough, the Priests are well capable of guiding on their own.

Also, in the First Vatican council Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of Papal infallibility. The concept had a long history before that but there and then it was defined properly. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra he is speaking with the protection of the Holy Spirit and is there and then infallable. If you want to look at this as an atheist then you can see it as this: when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is making a prepared speech. This has already been processed by the Church and while one man is likely to make mistakes, he is speaking for many.

But if you do as I, then the Holy Spirit prevents fallacy when speaking ex cathedra. So the Pope is infallable in effect, even though he is human. Popes and the Church are not famous for changing their opinion. So it is strange that of all the accusations you bring up is one of not standing one's ground. By the Roman Catholic Church? Are you sure you are not confusing this with some other church? Change does happen but it usually takes centuries rather than decades. Even so like life itself nothing can stand still and not change. I think God realizes this and lets his steward know from time to time, no?

The Roman Catholic Church is not a cult, nor is it centered about any one person. It is the Church of God on Earth and the steward of Christendom.

cheers

W-Y

I'm not going to bother looking for the site you copied that from, but you haven't changed my mind. The early Catholic Church, which you claim is guided by God, via the Pope, was anything but a religious institution, with corruption, violence, and sexual debauchery commonplace. Several Popes were known for sexual orgies, including homosexual acts, and selling indulgences, and torture, approving incestous marriages when it suited their political purposes. The Catholic church is a cult, revolving around someone who claims to represent God, which in and of itself is a heretical act.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I was trying to point out the fact that despite the brutality of the British in India, Ghandi and the freedom movement was mostly peaceful, as opposed to organized terror against the Brits in India or abroad. That is in stark contrast to what all the lille islamic-terrorist groups as doing today. peaceful vs hateful ways to reaching their goals. Ghandi is way up on my list of idols just cause he acomplished so much peacfully.Cheers

I agree.

Truly enough, non-violence should be the way to go. Unfortunately, only so many can die before extinction, and that is probably what most feedom fighters fear the mosts. I wonder what would have been the resolution of WWII using non-violence though?

I nevertheless would not support the sacrifice of innocents, whatever the cause.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I recall the Americans were victimized by the British not so long ago...

Does that give us an excuse for misbehaving today?

See, people have some memory...

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The Catholic church is a cult, revolving around someone who claims to represent God, which in and of itself is a heretical act.

Interesting to say the least. Are there any other major religions that you believe are cults?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Discrimination, at least due to religion is not a question of context. it's either happening or not....but thats my opinion.

And yeah, im not a victim of ignorance and preudice. (you sound like MJ there lol).

Well, you were wrong regarding India...

I'm against Americans targetting arab-americans after 9/11. im against Bush invading Iraq. I am against Milocivich. Notice.....it dosent matter what part religion plays in the conflict. Also notice, the factions i am against in the fore mentioned are predominently non-muslims. If i were ignorant and prejudice, i would unconditionally support one and not the other, and as you might not have noticed, Im quite vocal about the fore mentioned on these boards as well.

Sure. But even if we are well intentioned, we can still be prejudiced; that's human nature. It's all about learning from it and personal growth.

So yeah ur entitled to your opinion. But thats wont curb me from voicing mine (mostly from experience and observation) against peoples who are obsessed with discriminating due to religious differences.

I understand; and you are entitled to your opinion as well, of course. Please keep voicing them!

Cheers

EDIT>> Ugh. why do i keep coming back to the PL ? Quit provoking me to reply. Ive said more than enough on this subject. I take your leave...hopefully permanently(in the PL at least).

I wish you will come back; discussion is confronting our ideas; not value our self-glorification in a so-called truth... I am learning everyday! Don't you?

[datachump]

Okay let me see if I can boil this down...The Muslims are Microsoft-evil, the Christians are Apple-martyrs, and the Jews are...lawyers and accountants? Does that seem right? I think I've got it. Not sure about the Hindus though; maybe they're like Linux or something

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by datachump

Okay let me see if I can boil this down...The Muslims are Microsoft-evil, the Christians are Apple-martyrs, and the Jews are...lawyers and accountants? Does that seem right? I think I've got it. Not sure about the Hindus though; maybe they're like Linux or something

Sounds about right to me.

And Steve Jobs IS the messiah in your little scenario, right?

I think you are spot on equating Hindu's with the Linux crowd.
All those various Hindu deities aren't really much different from
all the Linux distros flaoting around out there.

As for Buddhists--which I am somewhat partial to although not
practicing in any way--I think they are the BeOS adherents.
Perfection is possible but not in this lifetime.

[Hawkeye_a]

Haha. thanks for the much needed humour in this thread. And i do agree with thosse analogies.

Pendergast, how was i wrong about India ?

And yes discussion is good, and it's the basis or our democratic and free socieites. But it's ludicrious to have to have a discussion when for example:
-the terrorists claim to be islamists and fighting in the name of Islam and
-the mulims here claim that they are not "real" muslims and that religion is mutually exclusive to the conflict.

Kind of frustrating and annoying having to deal with that kind of "insanity"....drives me up the wall.

Cheers

[Pendergast]

Well,

VVVVVVV

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Speaking of French......10 days of rioting. what have they acheived ? im sure there was some reason. ive heard first hand accounts of racism against muslims by the police force in France. But why didnt the Indians do the same in India against the british ? Why did Rosa Parks and MLK fight even greater odds peacefully ?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Haha. thanks for the much needed humour in this thread. And i do agree with thosse analogies.

Pendergast, how was i wrong about India ?

And yes discussion is good, and it's the basis or our democratic and free socieites. But it's ludicrious to have to have a discussion when for example:
-the terrorists claim to be islamists and fighting in the name of Islam and
-the mulims here claim that they are not "real" muslims and that religion is mutually exclusive to the conflict.

Kind of frustrating and annoying having to deal with that kind of "insanity"....drives me up the wall.

Cheers

If you are referring to me, I did not 'claim', I pointed out some discrepancies.

They have been ignored.

They may be false, but as this is purportedly a discussion then we should do each other the courtesy of addressing the issues raised - if they are proved wrong they can be dismissed. One thing they should not be though is ignored.

So, I say that there is a large amount of evidence that Muhammad Atta was taking cocaine, drinking heavily and consorting with prostitutes prior to the 911 operation.

I would like the opinions of what we might call the 'Jihadi viewpoint' faction on this issue. No extrapolating, no conclusions yet, no obfuscation or avoidance, just an opinion: is this the behaviour of a terrorist who is committed to an Islamic world view or is it the behaviour of a terrorist who does not have a religious perspective?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by datachump

Okay let me see if I can boil this down...The Muslims are Microsoft-evil, the Christians are Apple-martyrs, and the Jews are...lawyers and accountants? Does that seem right?

Not quite , it's more like the christians are Microsoft-evil, the muslims are Apple-martyrs and the jews are PC-manufacturers...

Why? Because like Microsoft, it is mostly christians that have the economic success and financial power, and just like Microsoft, that success came about after "stealing" intellectual property, wisedom, knowledge, techniques, trade-concepts... from muslims,

and just like Apple, muslims got angry because of the "stealing" and look at the glorious past and try to reinvent themselves on their own, but unfortunately with much reluctance to overtake working and effective concepts from the evil Microsoft/christian world..,

while the jews are content with licensing from Microsoft/christians and building their own hardware/territory...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by segovius

So, I say that there is a large amount of evidence that Muhammad Atta was taking cocaine, drinking heavily and consorting with prostitutes prior to the 911 operation.

Actually, that changes nothing at the notion that Atta was a terrorist who viewed himself as a muslim. In fact his worldly dependencies and sinful activities made him even more vulnerable towards islamistic ideologies, because these promised immediate entry into paradise for sucide-martyrs regardless of the previous sins...

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

So, I say that there is a large amount of evidence that Muhammad Atta was taking cocaine, drinking heavily and consorting with prostitutes prior to the 911 operation.

I would like the opinions of what we might call the 'Jihadi viewpoint' faction on this issue. No extrapolating, no conclusions yet, no obfuscation or avoidance, just an opinion: is this the behaviour of a terrorist who is committed to an Islamic world view or is it the behaviour of a terrorist who does not have a religious perspective?

Since he's guaranteed entry into "paradise" by virtue of his martyrdom, why would he give a toss about breaking a few rules before he goes?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Since he's guaranteed entry into "paradise" by virtue of his martyrdom, why would he give a toss about breaking a few rules before he goes?

If that's the attitude of Islam then surely you can stop quaking with fear about the 'Muslim Invasion' - hey, it may even be a good thing from your pov. You could get coked out of your head (though perhaps an opiate might be better for all concerned in your case) on a regular basis, drinking yourself into a stupor would be fine so the quality of your posts will remain the same no worries there and even expensive call girls will be de rigeur.

If you think this is what Muslims do yet you want to stop them then obviously you are some sort of Talabani-moralist.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

If that's the attitude of Islam then surely you can stop quaking with fear about the 'Muslim Invasion' - hey, it may even be a good thing from your pov. You could get coked out of your head (though perhaps an opiate might be better for all concerned in your case) on a regular basis, drinking yourself into a stupor would be fine so the quality of your posts will remain the same no worries there and even expensive call girls will be de rigeur.

If you think this is what Muslims do yet you want to stop them then obviously you are some sort of Talabani-moralist.

That qualifies for most bizarre post of the day. So far.

Originally Posted by segovius

Why do you hate freedom?

I love freedom. That's why I don't want my countries turned into the kind of oppressive hellhole which all countries with an excess of muslims turn into.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That qualifies for most bizarre post of the day. So far.

I love freedom. That's why I don't want my countries turned into the kind of oppressive hellhole which all countries with an excess of muslims turn into.

Yes, you must find it bizarre. It's called logic.

You just agreed that Muslims drink take drugs and shag call-girls - again, do you find that oppressive and/or repressive?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I love freedom. That's why I don't want my countries turned into the kind of oppressive hellhole which all countries with an excess of muslims turn into.

Funny enough it's those "all countries" (and I guess only that you mean western countries) that had a huge interest in installing and keeping thirdworld-countries under dictatory regimes, for the simple reasons of guaranteed ressource-flow and cold-war-strategies.

And even funnier is your direct association of muslims with oppression: While indeed most muslims live in non-democratic environments, they are only a subset of a much bigger part of humanity that lives similarly and most of the times even worse, like for example black-Africa, Asia and Latin-America.

Taliesin