Christian forums

[got tonkaed]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

[Neoteny]

Was Yathrib democratic?

You're changing perspectives again. :]

You're not answering any of my points again/ :]

The only person to have posted anyhting vaguely resembling a rebuttal are unriggable and maybe gt.

I wasn't arguing with you. Wasn't that directed at tonka anyway?

[Napoleon Ier]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

[Snorri1234]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

I gotta agree that islam ideology may be bit easier to twist than most. But to blame the Islam itself instead of the fundamentalism is short-sighted. If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too. What we take as metaphors in the bible were basic facts and laws a thousand years ago.

And another thing is that many muslims aren't really that radical. They're just like ordinary christians but have a few different teachings. Are they dangerous too?

[unriggable]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

You have to prove your points...

In the meantime:

[Napoleon Ier]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

I gotta agree that islam ideology may be bit easier to twist than most. But to blame the Islam itself instead of the fundamentalism is short-sighted. If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too. What we take as metaphors in the bible were basic facts and laws a thousand years ago.

And another thing is that many muslims aren't really that radical. They're just like ordinary christians but have a few different teachings. Are they dangerous too?

They can't really be calles muslims, they just pretend to be, or have such a twisted view they can't really be called muslim (as is the case with plenty of "Christians", like the people in unriggababble's pic). Fundamentally I disagree with tonk : a religion is a philosophy or ideeology like any other, and Islam is a damgerous one...like Nazism, you can't really talk about "moderate Nazis". If some guy came along saying "yeah, I like Hitler, but the bit him slaughtering jews in Dachau is all made up by historians, I believe in a nice tolerant society with low taxes and legalized drugs with free speech for all" you wouldn't call him Nazi, just as if you replaced Hitler with Mohammad and Yathrib with Dachau, well...you can;t say he's muslim. Unless you argue the term has evolved, but then of course, we get into semantics.
NB not Godwin's ;law, I think that has to be a reference to the actual opposition....

[Iliad]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

I gotta agree that islam ideology may be bit easier to twist than most. But to blame the Islam itself instead of the fundamentalism is short-sighted. If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too. What we take as metaphors in the bible were basic facts and laws a thousand years ago.

And another thing is that many muslims aren't really that radical. They're just like ordinary christians but have a few different teachings. Are they dangerous too?

They can't really be calles muslims, they just pretend to be, or have such a twisted view they can't really be called muslim (as is the case with plenty of "Christians", like the people in unriggababble's pic). Fundamentally I disagree with tonk : a religion is a philosophy or ideeology like any other, and Islam is a damgerous one...like Nazism, you can't really talk about "moderate Nazis". If some guy came along saying "yeah, I like Hitler, but the bit him slaughtering jews in Dachau is all made up by historians, I believe in a nice tolerant society with low taxes and legalized drugs with free speech for all" you wouldn't call him Nazi, just as if you replaced Hitler with Mohammad and Yathrib with Dachau, well...you can;t say he's muslim. Unless you argue the term has evolved, but then of course, we get into semantics.
NB not Godwin's ;law, I think that has to be a reference to the actual opposition....

Nappy in your life how many muslims have you met?

I have met many muslims and they are as you say "moderate"
They are as nice as christians and they pray and it is not a "dangerous" society. So maybe you should take that dictionary/thesaurus out of your ass and get outside and maybe meet some muslims?

[Napoleon Ier]

Read my arguments and you'll realise what I mean. My family have very stong ties with a lot of muslims, though. Believe me, my father was born and raised in Yemen.

[Iliad]

Read my arguments and you'll realise what I mean. My family have very stong ties with a lot of muslims, though. Believe me, my father was born and raised in Yemen.

The thing about Koran is(correct if I'm wrong) that at first Mohammad did say dangerous stuff but then later on he said stuff like be nicer to each other and so mistakes creep in when people read a section of the koran and make judgements when in fact that section had been "amended" later on

[Napoleon Ier]

Read my arguments and you'll realise what I mean. My family have very stong ties with a lot of muslims, though. Believe me, my father was born and raised in Yemen.

The thing about Koran is(correct if I'm wrong) that at first Mohammad did say dangerous stuff but then later on he said stuff like be nicer to each other and so mistakes creep in when people read a section of the koran and make judgements when in fact that section had been "amended" later on

Othee way around : Mohammad initially suks up to "people of the book", (hoping they'll join him), then starts preaching against them, especially the jews and to a lesser extent Christians, executing en masse the jewish tribes around Medina.

[Snorri1234]

They can't really be calles muslims, they just pretend to be, or have such a twisted view they can't really be called muslim (as is the case with plenty of "Christians", like the people in unriggababble's pic).

But that's pretty much the "True scotsman-fallacy". They are muslims simply because most muslims consider them muslims. Are christians who don't go to church every sunday not christians?
Now, I know you'd say they're not following the koran correctly, but most christians don't follow the bible correctly either. In the sense that the only thing they adhere to is believing christ is god and through god you will gain salvation. There's a whole lot of stuff in the bible besides that, but they don't take that literally.

Fundamentally I disagree with tonk : a religion is a philosophy or ideeology like any other, and Islam is a damgerous one...like Nazism, you can't really talk about "moderate Nazis".

(Could you stop always referring to nazis? It isn't helping your point in the slightest.)
But you can talk about moderate muslims. Because they exist.

If some guy came along saying "yeah, I like Hitler, but the bit him slaughtering jews in Dachau is all made up by historians, I believe in a nice tolerant society with low taxes and legalized drugs with free speech for all" you wouldn't call him Nazi,

I would first call him an idiot for denying historical facts. However, what you're proscribing to him is not in any way related to nazis. He has to retain at least a part of the basics of the ideology.

just as if you replaced Hitler with Mohammad and Yathrib with Dachau, well...you can;t say he's muslim. Unless you argue the term has evolved, but then of course, we get into semantics.

Well we already got into semantics ages ago where christians don't actually have to follow the bible literally. If the muslim would say "but I believe Allah is our saviour and Mohammad was his prophet", then I would consider him a muslim.

NB not Godwin's ;law, I think that has to be a reference to the actual opposition....

Well...basically it's just bad form to compare things to nazis. Ofcourse Godwin's law merely says that the probability of people making nazi-analogies approaches 1 the longer the discussion is. But comparing to nazis generally is a bad idea anyway.
It's different when you're actually talking about it from the start like a topic called "HAI GUYSZ DO YOU THINK NAZIS WERE BAD??" or describe tactical things about it.

[comic boy]

if youd like...heres the rebuttual in as few as words as possible....

religion is followed in praxis not in theory. To make claims about theory from the praxis is not only a waste of energy as inevitably exceptions will be found, but also requires an incredible bias as is in the case of this example.

Yes, perhaps... In which case today Islam is the greater danger, and its ideology only makes it all the more dangerous

I gotta agree that islam ideology may be bit easier to twist than most. But to blame the Islam itself instead of the fundamentalism is short-sighted. If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too. What we take as metaphors in the bible were basic facts and laws a thousand years ago.

And another thing is that many muslims aren't really that radical. They're just like ordinary christians but have a few different teachings. Are they dangerous too?

They can't really be calles muslims, they just pretend to be, or have such a twisted view they can't really be called muslim (as is the case with plenty of "Christians", like the people in unriggababble's pic). Fundamentally I disagree with tonk : a religion is a philosophy or ideeology like any other, and Islam is a damgerous one...like Nazism, you can't really talk about "moderate Nazis". If some guy came along saying "yeah, I like Hitler, but the bit him slaughtering jews in Dachau is all made up by historians, I believe in a nice tolerant society with low taxes and legalized drugs with free speech for all" you wouldn't call him Nazi, just as if you replaced Hitler with Mohammad and Yathrib with Dachau, well...you can;t say he's muslim. Unless you argue the term has evolved, but then of course, we get into semantics.
NB not Godwin's ;law, I think that has to be a reference to the actual opposition....

The vast majority of Muslims pay lip service to their religion ,the same as Christians,Hindus,Jews and any others with a significant following. All of those mentioned however have a hard core or fundamental minority and each have perpetrated acts of terrorism. To argue that one religion is inclined to violence more than another says more about your bias than anything else,history simply doesn't back up your claims.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/Did I argue using history?
2/Yes, it does. Political manipulations of Christianity lead to violence, the inverse is true of Islam.

[unriggable]

"moderate Nazis"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying 'moderate communist'. It doesn't work. Yes moderate muslims exist, assuming they're all America-haters is like thinking all jews where yamacas.

[Snorri1234]

"moderate Nazis"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying 'moderate communist'. It doesn't work.

Yeah, the problem is that religions are actually something else than mere ideologies. Religions aren't political anyway.

[unriggable]

Religions aren't political anyway.

Not before Huckabee anyways.

[OnlyAmbrose]

If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too.

I don't agree with that, actually. The Bible basically teaches indifference to politics, or at the very least submission to the powers that be. The "totalitarian state" idea comes mostly from the Old Testament, in which case the state was basically run by God. I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian state run by God, but there is no such state in existence right now.

As it is, the New Testament preaches an indifference to basically any form of political power. Basically, it says that it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, free or slave... because in the end this is a perishable earth and life. I can make a very good case for separation of Church and state from the teachings of both Jesus and Paul.

That's not to say that I think Christians should abstain from the political process altogether, I'm saying that Christianity as a religion does not endorse or oppose any particular form of government over the other.

[got tonkaed]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

[life-saver]

That place is sickening. Here, look at something someone posted;

[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

I just want to track down this poor excuse of a person and punch them. One of my relatives has Down Syndrome, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she "committed sins in the womb." IN fact, if she needed the approval of God, she would've gotten it by now. She is the most polite girl I have ever seen. Her manners are extraordinary, and she is the nicest 14 year old girl I have ever met. Down Syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome! Get it in your head, you Christians! Hate to break it to ya, but even WIKIPEDIA has more sense than you. Science is far greater than religion, and besides!, she's as human as I, loving movies and TV shows, along with other things.

Take that, you idiots! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

I needed to rant about that. Stupid, goddamn'd Christians... I do mean possessed ones, normal Christians are very nice.

[OnlyAmbrose]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

All true, I'm just pointing out that the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, let alone totalitarianism.

[unriggable]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

All true, I'm just pointing out that the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, let alone totalitarianism.

It's just what ends up happening though, you can't have a theocracy without lots and lots of civil laws.

[OnlyAmbrose]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

All true, I'm just pointing out that the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, let alone totalitarianism.

It's just what ends up happening though, you can't have a theocracy without lots and lots of civil laws.

The Bible doesn't endorse theocracy either.... once again, a very good case can be made FROM THE BIBLE for separation of church and state.

[unriggable]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

All true, I'm just pointing out that the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, let alone totalitarianism.

It's just what ends up happening though, you can't have a theocracy without lots and lots of civil laws.

The Bible doesn't endorse theocracy either.... once again, a very good case can be made FROM THE BIBLE for separation of church and state.

Any case can be made from the bible, the thing is to have a biblical state you need a theocracy.

[OnlyAmbrose]

well i agree with you in the sense that i dont think any religion or at least the majority of religions themselves (on a doctrinal level) advocate certain types of gov.

but there are those who would claim some religions are better set up to thrive in certain govs. which i think is what snorri may have been saying and what napoleon has been saying all over this thread. Hes just been doing it backwards.

All true, I'm just pointing out that the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, let alone totalitarianism.

It's just what ends up happening though, you can't have a theocracy without lots and lots of civil laws.

The Bible doesn't endorse theocracy either.... once again, a very good case can be made FROM THE BIBLE for separation of church and state.

Any case can be made from the bible, the thing is to have a biblical state you need a theocracy.

But the Bible doesn't advocate ANY sort of state! A "biblical state" can't exist because the only "biblical state" ever to come about was under God's leadership. There are no more such nations.

[Snorri1234]

If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too.

I don't agree with that, actually. The Bible basically teaches indifference to politics, or at the very least submission to the powers that be. The "totalitarian state" idea comes mostly from the Old Testament, in which case the state was basically run by God. I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian state run by God, but there is no such state in existence right now.

Well yeah, but the old testament is still part of the bible.

As it is, the New Testament preaches an indifference to basically any form of political power. Basically, it says that it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, free or slave... because in the end this is a perishable earth and life. I can make a very good case for separation of Church and state from the teachings of both Jesus and Paul.

Can't argue with you there. You're right that the new testament doesn't speak any way or another about a totalitarian state. But I must say that a lot of fundamentalist's try to argue for that. And while they might be missing some teachings, they also have the point that while Jesus doesn't encourage a theocracy, he is neither opposed to it.
And I think that the fact that Jesus lived in a dictatorship might have influenced his teachings not to mess with the law. Democraticly turning to a theocracy might have not been something he would've anticipated. (In the sense that democracy didn't exist at that time.)

I'm not saying christianity (or islam for that matter) neccesarily endorses one kind of government, but the fact that it doesn't also means it can support any kind of government.


And don't forget the fact that fundamentalists have a tendency to ignore anything that doesn't speak for a totalitarian government. I mean, look at huckabee...