Those crazy Muslim bastards did it again

[cronus]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Religion needs to be confronted. Islam needs a different remedy to the majority of Christianity in the modern world. And a more robust approach. If Trump wins then it is best to use that negative rather than pretend it isn't there. Get rid of some the political correctness and start to democratise the middle east. Both culturally and politically.

[Seth]

If they want to claim that they are part of the overall christian faith, then I think they should. Again, not to do so means that they, as self-styled christians, are complicit.

Except that anyone who terrorizes, harms or kills anyone else is not a Christian, by definition, because Christ never, ever commanded his followers to harm anyone.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Mark 7:5

Like I said, dispense with the quote-mining cherry picking that mendaciously and deliberately misunderstands the context and history of Christianity.

[Seth]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Religion needs to be confronted. Islam needs a different remedy to the majority of Christianity in the modern world. And a more robust approach. If Trump wins then it is best to use that negative rather than pretend it isn't there. Get rid of some the political correctness and start to democratise the middle east. Both culturally and politically.

You can't "democratise" the middle east without first getting rid of all the Muslims. I'd rather pen all the Muslims up in the middle east, specifically the Empty Quarter of Arabia and not let them leave. There they can live their dream as Mohammed intended, in the middle of a fucking desert with only pebbles with which to wipe your ass.

[pErvinalia]

If they want to claim that they are part of the overall christian faith, then I think they should. Again, not to do so means that they, as self-styled christians, are complicit.

Except that anyone who terrorizes, harms or kills anyone else is not a Christian, by definition, because Christ never, ever commanded his followers to harm anyone.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Mark 7:5

Like I said, dispense with the quote-mining cherry picking that mendaciously and deliberately misunderstands the context and history of Christianity.

So religious texts are open to reinterpretation? It a shame Muslim texts can't be reinterpreted like Christian ones... Oh wait...

[pErvinalia]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Religion needs to be confronted. Islam needs a different remedy to the majority of Christianity in the modern world. And a more robust approach. If Trump wins then it is best to use that negative rather than pretend it isn't there. Get rid of some the political correctness and start to democratise the middle east. Both culturally and politically.

You can't "democratise" the middle east without first getting rid of all the Muslims. I'd rather pen all the Muslims up in the middle east, specifically the Empty Quarter of Arabia and not let them leave. There they can live their dream as Mohammed intended, in the middle of a fucking desert with only pebbles with which to wipe your ass.

I'd pen up all who have backward old-testament like morals. So that would also include certain far right "libertarians"..

[Seth]

If they want to claim that they are part of the overall christian faith, then I think they should. Again, not to do so means that they, as self-styled christians, are complicit.

Except that anyone who terrorizes, harms or kills anyone else is not a Christian, by definition, because Christ never, ever commanded his followers to harm anyone.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Mark 7:5

Like I said, dispense with the quote-mining cherry picking that mendaciously and deliberately misunderstands the context and history of Christianity.

So religious texts are open to reinterpretation? It a shame Muslim texts can't be reinterpreted like Christian ones... Oh wait...

Perhaps, but the point is that the quote mining going on doesn't represent a "reinterpretation" of anything but the Atheist religious dogma that tries in vain to create a red herring and strawman argument by trying to force a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam.

Of course there is no such moral equivalency, and even if there were, we don't see Christians blowing people up with suicide bombs or driving trucks through crowds of people to kill them, we see Muslims doing that. The argument you make is that because those professing to be Christians sometime in the past engaged in evil acts (a Wayback Machine Fallacy to begin with) this somehow makes Christians today morally equivalent to Muslims today and that for some idiotic reason that defies logic and understanding, you believe that bashing Christians makes Islamic jihad acceptable because, well, "Christians were bad too..."

That's some fucked-up unreason there eRvrEveRvnwhatthefuckkever.

[Seth]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Religion needs to be confronted. Islam needs a different remedy to the majority of Christianity in the modern world. And a more robust approach. If Trump wins then it is best to use that negative rather than pretend it isn't there. Get rid of some the political correctness and start to democratise the middle east. Both culturally and politically.

You can't "democratise" the middle east without first getting rid of all the Muslims. I'd rather pen all the Muslims up in the middle east, specifically the Empty Quarter of Arabia and not let them leave. There they can live their dream as Mohammed intended, in the middle of a fucking desert with only pebbles with which to wipe your ass.

I'd pen up all who have backward old-testament like morals. So that would also include certain far right "libertarians"..

And so I'd have to add all those who have backwards and flatly insane Jihad-apologist Liberal Atheist morals (or more properly lack thereof), which would also include certain far left "Marxist/anarchists/liberals."

Somebody give you the keys to an 18 ton lorry and directions to a civic gathering yet?

[JimC]

Christians have used words from their scriptures to justify violence and oppression, just like muslims. The fact that it is rare now (unlike the Islamic world) is not because christianity can take the high moral ground, but because centuries of secularisation have pulled their teeth, a process which has not occurred to nearly the same extent in the islamic world.

[pErvinalia]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Religion needs to be confronted. Islam needs a different remedy to the majority of Christianity in the modern world. And a more robust approach. If Trump wins then it is best to use that negative rather than pretend it isn't there. Get rid of some the political correctness and start to democratise the middle east. Both culturally and politically.

You can't "democratise" the middle east without first getting rid of all the Muslims. I'd rather pen all the Muslims up in the middle east, specifically the Empty Quarter of Arabia and not let them leave. There they can live their dream as Mohammed intended, in the middle of a fucking desert with only pebbles with which to wipe your ass.

I'd pen up all who have backward old-testament like morals. So that would also include certain far right "libertarians"..

And so I'd have to add all those who have backwards and flatly insane Jihad-apologist Liberal Atheist morals (or more properly lack thereof), which would also include certain far left "Marxist/anarchists/liberals."

Somebody give you the keys to an 18 ton lorry and directions to a civic gathering yet?

Sethy-Made-Up-Shitty Fallacy.

[rainbow]

Amplify your cryptic remarks, if you will.

Personally, I don't see a single "true purpose" for religions, rather an accretion of a witch's brew of purposes over the millennia...

Religions exist for a political purpose. They have nothing to do God, but are there to control people.

[JimC]

Amplify your cryptic remarks, if you will.

Personally, I don't see a single "true purpose" for religions, rather an accretion of a witch's brew of purposes over the millennia...

Religions exist for a political purpose. They have nothing to do God, but are there to control people.

They think they have something to do with supernatural being(s), but as we all know, such beings don't exist. However, much of the inner structure of religions can only be analysed in terms of that mistaken belief.

And yes, aspects of social control are one of the main functions of religion, but saying that is insufficient for a true understanding of their nature.

[pErvinalia]

Amplify your cryptic remarks, if you will.

Personally, I don't see a single "true purpose" for religions, rather an accretion of a witch's brew of purposes over the millennia...

Religions exist for a political purpose. They have nothing to do God, but are there to control people.

Religions also exist due to the participation of fuckloads of people that have a lot do with God (in their own mind).

[Seth]

Christians have used words from their scriptures to justify violence and oppression, just like muslims.

Indeed, but the point is that those words don't call for violence and oppression, the faux-Christians have to rationalize their way to that end. The Koran is quite explicit in its commandments to kill and oppress infidels. Big difference.

The fact that it is rare now (unlike the Islamic world) is not because christianity can take the high moral ground,

Of course it can, not that anyone but you is arguing here that Christianity is attempting to "take the high moral ground." I'm merely pointing out the gross fallacy of excusing present Muslim evil by pointing to long-past evil done by those claiming to be Christians.

but because centuries of secularisation have pulled their teeth, a process which has not occurred to nearly the same extent in the islamic world.

So why are you defending Islam by attacking Christians?

Anyway, Christians never had "teeth" to begin with, so they weren't "pulled." Christianity was always and remains a religion of peace and persuasion. If you don't choose on your own, for your own reasons, to believe in Christ, Christians are not commanded to do anything to force you to believe, no matter how non-Christian authoritarians misusing the message of Christ might have distorted and lied about it and done so in the past. This fact is demonstrated by one of Christ's most significant quotes: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Jesus told his followers to obey secular law, even when it caused them to be martyred and eaten by lions, rather than resort violence.

[Seth]

Amplify your cryptic remarks, if you will.

Personally, I don't see a single "true purpose" for religions, rather an accretion of a witch's brew of purposes over the millennia...

Religions exist for a political purpose. They have nothing to do God, but are there to control people.

Well, almost. Religions did indeed evolve as social and political controls over the populace, and they were and are extremely effective at doing so, which is why they persist in human society and to one extent or another control some 80 percent of the human population of the planet.

As to whether they have "nothing to do with God" that is something of an open question and your opinion is not in the least bit authoritative.

Whether God is involved in this or that religion is less important that whether and how a religion is a positive force and influence in the lives of actual human beings. Whether people find support, guidance, community and solace in religion or not, religion has in main been useful to human evolution and existence and there are more reasons to support religion than there are to oppose it, particularly when those opposing it offer nothing whatever in its place except nihilism and hopelessness for the future. Even if belief in an afterlife or eternal rewards for good behavior here on earth is completely false, if it helps people to get through the day without hurting themselves or others, and it encourages them to be kind and help others, it's a good thing and anyone who would deliberately choose to attempt to suppress such beliefs merely because they themselves lack belief is simply narcissistic and evil.

If you don't like religion and don't believe, that's fine, but kindly shut the fuck up about it and quit disparaging those who do believe who are motivated to good deeds and social behavior by their beliefs by lumping all religious believers into one group and then disparaging people you don't even know just because they think differently from you. That is the very essence of intolerance and bigotry.

[Seth]

Amplify your cryptic remarks, if you will.

Personally, I don't see a single "true purpose" for religions, rather an accretion of a witch's brew of purposes over the millennia...

Religions exist for a political purpose. They have nothing to do God, but are there to control people.

They think they have something to do with supernatural being(s), but as we all know, such beings don't exist.

There's the Atheist's Fallacy in it's full glory! You define away the possible existence of God by using the claims of religious people about the supposed "supernatural" nature of God as a premise in your argument that God does not exist because there is no such thing as "supernatural" anything because the very idea of "supernatural" is by definition outside of the ambit of "nature" and therefore outside of the ambit of science, which you believe is the one true religion. It's a tautological claim that doesn't withstand even the most superficial of logical examination.

Therefore you don't "know" anything of the kind, you simply claim it to be the case without the slightest shred of critically robust scientific evidence of the truth of your claim, thus hypocritically violating your own ethical imperatives.

However, much of the inner structure of religions can only be analysed in terms of that mistaken belief.

Unless it's not mistaken, a question which you have yet to address with scientific rigor.

And yes, aspects of social control are one of the main functions of religion, but saying that is insufficient for a true understanding of their nature.

Indeed.