Christian forums

[Iliad]

I'm someone proud of my religion, my heritage, of where I came from, and what my ancestors lived and died for, and ready to defend those things I love.
That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm sorry you can't see that. I genuinely am.

I've got a question nappy. Yeah your ancestors lived and died for France, blah blah blah. How do immigrants from other countries somehow undo all of your ancestor's efforts?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm someone proud of my religion, my heritage, of where I came from, and what my ancestors lived and died for, and ready to defend those things I love.
That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm sorry you can't see that. I genuinely am.

I've got a question nappy. Yeah your ancestors lived and died for France, blah blah blah. How do immigrants from other countries somehow undo all of your ancestor's efforts?

It's our land. We have our traditions, our heritage, our culture, our terroir. They can be a part of it, but they can't bring in a tenth of our population and set up sub-cultural movements. They must renounce their previous identity and assume a new one, not start to demand we compatibilize with them.

[radiojake]

Yes. I believe Islam, thanks to the masochistic dhimmitudinism which has been inflicted on our people, is able to degrade our culture.
But guess what? Wanting to defend your roots, your nation and your culture isn't racist : it's the healthy red-blooded reaction of the patriotic Gallic warrior. Yes, the modern system has tried to take our virility, our pride, our identity, to emasculate us yes, we've all been to some degree broken down by it.
But I'll tell you this : You may be more intelligent, better read than me, and you may think yourself enlightened, and take a patronizing tone, calling me backward, outdated, reactionnary, hell, even racist.
But for one minute think that your superior leftist intellectual psycho-babble will extinguish the desire to believe in an identity, and to defend it, you're mistaken. And with all due respect tonk, I suggest you stop with the whiny PC racist allegations and understand that I'm driven only by blind love for my country, not hatred of others. And that you find an idenity in the great nation you're lucky the Lord Our God has graced you with citizenship of, and decide to protect it, cherish it, and and pass it on to your progeny.

Blind love for your country, eh? So your love is defined and contained within set of lines drawn upon a map?

Patriotism is the one of the human traits i detest the most - To love a country blindly is to think without reason. Your God did not 'grace' you with citizenship, but rather your government compiled your name onto it's database when you were born. If you wanted to be a 'true patriot', as such, you should start to love the land on which you live, not the country. If one loves the land then (by definition) they should care about it and put back in what gets taken out. It's called a cycle. Sadly human's have another horrible trait of not realising this, and believing they can take, and take, and take, and the land will keep on providing. Maybe because we're too worried about our 'country' instead of actually worrying about what is important.

Also, if you actually believe that your posts in numerous threads are not driven by the hatred of other cultures, than you surely are diluded -


Not being familiar with the French language, I translated your quote at the end of your last post. Obviously free internet translations aren't perfect, but it probably gets your point across in English

All France is occupied: All? NOT! A small band irreducible Gaulois resists still and always to the invader...

Sounds alot like nationalism to me - how long until you join some fucked up vigilante militant group driven by some white power motives, decorated with the French National Flag as a backdrop? You have some very strong ideals, Naps, too bad they are exclusive and selfish, topped off with a very strong dose of hatred.

[CrazyAnglican]

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

[Neoteny]

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

Being created only to be punished for eternity sounds pretty irrational to me...

[suggs]

God has a big beard and is happy and loves us all and so does Jeezus.
Plus, he plays a mean game of bowls.

[CrazyAnglican]

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

Being created only to be punished for eternity sounds pretty irrational to me...

Yeah, It sounds irrational to me to; that's why it isn't in the gospels. Once again, what is it from Christ's teachings that you find irrational? Let's not resort to strawman tactics. Man wasn't created solely for the purpose of being punished eternally.

[Neutrino]

Yeah, It sounds irrational to me to; that's why it isn't in the gospels. Once again, what is it from Christ's teachings that you find irrational? Let's not resort to strawman tactics. Man wasn't created solely for the purpose of being punished eternally.

No, but that seems to be the fate of most people, especially considering that it would require an infinitely small amount of effort for God to create some variety of habitat that doesn't involve fire and brimstone for people who's only major crime was not being Christian.
As far as I know, there is a very narrow range of lifestyles that God accepts; slip off it and it's burning for all eternity for you. Seems a little odd for a diety who's major selling point is it's infinite kindness and benevolence.

[Neoteny]

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

Being created only to be punished for eternity sounds pretty irrational to me...

Yeah, It sounds irrational to me to; that's why it isn't in the gospels. Once again, what is it from Christ's teachings that you find irrational? Let's not resort to strawman tactics. Man wasn't created solely for the purpose of being punished eternally.

My bad. My humor is wasted on quite a few people, I find. I haven't wasted my time with the whole gospel thing recently, but I'll throw another one out. How about coming back from the dead? That's pretty crazy.

[CrazyAnglican]

It might sound that way Neutrino, but Hell is merely the individual's choice to be apart from God. (Sure, we can go back and forth with any number of supposed paradoxes about omnipotence and free will, but this is the doctrine as it is. To spend twelve pages rehashing things we've already been over would be fruitless). So, according to my beliefs, it isn't truly God who punishes us eternally, but we who choose it as the alternative to living in his grace. That seems to be born out by my experience in life as well. Others can present a problem for me, but it takes my consent and assistance to make me truly miserable.

As neither of us can truly speak for him as to what he approves of, what is it specifically that you do not approve of?

My bad. My humor is wasted on quite a few people, I find. I haven't wasted my time with the whole gospel thing recently, but I'll throw another one out. How about coming back from the dead? That's pretty crazy.

See once again, you're not going to look into it but still want to label it a waste. Can one truly consider the resurrection to be one of Christ's teachings? Even so, Christ is who he claimed, and it really happened; or he wasn't, and it didn't. There is nothing "crazy" about it.

Was there something that he said that would allow you to characterize him (and as it's founder the religion of Christianity) as violent? Which was the original point; the irrational thing was an aside.

[Neoteny]

It might sound that way Neutrino, but Hell is merely the individual's choice to be apart from God. (Sure, we can go back and forth with any number of supposed paradoxes about omnipotence and free will, but this is the doctrine as it is. To spend twelve pages rehashing things we've already been over would be fruitless). So, according to my beliefs, it isn't truly God who punishes us eternally, but we who choose it as the alternative to living in his grace. That seems to be born out by my experience in life as well. Others can present a problem for me, but it takes my consent and assistance to make me truly miserable.

As neither of us can truly speak for him as to what he approves of, what is it specifically that you do not approve of?

My bad. My humor is wasted on quite a few people, I find. I haven't wasted my time with the whole gospel thing recently, but I'll throw another one out. How about coming back from the dead? That's pretty crazy.

See once again, you're not going to look into it but still want to label it a waste. Can one truly consider the resurrection to be one of Christ's teachings? Even so, Christ is who he claimed, and it really happened; or he wasn't, and it didn't. There is nothing "crazy" about it.

Was there something that he said that would allow you to characterize him (and as it's founder the religion of Christianity) as violent? Which was the original point; the irrational thing was an aside.

I realize your original point, and was just kinda being a dick about the irrational thing. However, if I died and showed up at my friends' house the next weekend and was like, "I'm back dudes," they would think me crazy. Maybe my friends aren't as credulous as Jesus'.

Anyhow, it's not that I haven't looked into it, I just haven't recently. Additionally, my previous disillusionment with respect to a sky daddy would prevent me getting any sort of real meaning out of any holy text.

Other than that, Jesus was a pretty cool guy, and I don't think you'll find anybody saying he was violent. However, it's slightly bothersome to anyone who isn't a Believer that Christian's pick and choose from the Old Testament as they do. We lump the entirety of a religious text together as exemplary of a religion. Regardless of how you personally mangle a text, the possibility of interpreting parts of the Old Testament in a manner that is encouraging of violence not only is possible, but occurs at times, if infrequently. This is as much a part of the Christian religion as the creation story, if only in that minuscule aspect. To say that all Christians are violent (or that they all believe in creation) is, of course, absurd. But to say that it isn't encouraged by anyone at all, is also absurd.

[comic boy]

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

The point I was making, and I think everybody else was, is not that any Religion is inherently violent but that individuals belonging to all major religions
are, and always have been, responsible for violent deeds. The only person arguing differently is Nappy who insists that all Muslims are terrorists and those that are not ( 99 % ) are somehow not true believers. As in most of his posts he has chosen to present an opinion as fact and dishonestly evade the true situation which is that the meaning of Jihad is far from clear cut. The violent nature of Jihad ,whilst accepted by a few sects, is utterly rejected by the huge majority of adherents to Islam. His stance is equivalent to me stating that the entire Christian world were Conservative Evangelists and any that were not were not true Christians. Clearly both positions are absurd, Islam like Christianity is divided into many branches and it is ridiculous to pigeon hole one belief structure and present it as the complete picture.
Incidently I cannot fault the logic that a true Christian would not kill but the same is true of most Muslims, is Nappy a true Christian for his constant dishonesty ?

[CrazyAnglican]

To say that all Christians are violent (or that they all believe in creation) is, of course, absurd. But to say that it isn't encouraged by anyone at all, is also absurd.

This is exactly why I came back to the teachings of Christ. He's the founder of the Christian religion, and his words are what all the rest is based upon; hence the name "Christian" since we'd like to behave more like Christ and follow his teachings.

I'm not sure why it would be bothersome that I don't place as much emphasis upon the Old Testament or the Epistles. According to my beliefs it is Christ's life, death, and resurrection that makes the other scripture Holy; so it is entirely right that I should place more emphasis on him and his teachings.

[CrazyAnglican]

All of the Abrahamic faiths at their root can be considered violent because they all rely on the incredibly violent Old Testament. For some reason Christians seem to feel that they're above this because they also consider the New Testament to be true, but the fact remains that the Old Testament's preachings are still part of their faith. Any Christian that claims they don't believe the Old Testament to be true is not a Christian. Therefore Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all naturally violent religions.

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

The point I was making, and I think everybody else was, is not that any Religion is inherently violent but that individuals belonging to all major religions are, and always have been, responsible for violent deeds.

I'm having a little trouble following you here. They're naturally but not inherently violent? Also, haven't atheists been guilty of violence and atrocities as well? You seem to make it sound like violence is a byproduct of religious belief.

but that individuals belonging to all major religions are, and always have been, responsible for violent deeds.

[got tonkaed]

CA i think that hes trying to claim that anyone who is claiming that one religion is violent without realizing there is evidence for that in most religions is lying to themselves.

I think he was trying to argue that on the whole none of the religions are in their nature violent (if such a thing could have a nature) but rather that people end up doing violent things in the name of, in pretty much every religion/non religion that has ever existed.

Moral of the story....people often suck lol.

[CrazyAnglican]

CA i think that hes trying to claim that anyone who is claiming that one religion is violent without realizing there is evidence for that in most religions is lying to themselves.

I think he was trying to argue that on the whole none of the religions are in their nature violent (if such a thing could have a nature) but rather that people end up doing violent things in the name of, in pretty much every religion/non religion that has ever existed.

Moral of the story....people often suck lol.

Yeah I know. What I was really attacking was the card stacking that was going on. You were the first person to acknowledge that atheists might be responsible for some of the evil in the world as well.

[got tonkaed]

lol it would take some pretty fantastic blinders to claim that atheism or even a lack of faith hasnt caused a whole lot of damage, loss of life, or all kinds of differently calamites.

Ive always thought any argument about a particular religion or something of the sort, is pretty silly. Any person or group of people can take the the worst of an ideology, even great ones, and use it to do pretty bad things.

[CrazyAnglican]

That's true. No matter what ideology some people will use what's there to help themselves grow positively, and others will warp it to their own ends. I don't discount that at all.

[comic boy]

All of the Abrahamic faiths at their root can be considered violent because they all rely on the incredibly violent Old Testament. For some reason Christians seem to feel that they're above this because they also consider the New Testament to be true, but the fact remains that the Old Testament's preachings are still part of their faith. Any Christian that claims they don't believe the Old Testament to be true is not a Christian. Therefore Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all naturally violent religions.

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

Once again, Which of the teachings of Christ (those in the Gospels) do you think is violent or irrational for that matter? Is all of "that stuff" part of the Old Testament (a Judaic teaching) or the Epistles.

The point I was making, and I think everybody else was, is not that any Religion is inherently violent but that individuals belonging to all major religions are, and always have been, responsible for violent deeds.

I'm having a little trouble following you here. They're naturally but not inherently violent? Also, haven't atheists been guilty of violence and atrocities as well? You seem to make it sound like violence is a byproduct of religious belief.

but that individuals belonging to all major religions are, and always have been, responsible for violent deeds.

Hee Hee thats because the top quote about naturaly being violent is not mine, my position is that everybody is capable of violence whether they be religious or indeed atheist. You have got the wrong end of the stick in that nobody is bashing religion,we are simply countering Nappys assertion that Islam alone should be singled out.

[Neoteny]

To say that all Christians are violent (or that they all believe in creation) is, of course, absurd. But to say that it isn't encouraged by anyone at all, is also absurd.

This is exactly why I came back to the teachings of Christ. He's the founder of the Christian religion, and his words are what all the rest is based upon; hence the name "Christian" since we'd like to behave more like Christ and follow his teachings.

I'm not sure why it would be bothersome that I don't place as much emphasis upon the Old Testament or the Epistles. According to my beliefs it is Christ's life, death, and resurrection that makes the other scripture Holy; so it is entirely right that I should place more emphasis on him and his teachings.

That is exceedingly impressive. There are very few religious figures I would agree with more than Christ. But I'm pretty sure of myself when I say people of your perspective are in the minority. Or at least less vocal.

[CrazyAnglican]

You're right. Sorry for putting words in your mouth Comic Boy.

[Neoteny]

lol it would take some pretty fantastic blinders to claim that atheism or even a lack of faith hasnt caused a whole lot of damage, loss of life, or all kinds of differently calamites.

Ive always thought any argument about a particular religion or something of the sort, is pretty silly. Any person or group of people can take the the worst of an ideology, even great ones, and use it to do pretty bad things.

Stalin was such a dick.

[comic boy]

#-o You're right. Sorry for putting words in your mouth Comic Boy.

Quite funny,I thought I had gone mad......again

[Jenos Ridan]

Hitler, Christian? Don't make me laugh.Have you read Mein Kampf? Or even any history of the Third Reich? "The Mohametan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness that we find roots in...."(Adolf Hitler)

He sure was a supporter of the churches. At least in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
A treaty signed with the Catholic church where they acknowledged each side was totally ok.

Hitler wasn't a very big fan of the normal christian churches, but he was most certainly a christian. That sentence you quoted is an attack at the traditional christian church. Hitler was a follower of Jesus, just not of what the churches had done to his message.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."*
How is that not christian?



*Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. ]

You know, if you spend more time reading books like The Master Plan by Heather Pringle instead of playing with yourself you might actually know why Hitler was not a christian. I mean come on, the guy was trying to bring the old Teutonic pagan religion back, filling the very large gaps in knowledge with loads of total fakery. Nothing he did was christian, none of his henchmen were nor anything they did was christian. If you've read the Bible you would know that and nobody would have to explain this to you.

a masturbating joke in an internet debate? New one!

Why do Christians try to disasscosciate themselves with christians who killed yet assosciate terrorists with muslims. Double standards?

Not double standards, reallity: A Christian who murdurs is not a Christian, period. No if, ands or buts; No two ways around it! That is how the religion works. I really shouldn't have to explain, but there I go yet again.

Islam, on the other hands, has excuses for killing unbelievers. Instead of sitting at your computer looking up porn, I suggest you try what I've suggested: PROVE ME WRONG! Show that their are no Satanic Verses, Show that Dhirmitude is ficticious, Show that Mohammad didn't order his followers to kill off dissenters.

Wow you keep getting better! I watch porn now!

The point is if a christian kills he is still a christian yeah the bible told him not to it just means he's an inefficient christian.

Now how about you stop wanking to making jokes about the other person watching porn

If you think you're being funny, you're not. I say again: Show that there are no Satanic Verses, Show that Dhirmitude is ficticious, Show that Mohammad didn't order his followers to kill off dissenters, Show that Shari'ia Law is fully compatable with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show me these things and I might just be silenced.

[Iliad]

Hitler, Christian? Don't make me laugh.Have you read Mein Kampf? Or even any history of the Third Reich? "The Mohametan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness that we find roots in...."(Adolf Hitler)

He sure was a supporter of the churches. At least in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
A treaty signed with the Catholic church where they acknowledged each side was totally ok.

Hitler wasn't a very big fan of the normal christian churches, but he was most certainly a christian. That sentence you quoted is an attack at the traditional christian church. Hitler was a follower of Jesus, just not of what the churches had done to his message.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."*
How is that not christian?



*Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. ]

You know, if you spend more time reading books like The Master Plan by Heather Pringle instead of playing with yourself you might actually know why Hitler was not a christian. I mean come on, the guy was trying to bring the old Teutonic pagan religion back, filling the very large gaps in knowledge with loads of total fakery. Nothing he did was christian, none of his henchmen were nor anything they did was christian. If you've read the Bible you would know that and nobody would have to explain this to you.

a masturbating joke in an internet debate? New one!

Why do Christians try to disasscosciate themselves with christians who killed yet assosciate terrorists with muslims. Double standards?

Not double standards, reallity: A Christian who murdurs is not a Christian, period. No if, ands or buts; No two ways around it! That is how the religion works. I really shouldn't have to explain, but there I go yet again.

Islam, on the other hands, has excuses for killing unbelievers. Instead of sitting at your computer looking up porn, I suggest you try what I've suggested: PROVE ME WRONG! Show that their are no Satanic Verses, Show that Dhirmitude is ficticious, Show that Mohammad didn't order his followers to kill off dissenters.

Wow you keep getting better! I watch porn now!

The point is if a christian kills he is still a christian yeah the bible told him not to it just means he's an inefficient christian.

Now how about you stop wanking to making jokes about the other person watching porn

If you think you're being funny, you're not. I say again: Show that there are no Satanic Verses, Show that Dhirmitude is ficticious, Show that Mohammad didn't order his followers to kill off dissenters, Show that Shari'ia Law is fully compatable with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show me these things and I might just be silenced.

and neither are you. I was only ridiculing you
No how about you prove to me what in Shariah Law is against the Universal Declaration of Human rights?


Jenos: If a christian steals is he still a christian? If he suicides is he still a christian? So why is it if he kills he is not a christian?