Perplexed wrote:Lash wrote:Nimh--
Indians.....sikhs..... There is an assortment of people who wear that headgear. No one group should consider it an affront.
That's turbans, Towelhead, to me at least, refers to the kuffiyah, which indians and sihks do NOt wear.
Well, here is the problem. You can't steal that word. You redefined it.
Is it Paul/Saul? It most certainly doesn't seem to be the Beatitudes.
Hey Lash -
Just 'cause you're paranoid it doesn't mean people
aren't our to get you!
I'm a fan, not an example.
And, I think Christianity--best studied by what was said by the man it was named after.
Lash wrote:Perplexed wrote:Lash wrote:Nimh--
Indians.....sikhs..... There is an assortment of people who wear that headgear. No one group should consider it an affront.
That's turbans, Towelhead, to me at least, refers to the kuffiyah, which indians and sihks do NOt wear.
Well, here is the problem. You can't steal that word. You redefined it.
But turbans don't look like towels.
Says you. We haven't all gone to school over the variations on towelly head wear.
Why does it matter if you are referring to Muslims, Sikhs or anybody else with the word towelhead. It doesn't make it any better using this term with ANYBODY. Hoever, it seems that the term has been used specifically with Muslims on these threads.
Agreed Intrepid.
(Did I really just say that ?? )
Lash wrote:I know the OT was quite rough--but the NT doesn't make any difference to you? It doesn't adequately disallow the violence? You refuse to seriously look at the Koran and those murderous passages and equate that with what is going on in the world? Why?
Look, you yourself said Perplexed is not Raul-9, there are different kinds of Muslims. Each of those Muslims has his/her own experience/"re-enactment" of Islam. If its possible to be a pious Muslim and yet be non-violent, then apparently the problem is not with Islam, but with specific experiences/implementations of it.
Basically, you're not addressing any of my arguments. Forget about the comparison with Christianity if that's distracting you. You only keep pointing to the fact that there are violent passages in the Qu'ran, and say, well see, if thats not enough to show you Islam is evil .. (I'm paraphrasing). But it doesnt address the points I made at all.
Lash wrote:Remember what Christianity is. Its not Leviticus.
nah thats Jewish. Or Roman. Maybe Roman Catholic. Oh I dunno out of my depth here. So
which books of the old Testament are Christian?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Lash wrote:Remember what Christianity is. Its not Leviticus.
nah thats Jewish. Or Roman. Maybe Roman Catholic. Oh I dunno out of my depth here. So
which books of the old Testament are Christian?
None. Christian began with Christ. New Testament dontcha know.
Eorl wrote:Agreed Intrepid.
(Did I really just say that ?? )
Wow
And, you picked Michelangelo's birthday to be in agreement.
Intrepid wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Lash wrote:Remember what Christianity is. Its not Leviticus.
nah thats Jewish. Or Roman. Maybe Roman Catholic. Oh I dunno out of my depth here. So
which books of the old Testament are Christian?
None. Christian began with Christ. New Testament dontcha know.
So most of the bible is not Christian....you sure about that Intrepid. More to the point do the Christians know this?
It is a convenient point of view for fanatical christians such as Intrepid, who are obsessive about debating doctrinal points with those who disparage his beliefs. The god of the old testament is a vicious, racist, elitist, sexist and murderous adolescent character. When christians get in arguments with those who are well-informed about scripture, they have the problem of the self-evident character of the god of the old testament. They now habitually claim that christianity and the new testament represent a significant departure from the old testament, in a vain hope of avoiding the embarrassment of the scurrilous character of that diety.
Of courese, that old Hey-Zeus in the new testament wasn't such a saintly figure himself, and Paul was a pretty nasty character--so they're never out of the woods. Fortunately for the likes of Intrepid, self-delusion is its own reward.
I fail to understand how anyone with a modicum of intelligence and understanding can possibly take the Adam and Eve story as anything other than allegorical.
I dont know which gets me more annoyed, someone bombing for Islam, or someone sending kids into the world with their heads full of deliberate lies and untruths.
Steve,
If I may, can you prove that they are deliberate lies and untruths? I don't believe you can. I cannot prove to you that the story is allegorical or literal. That is not the point, Steve.
The point is, you have your right to believe what you want or choose to believe. I, and everyone else has that very same right. Why do you feel that part of that right is to obviously tell someone else they are WRONG or imply they have no intelligence, etc?
Who has done that to you about your beliefs? I guess I didn't get the unabridged version of the right to freedom of speech or religion or something. I don't have the part where it says others should like being told they are wrong or stupid or anything because they believe in God.
Steve, you believe what you choose. I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. I pray for those that don't believe, yes. But, I don't tell you that you are wrong or stupid. So, what's up with others doing the labeling?
Yes, I keep bringing this up because I have yet to understand it. So, if you can help me out here, Steve, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Setanta wrote:It is a convenient point of view for fanatical christians such as Intrepid, who are obsessive about debating doctrinal points with those who disparage his beliefs. The god of the old testament is a vicious, racist, elitist, sexist and murderous adolescent character. When christians get in arguments with those who are well-informed about scripture, they have the problem of the self-evident character of the god of the old testament. They now habitually claim that christianity and the new testament represent a significant departure from the old testament, in a vain hope of avoiding the embarrassment of the scurrilous character of that diety.
Of courese, that old Hey-Zeus in the new testament wasn't such a saintly figure himself, and Paul was a pretty nasty character--so they're never out of the woods. Fortunately for the likes of Intrepid, self-delusion is its own reward.
How does Setanta know who is a fanatical Christian and who is not? Is he so self delusional that he thinks he is above everybody else?
Setanta is not satisfied to disagree with others. He feels that it is his duty to make claims that are untrue and downright silly. He feels that he must make derogatory comments to bolster his image that is only important in his own mind.
I notice that he did not reply to an earlier post where I pointed out his feeble attempts to belittle people. He only responds to things that he thinks will make him look all knowing. He considers himself well informed. That he may be, but he is very ill mannered which negatives any knowledge that he may actually have. Knowledgeable people can debate the facts, not find fault with the debater.
Some things never change.
Quote:Some things never change.
and yet how I wish they would, I think it would be ever so nice in the "civilized" world became civilized and overcame the self-destructive nature of religion.
dyslexia wrote:Quote:Some things never change.
and yet how I wish they would, I think it would be ever so nice in the "civilized" world became civilized and overcame the self-destructive nature of religion.
...and of the self-righteous non-religious...
