The Dangers of Religious moderation

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Yeah, saw this a while ago when it was posted in another topic. I also finished reading his book, "The End of Faith", a few weeks ago.

He makes a good point in stating that while religious moderation is ethically and morally superior to fundamentalism, it is essentially bad theology. It also puts up a shield of "tolerance" and "respect" that prevents any kind of critique in most common discourse. The taboo of criticizing religion is ridiculous, unjustified, and potentially dangerous. When you start lending credence to religious views regarding homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, drug use, foreign policy, or any matter of importance, you've shot serious and legitimate progress in the foot.

I really like Sam Harris. I don't agree with him on everything, but at the very least he's got guts. He's also very cordial, well-spoken, and frank about what he talks about. If people actually sat down and listened to him or read his work instead of prematurely dismissing him as some kind of radical, militant atheist (perhaps the most prominent nonexistent straw man propped up by fundamentalists), he could convince quite a few people.

ADDED: A bit of a tangent, but I seriously loathe when people use terms like "militant atheist" when talking about Dawkins or any other outspoken heretic. That has to be the biggest ****ing misleading joke I've ever heard. Just because somebody doesn't respect your heaping mound of theistic retardation or, god forbid, thinks it needs to be susceptible to honest critique, doesn't make them militant, radical, or even extreme. It is reasonable sanity.
I'm really sorry that atheists aren't sitting down and shutting up like you want them to be. It must be a real drag when they disrupt the slumber party going on in your brain.
 
Sam Harris made me a better person.
Read Abs' post to see my exact opinion revealed.

Also, "radical atheist' is as close to an oxmoron as a definition can get.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Also, "radical atheist' is as close to an oxmoron as a definition can get.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could get it to work. Just throw a few dogmatic tenets into atheism and we could be recognized as a full-fledged religion!

"The United Church of Atheism hereby takes the holy stance of anti-stupidity. Dissenting infidels shall receive a finite sentence in returning to Grade School. Science bless thee."
 
Well, I have invented Christian Atheism, which is the practice of avoiding god's wrath while simultaneously becoming expert at the bible.
Then, as step two, you explain to christians what the bible says.

This usually causes havoc because the content of the bible and contemporary christianity are mutually exclusive.
But if anyone actually does snap, the bible demands no punishment for atheists.

Sadly, my religion isn't actually a religion and/because it's not really violent.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
But if anyone actually does snap, the bible demands no punishment for atheists.
Click to expand...

Actually the bible does say atheists need to be punished in the bible in psalm 14 where its says atheists are fools, corrupt, do abominable works, and do NO good. So its safe to say your going to be punished mecha. says the same exact thing in psalm 53 too.

I used to be one of those little children in that video and i also dont see many of them deconverting. It took me a couple years to fully deconvert and that was because my dad was atheist.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Well, I have invented Christian Atheism, which is the practice of avoiding god's wrath while simultaneously becoming expert at the bible.
Then, as step two, you explain to christians what the bible says.

This usually causes havoc because the content of the bible and contemporary christianity are mutually exclusive.
But if anyone actually does snap, the bible demands no punishment for atheists.

Sadly, my religion isn't actually a religion and/because it's not really violent.
Click to expand...

Not really disagreeing with you there, but doesn't one of the ten commandments state "Thou shall not worship false idols" or some-such ? Taking that to the extreme, one could state that the lack of worship on on person's behalf constitutes a worship of *Luck*, due to disbelief of God taking an active part in your life.

For instance, you are driving along the motorway at 35 mp/h due to a slow driver, you cursing him for making you late for work. Suddenly, a oil tanker/bus/passing UFO crashes, and causes a mass pile-up ! Miraculously, you swerve and dodge the crash-site, all due to the slow driver in front of you. There are multiple ways to interpret this, depending on your faith, or lack of :

Christian : "Obviously, the slow driver was put in front of me to save me from this horrific accident ! Thank you God, for allowing me to live and I will serve you faithfully evermore, never forgetting the debt I owe you ! It's sorrowful, but the dead were part of your MASTER PLAN, so they are probably beside you in heaven, praise be !"

Muslim : "The crash was part of Allah's MASTER PLAN, and, due to my servitude to him, I was saved because of my faith ! It is sad that some died in the crash, but I will pray for Allah to have mercy on their souls ! Praise be to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) for saving me from their fate !"

Athiest : " That could have been me ! Good lord, if I'd left a bit later for work I'd be dead too ! I guess that it's luck of the draw that I survived ... I hope the others that died are in a better place ... at least I was able to help using my CPR skills, etc, etc, etc"

There's probably a fair share of over-exaggeration on my part above, and apologies if it offends anyone, but it serves a point - If you don't believe in fate, or a omni-present being watching over us, what else is there to believe in, but luck ?

delusional said:
Actually the bible does say atheists need to be punished in the bible in psalm 14 where its says atheists are fools, corrupt, do abominable works, and do NO good. So its safe to say your going to be punished mecha. says the same exact thing in psalm 53 too.

I used to be one of those little children in that video and i also dont see many of them deconverting. It took me a couple years to fully deconvert and that was because my dad was atheist.
Click to expand...

Just out of personal interest, what actually made you de-convert from Christianity ? Rational arguments ? Logic ? Just asking because a large amount of Christians I know bring up the whole "If the bible can't answer it - it's part of God's MASTER PLAN !" Heck, I've seen hundreds of rational arguments (Mecha's included) pushed aside due to the belief in the MASTER PLAN.

How did you walk away from the soft cuddle-blanket of ignorance (religion) into clod harsh reality of athiesm - "There is NO-ONE watching over us, life is based all on your choices " - scary, huh ?

Still, you did it, so congratulations !
Welcome to the side of cold hard logic ! :thumbs:
 
Creapy old man: "Who should you always trust first, god or the scientist?"
Kids: "God"
Creapy old man: "God. And I want you to remember that."

Holy ****. This makes me throw up.

"I want to win a Nobel Prize in Creationism."

Why are people like this allowed to live??

Jesus must be spinning in his grave...

---

Not really disagreeing with you there, but doesn't one of the ten commandments state "Thou shall not worship false idols" or some-such ? Taking that to the extreme, one could state that the lack of worship on on person's behalf constitutes a worship of *Luck*, due to disbelief of God taking an active part in your life.

For instance, you are driving along the motorway at 35 mp/h due to a slow driver, you cursing him for making you late for work. Suddenly, a oil tanker/bus/passing UFO crashes, and causes a mass pile-up ! Miraculously, you swerve and dodge the crash-site, all due to the slow driver in front of you. There are multiple ways to interpret this, depending on your faith, or lack of :

Christian : "Obviously, the slow driver was put in front of me to save me from this horrific accident ! Thank you God, for allowing me to live and I will serve you faithfully evermore, never forgetting the debt I owe you ! It's sorrowful, but the dead were part of your MASTER PLAN, so they are probably beside you in heaven, praise be !"

Muslim : "The crash was part of Allah's MASTER PLAN, and, due to my servitude to him, I was saved because of my faith ! It is sad that some died in the crash, but I will pray for Allah to have mercy on their souls ! Praise be to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) for saving me from their fate !"

Athiest : " That could have been me ! Good lord, if I'd left a bit later for work I'd be dead too ! I guess that it's luck of the draw that I survived ... I hope the others that died are in a better place ... at least I was able to help using my CPR skills, etc, etc, etc"

There's probably a fair share of over-exaggeration on my part above, and apologies if it offends anyone, but it serves a point - If you don't believe in fate, or a omni-present being watching over us, what else is there to believe in, but luck ?
Click to expand...
Don't worry, you're not offending anyone (except with your illogic).

Your "point" contains two logical fallacies.
2: Complex Question:
A question is invalid if the question presupposes the validity of unproven claims.
Click to expand...
You are presupposing that there are only two (three) choices: Fate (omnipresent being watching over us) or luck. Nowhere have you shown that these are the only two options open to someone.

(If you are unable to come up with one, try "time-waves", or tachyons from a future crash being eminated and absorbed by your conciousness to make sure you choose to stay behind a slow car and avoid the crash. Hey, it's just as likely as some omnipresent being watching your every move.)

The point is that you cannot argue that there are only two options open to someone: belief in god or belief in luck. There might be other options avaliable, but even if there weren't, saying that "because you either have god or luck you should choose god" is completely illogical and based on no evidence or reasoning whatsoever.


3: Animistic Fallacy:
It is not valid to argue that an event or situation is evidence that someone consciously acted to cause it.
Click to expand...
A car crashed. You didn't crash, because you were behind a slow driver. Therefore, God intervened and conciously acted to cause the slow driver behind which you were driving so you didn't get into the car crash. <-- Illogical.

The existance of the event does not infer the existance of God.



How did you walk away from the soft cuddle-blanket of ignorance (religion) into clod harsh reality of athiesm - "There is NO-ONE watching over us, life is based all on your choices " - scary, huh ?

Still, you did it, so congratulations !
Welcome to the side of cold hard logic ! :thumbs:
Click to expand...
Hmm... I personally think that "cold hard logic" is much more comforting than dangling over the pit of hell with only the illogical belief that an incorporial being might love you (oh, but you have to believe in him and only him and make sure to stone people, convert people, reject science and logic, go on killing massacres, etc, etc.). It's certainly more comforting than the mental backflips people have to go through to maintain their belief in a christian (or other) god according to a 2,000 year old book berriden with plot holes and illogic.

I "did it" (as you so say "walked away from the soft cuddle-blanket of ignorance") by being raised with an open mind and being taught to value logic and reason. I personally find being ignorant the scary side of your dichotomy.

---

Here's an excellent YouTube video: "Why do Atheists care about Religion?"
 
DaMaN said:
Don't worry, you're not offending anyone (except with your illogic).
Your "point" contains two logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Cut the condecending tone, please. That's for arguments - not debates. And until Walter and Co. turn up, I'm the only one here playing devil's advocate (forgive the analogy).

DaMaN said:
You are presupposing that there are only two (three) choices: Fate (omnipresent being watching over us) or luck. Nowhere have you shown that these are the only two options open to someone.

(If you are unable to come up with one, try "time-waves", or tachyons from a future crash being eminated and absorbed by your conciousness to make sure you choose to stay behind a slow car and avoid the crash. Hey, it's just as likely as some omnipresent being watching your every move.)

The point is that you cannot argue that there are only two options open to someone: belief in god or belief in luck. There might be other options avaliable, but even if there weren't, saying that "because you either have god or luck you should choose god" is completely illogical [Where did you get this idea from ?] and based on no evidence or reasoning whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I never stated that God was the sole facet of fate, nor would I. The two most commonly applied terms are "Fate" or "Chance" - fate being a predetermined destiny, and chance being the act of luck, being in the right place or time, or not. Perhaps I used the wrong terms, so let me correct it :

Either there was Intervention by outside forces, or there wasn't - there is no answer between the two. You either shot a person, or you didn't. What happened in the other dimensions doesn't matter (the "time-waves" you cited count as a natural intervention - an "Intervention" nonetheless). Religious people, by and large, would believe that God had intervened to save them - whilst athiests would "believe" (maybe the wrong term, again) that it was plain good luck.

DaMaN said:
A car crashed. You didn't crash, because you were behind a slow driver. Therefore, God intervened and conciously acted to cause the slow driver behind which you were driving so you didn't get into the car crash. <-- Illogical.

The existance of the event does not infer the existance of God.
Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical situation developed in 5 minutes to demonstrate a point and pose a question of belief of luck to Mecha - if you come up with one better in that time, fine, go ahead. And no, the point wasn't to differentiate between God existing or not, it was to point out the different viewpoints that people hold in accordance to their religious views, and whether athiests by large hold luck responsible for good and ill-fortune.

DaMaN said:
Hmm... I personally think that "cold hard logic" is much more comforting than dangling over the pit of hell with only the illogical belief that an incorporial being might love you (oh, but you have to believe in him and only him and make sure to stone people, convert people, reject science and logic, go on killing massacres, etc, etc.). It's certainly more comforting than the mental backflips people have to go through to maintain their belief in a christian (or other) god according to a 2,000 year old book berriden with plot holes and illogic.

I "did it" (as you so say "walked away from the soft cuddle-blanket of ignorance") by being raised with an open mind and being taught to value logic and reason. I personally find being ignorant the scary side of your dichotomy.
Click to expand...

Forgive the creative liberty I used to spice up my post and congratulate him for chosing my preferential view. In future I will remove all personal expression (including sarcasm) from my post, barring a slight condecending tone in all my arguments to put my point foward.
 
Neo_Kuja said:
Religious people, by and large, would believe that God had intervened to save them - whilst athiests would "believe" (maybe the wrong term, again) that it was plain good luck.
Click to expand...

Possibly, they would, perhaps, believe that it was the result of a complex chain of events?
 
mortiz said:
Richard Dawkins is a good speaker too.
Click to expand...

he seems to agree with Harris:

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, Dawkins responded:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!
Click to expand...



I think subconciously I've been heading in that direction: complete dismissal of anything religious on rationality grounds ...I think as a society we have to move away from accepting individual religious belief fo rthe good of society as a whole
 
I can understand extremists better than I can moderates actually. An extremist actually believes verbatim what is said in their holy book. You can understand that they're just very deluded. A moderate, that believes in evolution for example, cherry picks their belief. They'll continue to believe in certain parts of the book but reject other parts. If they accept evolution then they're automatically admitting that the bible is fallible, and if the bible is obviously wrong about some things why still believe in the other parts? Why if bible contains a lot of false information must God still be a truth? What criteria do they use to pick what still to believe in? That science hasn't completely disproved it yet? It also annoys me when they say it's open to interpretation. If the Bible doesn't contain any meaning except what you gather from it yourself how can you possibly give any credence to the Bible as giving an account of reality? If the Bible's "teachings" can shift in meaning based on the situation how does the Bible have any true meaning at all? Maybe the idea of God is completely open to interpretation as well? Maybe you could just as easily use God as a metaphore for mankind or something similar?
 
exactly ...however many of those same people say the book is a guide not neccessarily the word of god ...but as you've pointed out, that makes it far worse because you're accepting the bad parts as just another interpretation instead of seeing it for what it truely is

god hates gays and says to put them to death ..there is no way around this, if you accept god then you MUST accpet that that is the reality of god's vision for homosexuals ...that in itself should prove that there is nothing devine behind the bible because it contains all too human itrrational prejudices
 
Neo_Kuja said:
Not really disagreeing with you there, but doesn't one of the ten commandments state "Thou shall not worship false idols" or some-such ? Taking that to the extreme, one could state that the lack of worship on on person's behalf constitutes a worship of *Luck*, due to disbelief of God taking an active part in your life.
[...]
If you don't believe in fate, or a omni-present being watching over us, what else is there to believe in, but luck ?
Click to expand...

Atheists don't worship anything, let alone anything false.

Luck is just another superstition; it's not real either.
Everything breaks down to physical laws, but we don't (and theorhetically can't) understand them perfectly enough to justify a fatalistic viewpoint. Still, we understand them well enough to know that luck and random chance are oversimplifications.


Actually the bible does say atheists need to be punished in the bible in psalm 14 where its says atheists are fools, corrupt, do abominable works, and do NO good. So its safe to say your going to be punished mecha. says the same exact thing in psalm 53 too.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's why I'm striving to become an expert at the bible, because if you read the rules, the vast majority of biblical crimes are punished by acts of god. Atheism is one of those.
So, the followers don't need to do anything (and, in fact, it would be murder if they did).
And, since there is no god, god can't hurt me.

Being another religion, however, is punishable by execution. Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions, because the bible says so.

That's not the case for (Christian) Atheists though, because they aren't a religion. :D
 
Yup, I've read End of Faith by Harris, it's a very good read. Although I can't help but think he puts things like the Isreal-Palestine conflict down to religion, and I just do not agree with him there.
 
Surely religion is a prime motivator in that conflict.
No-one would fight this long and hard were it not the "holy land".

Not to mention the massive amounts of funding israel receives from the US of America mainly for its purported role in the second coming of christ, and the huge amounts of retarded antisemitism/anti-islamism caused by the inherent pointless division all religious beliefs create.

The entire concept of suicide bombing is based on (correct) interpretation of the koran.
 
Absinthe said:
I'm sure we could get it to work. Just throw a few dogmatic tenets into atheism and we could be recognized as a full-fledged religion!

"The United Church of Atheism hereby takes the holy stance of anti-stupidity. Dissenting infidels shall receive a finite sentence in returning to Grade School. Science bless thee."
Click to expand...
Aww. I was hoping for a 12-gauge 00 Buck shotgun shell to the head. :(
 
CptStern said:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-...gious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

from IdeaCity (moses znaimer introduces Harris); discusses belief systems and the dangers of mainstream acceptance of religious principles. Argues against respecting other people's beliefs in order to stem the tide of ignorance permeating society


just a reminder of how insidious religious indoctrination can be:

http://www.videosift.com/video/HBO-Friends-of-God-Documentary-clip
Click to expand...

Hehe, antichristian society blind nonesence... I'll talk about fanatism once i start the debate too.
 
quick go catch some gays having sex,and arrest them!
 
DeusExMachina said:
Just be quiet.
Click to expand...

who the **** do you think you are,go report me to a mod if you aren't happy.
or actually say something that contributes to this thread.I said that to walter because of the shit he spouts about gays.



now gtfo:O
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions, because the bible says so.
Click to expand...

Can you quote chapter and verse on that particular MUST, because I can't honestly say I've ever heard that particular ruling in the teachings of Jesus. Bear in mind much of the old testament got invalidated with the new.
 
Absinthe said:
The New Testament never invalidated the Old. Jesus proclaimed the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Chapter and verse?

If the old testament is still wholly valid, how come we Christians happily eat pork and shellfish? Cardinal sins in the OT. I think you'll find 'much' of the old testament was rendered invalid by the new, emphasis on the 'much' bit there (which clearly escaped you the first time).

There is no all Christians must kill non-believers law in the bible anywhere. Murder of anyone is a sin against God, and it was only through some chicanery regarding wording that the Pope managed to persuade the Christian knighthood that it was OK to kill non Christians, that the crusades ever happened (and that was all a political move against the eastern wing of the HRE by the Pope).
 
Ænema said:
who the **** do you think you are,go report me to a mod if you aren't happy.
or actually say something that contributes to this thread.I said that to walter because of the shit he spouts about gays.



now gtfo:O
Click to expand...

What did I tell you?
 
Im sorry,he started it :(
Absinthe is telling Walter basicly the same thing :(
 
Neo_Kuja said:
Just out of personal interest, what actually made you de-convert from Christianity ? Rational arguments ? Logic ? Just asking because a large amount of Christians I know bring up the whole "If the bible can't answer it - it's part of God's MASTER PLAN !" Heck, I've seen hundreds of rational arguments (Mecha's included) pushed aside due to the belief in the MASTER PLAN.
Click to expand...

i would say rational arguments, since my dad made arguments that evolution and the big bang theory were true and at the same time he showed me inconsistencies in the bible. those arguments he made pretty much turned me off from christianity although he did the same thing to my sister and shes still christian. She also didnt enjoy what my dad said and tried to ignore him. so i think the real reason i de-converted was because im more rational and wouldn't bring up a Master plan explanation, its just that his arguments gave me the tools to de-convert. From then on i called myself agnostic, but deep inside me i still sort of believed in the bible because of the so-called prophecies and i tried to rationalize how those prophecies could happen. after maybe a couple years, i got in arguments over the bible with mecha so i picked up my bible and actually read it and soon realized that those prophecies were taken out of context so i officially de-converted.


Mechagodzilla said:
Ah, but that's why I'm striving to become an expert at the bible, because if you read the rules, the vast majority of biblical crimes are punished by acts of god. Atheism is one of those.
So, the followers don't need to do anything (and, in fact, it would be murder if they did).
And, since there is no god, god can't hurt me.

Being another religion, however, is punishable by execution. Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions, because the bible says so.

That's not the case for (Christian) Atheists though, because they aren't a religion. :D
Click to expand...

not quite sure what your trying to say there, but the verses i presented sort of disprove your "im not a religion so you cant punish me" loophole.
I also don't agree with you on the "Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions" argument either, just that christians must punish those who break the bible laws, within the confines of Israel/christian state. Not just because they're a different religion.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Chapter and verse?

If the old testament is still wholly valid, how come we Christians happily eat pork and shellfish? Cardinal sins in the OT. I think you'll find 'much' of the old testament was rendered invalid by the new, emphasis on the 'much' bit there (which clearly escaped you the first time).
Click to expand...


"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

To answer your question regarding pork and shellfish, it's quite simple: they're cherry-picking hypocrites. They want all the comfort, safety, and righteous indignation that such a god can give them, but none of the inconveniences. It's enough for you to simply pray in order to absolve yourself of the sins you partake in daily.

There is no all Christians must kill non-believers law in the bible anywhere. Murder of anyone is a sin against God, and it was only through some chicanery regarding wording that the Pope managed to persuade the Christian knighthood that it was OK to kill non Christians, that the crusades ever happened (and that was all political).
Click to expand...

Murder is defined as unlawful killing. The Crusades would not have been illegal in god's eyes.

To brush off such horrible acts throughout history as issues of politics is to deny the the profound and often dangerous power of religious faith itself.
 
Absinthe said:
To answer your question regarding pork and shellfish, it's quite simple: they're cherry-picking hypocrites. They want all the comfort, safety, and righteous indignation that such a god can give them, but none of the inconveniences. It's enough for you to simply pray in order to absolve yourself of the sins you partake in daily.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing. The Crusades would not have been illegal in god's eyes.

To brush off such horrible acts throughout history as issues of politics is to deny the the profound and often dangerous power of religious faith itself.
Click to expand...

Given the sheer number of fundamentalist Christian groups who don't hold firm to the vast amount of OT laws in any form (especially given their otherwise unfathomable fervour to be the most holy of holies) I find your cherry picking hypocrites statement kind of weak. All the centuries of Christian self flagellation and denial and yet not ever a big move to ape the Jews in their instructions (even by the puritans...).

As for the Crusades, purely motivated by Pope Urban II's desire to strengthen his position in the eastern end of the HRE. The raids by the Turks gave the pope an excuse to get men into the area who took their orders and instruction from him, not from the Byzantine emperor.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Given the sheer number of fundamentalist Christian groups who don't hold firm to the vast amount of OT laws in any form (especially given their otherwise unfathomable fervour to be the most holy of holies) I find your cherry picking hypocrites statement kind of weak. All the centuries of Christian self flagellation and denial and yet not ever a big move to ape the Jews in their instructions (even by the puritans...).
Click to expand...

To be quite honest, I don't care what you think of my statements. I supplied what Jesus said and you can either accept that the majority of today's modern Christians do not revere his teachings as much as they claim to do, or ignore it just like nearly everybody does.

If even the most hardcore fundamentalist Christian groups can't bring themselves to follow scripture, then I guess that means they're all picking and choosing what they wish to follow and that Christianity as Jesus intended it is dead and long gone.

As for the Crusades, purely motivated by Pope Urban II's desire to strengthen his position in the eastern end of the HRE. The raids by the Turks gave the pope an excuse to get men into the area who took their orders and instruction from him, not from the Byzantine emperor.
Click to expand...

And yet, how successful would these attempts be if there were no religiously dedicated followers?
 
Absinthe said:
I don't care what you think of my statements
Click to expand...

Then you are without merit.

The idea that Christians aren't truly Christ's followers because they don't follow the exactitudes of the Scriptures regarding OT teachings that are at best a guide to the Do's and Don't of desert living 2000+ years ago is laughable at best. Forget the core teachings of 'thou shalt not kill' you ate Pork MF!!...your going down.
 
Surely religion is a prime motivator in that conflict.
No-one would fight this long and hard were it not the "holy land".
Click to expand...

:) The US has brought horror to that land and you think the only reason for them to fight is religion? It's one of the reasons, but the main one is the illegal war that the US brought on Iraq and the aftermath of it. I'm sure you'd be a bit angry if you'd be an Iraqi citizen that lost his family because of this war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top