What you don't seem to get is that not all viewpoints are equal.

How so?

How many Christian theocratic nations are there? Do you even know what the goal of radical Islam is?

The Vatican, being one. Norway, and England also come to mind.

Yes, i realize they are not what you expected, but...they *are* theocratic, by definition, and

NAME EXAMPLES. Name ONE example of a Christian going into an airport and gunning down people in the name of God (or something similar). Also note that Muslims make up a tiny % of our population while Christians make up around 90%. QUIT morally equating the two unless you have FACTS to back it up. Don't waste my time with bullshit.

Eric Rudolph

And....the following:

Christian Terrorism>Link

Christian Terrorism 2>Link

Many of your viewpoints are theoretical that you think somehow could apply in the real world.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean I can't feel the way I do. I strive for the better side of humanity, care/compassion/peace,etc... Not the total BS, blood and gore,etc..

Like i've said before, i want: Peace, Prosperity, Humanity, etc...and if that is "pie in the sky," then so be it. I do have enough realism to know that, even though i will fight for it, and strive for it - it may not work.

but I never kid myself that a theoretical viewpoint is one that has any practical value.

They'd work if everyone worked together, and pitched in.

Alas, and I'm openly admitting this, that doesn't seem to be everyone's priority at the moment, so it probably won't happen.

But the part of your viewpoint that I find frustrating is that it's self-aggrandizing. You don't care about the logical conclusions of your viewpoint and their consequences. You seem to care more about appearing like a "good guy". And I'll grant you that you have the right to take nebulous, feel-good positions on issues. But don't cry foul when you're passed by people who make tough practical decisions and bypass your warm fuzzy thoughts on the matter.

By no means do I intend to portray myself as that. For me, it's all about (as i said above) getting along, etc... I'm very, VERY idealistic...what can I say.

Still, I do have that ounce of realism.

For starters, I'd like to see our government narrow the focus of the war on terror to be the war on Radical Islam and to knock off the "religion of peace" talk.

Why?

Why not fight a war on ALL terror. Be it religious, state sponsered, or what-not.

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what banner it falls under.




No matter how idealistic i am, I do have that ounce of realism that reminds me that my ideals won't work in the world unless everything falls into place. That doesn't mean however, that I cannot promote it through my life by promoting peace, prospertiry, humanity, happiness, etc...

There's been christians and others of other faiths who have done the same. Now, I'm not saying what they did is justified...I'm saying don't point all the fingers at Islam. NAME EXAMPLES. Name ONE example of a Christian going into an airport and gunning down people in the name of God (or something similar). Also note that Muslims make up a tiny % of our population while Christians make up around 90%. QUIT morally equating the two unless you have FACTS to back it up. Don't waste my time with bullshit.

Brad I don't think you'll find it's BS. I think you'll find he's refering to the "Crusades" which were christian in scope. While they didn't go into an airport and use guns and bombs to kill at random, all the people they killed were done in the name of God.

Did you forget Soddom and Gomora? Just and fyi lucas.....they were filled with unbelievers and sodomites. Have you thought about: "Reinterpretation" of the bible?

Sorry but you posed a theroy and I poked a hole in it.

What's wrong with believing that G-d will kill unbelievers Himself? I personally find it hard to believe, that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. It's...well, unbecoming and hypocritical. ~L

So it's not a reinterpratation of anything. That is in accordance with God's book and his teachings. It doesn't even matter which christian religon you look at, they all have thhe exact same one. Soddom and Gomora "were" destroyed in biblical times and they "were" destroyed by fire. That is unless you don't care "what" the history channel says.

How many Christian theocratic nations are there? Do you even know what the goal of radical Islam is? The Vatican, being one. Norway, and England also come to mind.

The Vatican is true. But the others are not. Christian values were used in the founding of those nations. But they are NOT theocracies being ruled by religon. Most especially NOT England. Here is the definition:

the‧oc‧ra‧cy  /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -cies. 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. 3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

As you can plainly see neither Norway OR England fall under "any" of the definitions.

The Vatican is true. But the others are not. Christian values were used in the founding of those nations. But they are NOT theocracies being ruled by religon. Most especially NOT England. Here is the definition:

Okay, you got me there with England/Norway.

So it's not a reinterpratation of anything. That is in accordance with God's book and his teachings. It doesn't even matter which christian religon you look at, they all have thhe exact same one. Soddom and Gomora "were" destroyed in biblical times and they "were" destroyed by fire. That is unless you don't care "what" the history channel says.

I also included, symbolism.

One could easily say..."Hey, look what happened there in S/G. Lets present it this way, as a lesson from God on what is right and wrong."

May seem far fetched, but hey...what isn't these days.

rad I don't think you'll find it's BS. I think you'll find he's refering to the "Crusades" which were christian in scope. While they didn't go into an airport and use guns and bombs to kill at random, all the people they killed were done in the name of God.

I remember reading, and having a lecture about the first crusade - where, to celebrate....some crusaders went and burned alive som jews in a church/synagogue, or whatever they called it then.

Not very nice i'd say.

So it's not a reinterpratation of anything. That is in accordance with God's book and his teachings. It doesn't even matter which christian religon you look at, they all have thhe exact same one. Soddom and Gomora "were" destroyed in biblical times and they "were" destroyed by fire. That is unless you don't care "what" the history channel says. I also included, symbolism.

How so? Here is your original quote:

What's wrong with believing that G-d will kill unbelievers Himself? I personally find it hard to believe, that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. It's...well, unbecoming and hypocritical.

Show me where in here you talked about symbolism? You said you found it hard to believe that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. I showed you an instance of exactly that and you didn't care for it.

I remember reading, and having a lecture about the first crusade - where, to celebrate....some crusaders went and burned alive som jews in a church/synagogue, or whatever they called it then. Not very nice i'd say.

BTW... no one here has ever said the crusades were nice now have they?

BTW... no one here has ever said the crusades were nice now have they?

I realize that...just making the comment.


Also:

I was referring to JJs comment about Soddom, etc... In that the tale could have been symbolism, or such that whoever wrote it in the bible decided to use it. When it might not have had anything to do with God, etc...

I do find it amusing, however, that you find God "unbecoming and hypocritical." I'll be sure to convey that message in my next ritual slaughter.

So, thinking about it now...from a different look: Some people claim that God is...good, great, perfect, etc...He seems very human to me. He gets angry, and jealous; he feels grief, and remorse. He even has taken revenge/avenged, for example:

(Romans 12:19)

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'[a]says the Lord."


THEN, It says:

(Leviticus 19:18)

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."


He says don't take revenge, let go do it, but he will take care of it. Why say "no, don't do it, love your neighbor," then do it?

Also: I was referring to JJs comment about Soddom, etc... In that the tale could have been symbolism, or such that whoever wrote it in the bible decided to use it. When it might not have had anything to do with God, etc...

I'll have to call you on this. No one "but" me has said a word about Soddom and in none of your replies have you even hinted about symbolism. If you have please show me where. Not until you mentioned it in reply #86. Come on Lucas you should be able to do better than that. For Christ sake you went to college and all I got is a GED. By all rights, rules and regulations....I'm trouncing you. Get it together!

Edit • Reply • Quote (Citizen)SilentPoetNovember 26, 2006 04:30:46Reply #77 Did you forget Soddom and Gomora? Just and fyi lucas.....they were filled with unbelievers and sodomites. Have you thought about: "Reinterpretation" of the bible? Religious symbolism? Fact versus Fiction?

I was wrong, it was your post, the following:

Reply • Quote (Citizen)drmilerNovember 25, 2006 02:43:37Reply #70 I personally find it hard to believe, that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. It's...well, unbecoming and hypocritical. Did you forget Soddom and Gomora? Just and fyi lucas.....they were filled with unbelievers and sodomites.

I was putting forth the possibility that it could be merely symbolism or such.

I.e. Maybe someone decided, "Hey...look what happened there. I can use that for a story, a basis for morality."