Go Back   The Scream! > COMMUNITY FORUMS > Expostulation Plaza

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:48
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

Agreed, Sil.

"AJ, I think you have missed my point."

You may well be right, as you have not backed up anything you have said with any data.

So, my (personal) summary of your post is:

1) Many (if not most) atrocities are committed in the name of Christianity.

2)This means that there must be something wrong with Christianity.

The assertions are flawed on two counts:

1)There is no data supplied to support assertion #1
2)Assertion #2 does not take into account the possibilty that it is the individual, not the Christian faith that is at fault.


"Are you saying I am incorrect in my assertion here?"
I do not wish to appear rude, but I find it difficult to express my meaning in anything other than then words I used originally, so the best I can do is repeat them:

Is this your opinion, or is it based on some sort of statistical information?

It is a straight question, with no hidden meaning or implication. It requires a straight answer.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:49
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is that the best you can come up with

Game Set and Match then
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:52
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

we are mixing religion with christianity again!

by doing things in the name of religion the perpitrator is forgiven in his mind, he is acting for God.

however these people are not christians

the ultimate 'war' in the name of religion is Northern Ireland, both sides worship? the same God, or claim to

just another 2penneth
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:03
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

we are mixing religion with christianity again
It appears so.

The thing that irks me about this is that - We're not supposed to blame atrocities commited in the name of christianity on the religion christianity - or on the inspiration of that religion "christ" (whoever he was - son of god or not).

BUT.

Christians expect us to believe (and CRUELLY FORCED people in the past to believe) that Jesus Christ was the SON OF GOD - just because they say he was.....

Seems to me that christianity wants to come out smelling ONLY of roses and not of S.H.I.T.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:13
silver's Avatar
silver silver is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 12,177
Default

it goes back to w/l's first post (and what was wrong with it) 'we' didn't crucify christ - it was some people a couple of thousand years ago.

because some people who choose to call themselves christian did something we don't agree with it doesnt mean christanity is to blame,.

if I dress in some robe an call myself a buddist then go out and kill people is it buddisms fault ? this seems to be the type of generalisation you seek to make ?

Sil
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:22
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"AJ You are the one trying to unresolve the issue by not accepting the majority source information concerning Mithras as stated above."

I do not accept it because it is not the majority source information.

Your extract is taken from an essay by David Fingrut, written in 1993 when he was still a high school student. As far as I am aware, it is the only source documentation that cites Anahita as the virgin mother of Mithra. It is clearly stated in other versions of this document on the internet that the essay is an expression of Fingrut's opinion, and nothing more.

"I do not see that it is unreasonable to report that virgin birth claims are not exclusive to just Mithras and Jesus."

Indeed, but it is unreasonable to present these reports in such a way as to imply that their claims carry the same weight as the Christian claim.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:23
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Any or ALL religons can potentially spawn people who go out and ( in its name) do Murder.

so, I'll ask again


Given that FACT, how comes Chistianity is top of the League? and it is

I asked you AJ if you thought that assertion was incorrect, you were unable to find the words to answer. I don't mean to be rude but try YES or NO.

In my next post I will show why I make the above assertion about Chistianity's shameful status in the Historical Butchery stakes. Perhaps AJ you could give me your answer.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:25
Gecko's Avatar
Gecko Gecko is offline
Phelsuma Abbotti
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Leeds
Posts: 343
Default

Who gets to decide who is and who isn't a Christian/Muslim/Jew/ANOther!

So all those protestants & catholics aren't actually christians, they just think they are, but between you and me they are fooling themselves. I think a few million of them might disagree.

The Taliban committed atrocities in the name of Allah, but other muslims said they weren't actually following the muslim faith and are not therefore muslims, but the Taliban think they are muslims.

Who decides?
Who is right?
Everybody can't be right!

Religion is not the cause of war, people are the cause of war, religion is the 'excuse' they use to justify their actions.

Everybody interprets their own religion the way they want to and gets upset when someone disagrees with their interpretation.

Human nature takes over and the sticks & stones come out, sod the religion I'm going to beat the crap out of you until you agree with my version. End of story.

Mind you, thats only my interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:27
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

Agreed again, Sil!

"Christians expect us to believe (and CRUELLY FORCED people in the past to believe) that Jesus Christ was the SON OF GOD - just because they say he was....."

No. It was Christ himself who made these claims.

You cannot force anyone to believe anything. As I stated earlier, you are hardly likely to have faith in something that you don't actually believe to be true, are you?
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:35
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

because some people who choose to call themselves christian did something we don't agree with it doesnt mean christanity is to blame,.
This is very naive. I think it is very significant that they call themselves Christian, why have there been so many down the years, its not just coincidence. Even today N.Ireland, it goes on and on and this is why. This is an extract from 'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley posted earlier in this thread

".........What we do depends in large measure upon what we think, and if what we do is evil, there is good empirical reason for supposing that our thought patterns are inadequate to material, mental or spiritual reality. Because Christians believed that there had been only one Avatar, Christian history has been disgraced by more bloodier crusades, interdenominational wars, persecutions and proselytizing imperialism than has the history of Hinduism and Buddhism. Absurd and idolatrous doctrines, affirming the quasi-divine nature of soverign states and their rulers, have led oriental, no less than Western peoples into innumerable political wars; but because they have not believed in an exclusive revelation at one sole instant of time, or in the quasi-divinity of an ecclesiastical organization, oriental peoples have kept remarkably clear of the mass murder for religion's sake, which has been so dreadfully frequent in Christendom. And while, in this important respect, the level of public morality has been lower in the West than in the East, the levels of exceptional sanctity and of ordinary individual morality have not, so far as one can judge from the available evidence, been any higher. If the tree is indeed known by its fruits, Christianity's departure from the norm of the Perennial Philosophy would seem to be philosophically unjustifiable"
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:39
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"I asked you AJ if you thought that assertion was incorrect"

I hope that we do not get bogged down with semantics, here, but you asked nothing of the sort. After I asked: "Is this your opinion, or is it based on some sort of statistical information? " You asked: "Are you saying I am incorrect in my assertion here?"

My reply was negative, I was simply asking a question. The question is as yet unanswered.

If you had asked what I thought then I would have given you an answer.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:42
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Maybe christianity is "top of the league" as it were in spawning people who commit atrocities in it's name.........

because of the way things have shaped historically...

That is to say it is PRIMARILY a western religion - based in Europe.

Thus - it has historically been shaped by "western" philosophies that on the most part have been LESS concerned with the "spiritual" side of things and MORE concerned with the temporal side........

EG:
1) The Jesuists - in all by name the Catholic Church's SAS.
2) The Crusades - a force supposedly fighting to regain the holy lands - but really just a means of grabbing lands and riches.
3) The inquisition - effectively the Popes secret police.
4) The Serbs - defenders of Christian lands against supposed Muslim incursions into the states that made up Yugoslavia.

There's more I'm sure.

Compare that to say the Moors - who treated the peoples they "conquered" with compassion and excercised freedom of worship.

Just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:44
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fenix, in principal I agree with you, but i say again that there is a bluring of the word christian and religious.

today a christian has a personal relationship with Jesus and would run a mile from being called religious, certainly that is my experience of christians i know.

the religious are the people you site in N. Ireland

there is a wide gulf between the two.

it may have not always have been like that, but i would susspect it probarbly has!
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:50
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is my original post

"AJ, I think you have missed my point.

Atrocities can be potentially commited in 'any' religons name , why so many in the Christian name?



Quote:
Chistianity really has been the worst religon down the ages for this type of behaviour. WHY"


Are you saying I am incorrect in my assertion here?"


This was your answer......"I do not wish to appear rude, but I find it difficult to express my meaning in anything other than then words I used originally, so the best I can do is repeat them:

Is this your opinion, or is it based on some sort of statistical information?

It is a straight question, with no hidden meaning or implication. It requires a straight answer."
-------------------------------------
OK I have answered your question on which I note we have SILENCE

Where's your answer and your backup statistical information
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 09-April-2002, 22:56
Gecko's Avatar
Gecko Gecko is offline
Phelsuma Abbotti
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Leeds
Posts: 343
Default

Tony a,

re·li·gious Pronunciation Key (r-ljs)
adj.
1) Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2) Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3) Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

today a christian has a personal relationship with Jesus and would run a mile from being called religious, certainly that is my experience of christians i know.
Err........Definition 1)

Chris·tian Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.
1) Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2) Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3) Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4) Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5) Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.
1) One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2) One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

An awful lot of religion(s) in these definitions

Last edited by Gecko; 09-April-2002 at 23:07.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:08
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Seems to me this thread is going the way of many on TS.

That is:

"I said this"

"No You didn't - You said THIS"

"No I didn't"

"Yes you did"

"NO I DIDNT!"


Uh - Excuse me - WHAT was the question again

Oh BTW I SAID ALL OF THE ABOVE - YES I DID

And I think I ATTEMPTED to come up with a reason why Christianity is a prime vehicle for nutters.

But WAS THAT the question I was ASKED Oh no I'm beginning to doubt myself now........

OH AND LIVERPOOL LOST TOO I was looking forward to them meeting Man Utd in the semis
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:10
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gecho

not sure what you are saying?

i am easy to confuse
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:11
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,842
Default

AJ I am becoming extremely bored at the way you doubt all I put forward and fail to extend those same doubts to the alleged virgin birth of Jesus.

For those who believe in virgin birth it is but a small extension of credibility to believe in birth from a rock. It would seem logical that the Rock would be a female rather than a male rock.

I don't believe in either the virgin birth of Jesus or that of Mithras by virgin birth or birth from a rock. In my eyes it is just a comparison of legends and myths.


Mithra was born on December 25th, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ. Some said Mithra sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, the petra genetrix, fertilized by the Heavenly Father's phallic lightning.
Source:- About Yeshua


Squidgy.... here on this Christian website you also have the Rev. Jason Collins supporting some of your 'political' contentions:-

If Yeshua or Mary Magdalene were of Jewish Royal blood, could they have quested to restore the House of David into power, or did their followers have this ambition for them? Perhaps they did have a political agenda alongside their worldshaking religious one because it was for political reasons Jesus was killed. The Romans labeled him "King of the Jews," and executed him for treason. Luckily he got the last word in...
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:20
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I say again AJ

this was my assertion...
Atrocities can be potentially commited in 'any' religons name , why so many in the Christian name?
Chistianity really has been the worst religon down the ages for this type of behaviour
this was my question...
Are you saying I am incorrect in my assertion here?"
This was your answer
......"I do not wish to appear rude, but I find it difficult to express my meaning in anything other than then words I used originally, so the best I can do is repeat them:
I'll say again AJ "I don't mean to be rude but try Yes or No

I have answered your question repeated here regarding this same statement of mine above in a former post . Here is your question...."Is this your opinion, or is it based on some sort of statistical information?

It is a straight question, with no hidden meaning or implication. It requires a straight answer."

Right you have your straight answer AJ, so wheres your answer to my question and the backup?
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:24
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"I said this"

"No You didn't - You said THIS"

"No I didn't"

"Yes you did"

"NO I DIDNT!"


Uh - Excuse me - WHAT was the question again

Oh sorry - I said that three posts ago.....
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:31
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very Funny FB.
The problem is if you are going to have a serious discussion, you need people with integrity, so as you don't have to keep chasing them up.
In this case the person/s are conspicuous both by their silence and apparent abscence. I guess that tells its own story.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:33
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lo Fridge

bored are we?

Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:37
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

fenix wasn't directed just at you m8. but at this thread in general.

It was a general observation as to how threads tend to go on here. Usually at about this time of the night I think. Maybe everyones tired - or is it that everyone is so wrapped up in there own POV's that they just start to rant.

No not bored tony a. This is an excellent thread - I was just acting as a sort of traffic warden.......

......a self imposed one I admit! - maybe that makes me the most POMPOUS out of all of us!
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:38
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,842
Default

AJIndeed, but it is unreasonable to present these reports in such a way as to imply that their claims carry the same weight as the Christian claim.
May I put a few question to you as you seem keen to question and challenge what is written by others

Do you agree that pagan festivals have been adopted or modified by the Christian religion?

Do you deny the possibility that the pagan beliefs of virgin birth could have been adopted as part of the Christian religion?

Why should we only consider the Christian claim of virgin birth to be a credible one and reject all others?

Is it possible for you to comprehend that people who are not Christian could consider that the Christian claims of virgin birth for Jesus carry little more weight than those of the many other religions I have quoted in previous posts?
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:41
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

W/L .......dodgy ground here.........

May I put a few question to you
Past history would seem to give the answer......

"You may but I won't neccessarily answer them"

Again a GENERAL observation.:rolleyes
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:44
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The truth is that Christianity has a God-awful record in the Historical Butchery Stakes as I have shown. Its indefencible and inexcusable and its apologist seems to have left, rightly so.

Christians can't even agree with Christians and have been blowing each other to bits in N.Ireland.

The reasons have been identified in the extract I posted and it is simply for this reason that such intolerance has surfaced, again and again.Its no coincidence. If you are going to defend any faith, the biggest mistake is to try and hide its Historical Mistakes. This is what Christianity has always done historically and this is what its defenders have tried to do here. Christianity needs to admit its bl**dy past, come to terms with it and stop brushing it under the carpet. I won't even go to the Holocaust and the part played by the vatican during the war, cos it just gets worse.
Just imagine if people who defend Chistianities past like AJ can't accept simple historical fact, its no wonder that even today inour own land christian is killing christian in Gods name.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:46
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Plus

I think half the problem on here is that we have so few posters making so many of the posts.........

So things tend to get polarized pretty quickly

That's not attacking the frequent posters. Far from it.

WAKE up you lurkers. YOU HAVE AN OPINION TOO.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:46
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wl, only a question, but was not the virgin birth a proficy from the old testement.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:47
Gecko's Avatar
Gecko Gecko is offline
Phelsuma Abbotti
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Leeds
Posts: 343
Default

Fenix or anyone else,

Do you think humanity would have been better off without any form of religion?

I certainly do.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 09-April-2002, 23:50
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tony a most of Jesus' "life" was a full-filment of prophesy. Isaiah I think.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bad, car, christmas, company, connection, dead, forward, google, happy, health, home, key, law, line, liverpool, lost, mail, make, opinion, police, product, public, rates, sound, speed, speeds, talk, virgin

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©1999-2014 The Scream!