How to beat your wife...

Post Reply New Topic

By the same logic, the Inquisition & the Salem fundamentalists were Christian (the Bible does say to kill the witches), and true Christians should stone to death anyone who works on the Sabbath.
As someone else has posted, you forget terrorists like McVeigh, ETA, the IRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, Maurice Papon, etc (yes, attacks against the US are not the only ones that count in the world - incidentally guess what country the IRA got its funding from). I do agree that there must be a deep rot in some Muslim societies; I find the Saudi regime one of the most odious and dangerous in the world. Polls and elections do show that in some countries the jihadists are popular. But I will not generalise to all Muslims or all Muslim countries, because it's not every single Muslim and it's not every single Muslim country. Given how much nominal Christians usually adhere to Biblical precepts in practice, what the Quran says (good or bad) seems neither here nor there.

Disclaimer: I only want to argue with those whose minds are capable of change. That's why I often let certain members' anti-Christian tirades go unchallenged. They're free to enjoy their nonsense in peace. And when I do challenge them, I do so only for the possible benefit of others reading the thread. But I don't lose any sleep over those with closed minds.

Translation: "I have decided what the truth is and am set in my beliefs; I am only interested in talking with potential converts."

As a person that has an open mind, could you explain the 99% figure? The IRA, the basques, Eric Rudolph, the shining path, the red army underground, Aum Shinryku, the baader-meinhof, the tamil tigers the Lord's Army, and Timothy McVeigh are not muslims. The Chechens and PLO membership is mostly muslim, but they are fighting nationalist wars of independence (the PLO is secular and some Chechen groups are secular, some not). Conservatives were insistent that the ANC was a terrorist organization; now it leads the democratic nation of South Africa and is diplomatically recognized around the world.

Also curious as to what your definition of terrorism is. When China rolled the tanks into Tianamen square and killed hundreds of people who were peacefully protesting, was that terrorism? China's occupation of Tibet? The Government of Burma's oppression of the monks, and the nasty actions being waged against the Burmese government by Karen and Shan guerrillas? Does that count as terrorism? What about the insurgents and paramilitary narco-organizations in Columbia, and the scorched earth policy of the Columbian government? Any of that count as terrorism? Or is that okey-doke non-violence that isn't trying to intimidate the people that aren't killed?

^^^
Mistranslation, FTL.

I like discussing things with thinking individuals.

Yes, it is better to discuss things with free thinkers.

well, as for the "minds capable of change" thing, we noticed that his "truth" never changes, or his opinions always stay the same, the problem I see is the arrogance in any person, when they think that everyone else should see the same things in their own point of view, therefore thinking that something must be wrong with everyone else.

So you do not discuss things with yourself.

Truth, by definition, doesn't change. Situations change, but laws of physics that govern those situations do not change.
Logically, if truth changed, it wouldn't be true! It would either be a lie, or a mistake.
And, my opinions do change, because I don't know everything, and am constantly learning.
My learning new things doesn't mean the truth has changed, it means my knowledge has changed. Truth is constant. (See my sig.)
Mark Twain illustrated that phenomenon. He said:
Using heavy irony, he demonstrated that the actual change was the shift in the young man's perspective. The truth of his father's wisdom didn't change, young Twain's perspective did.
So, the truth of a matter is, by definition, true, even if and when the matter itself changes.
So, if someone promotes a truth that changes, he's either a liar or a fool.

well, as I noticed that you added the word True to muslims, when you say "True" muslims, is it just like saying "True" Christians?

In other words, only "true" muslims follow the "correct" interpretation of the Quran, just as "true" christians follow the "correct" interpretation fo the Bible, right?

You might got something slightly right in a way, but with the wrong intention, historically speaking, every society was barbarian in ancient times, romans, jewish, muslims and even judeo-christians (early christians), so we can say pretty much that the Quran and the Bible are influenced by those barbarian cultures, when it came to punishment, rituals, etc. it is my view that some regimes have wanted to get back to their original roots as it were thousands of years ago, the taliban regime was an example of this, so in my opinion, that may be the problem, trying to get back at the things as the exact way were in ancient times it is considered extremist now, for ignoring a lot of advances and other stuff humanity are supposed to have learned. You said that christianity have changed over the years, even though you said "truth" never changes, but it has molded somehow according to modern times, some might do less than others, but lots of christian churchs today obviously don't have the same ALL customs and values as they were 500, 1000, 2000 years ago, do they?

All religions should change according to time, otherwise problems rise like terrorism, negligence, sexism, prejudice, mysoginy, etc. because of the extremist way of trying to get back to the traditional roots.

No offense GB, but you're not on my "thinking people" list. After arguing with you for some six months, I've had enough. Facts are only for those who care about them, so I don't lose any sleep over you rejecting facts just because you don't like them. Therefore, the few times I respond to you nowadays are only for the readers' benefit. You yourself are a lost cause, IMO.

well, I'm glad you said IMO instead of "Truth".

Things you have said are not facts actually, they are beliefs based on faith and dogma, not actually facts, not of real scientific value either, and as for not accepting facts because you don't like them, actually that is the other way around, you reject facts, theories and studies of some things, because you don't like it when they contradict your beliefs.



As for the "Truth" you speak of, Yes, what is actually truth never changes, a circle is always a cirlce, as square is always a square, however in this case, some things that you considered truth, are just norms followed by certain groups which you belong to, in which case it is not actually a solid and palpable truth, but it is a collection of ideologies and dogmas which you decided to called "the truth", as we are talking about muslims here, a mulsim man can as well tell you that he speaks the "truth", obviously his 'truth' would differ from yours. How can that be? how can two truths contradict each other?

As a thinking individual, I must conclude the 99% factoid you quoted was obviously incorrect. But I would admit the error of my way if you provided solid evidence - this truth you speak of. I suspect you push that idea because you are not interested in learning the truth about people who practice other religions ... you are interested in demonizing them as a way to boost your own self-esteem.

IMO, Your problem goes beyond logic and thinking - it is one of fairness. You seem unwilling to apply the same standards you use for those you identify with and for people with different beliefs. In the words of your idol A.C., all liberals are all traitors, all muslims are terrorists, and all Europeans are sissy intellectuals that make subtle distinctions when the world is simply black and white.

That seems very likely the case, but I don't think it is to boost his self-esteem, but to gain salvation probably?


Exactly, other denominations are wrong by default, and therefore not conforming to the supposedly "truth" he claims, it is like one single path to follow and rejecting everything else without even consider, just as another person in another denomination that think they are right and won't accept his views.

He is fundamentalist so he firmly believes and defends his views, just as a fundamentalist muslim would do, it is the same in the aspect that it is hardly to change their minds even if evidence suggest being wrong in some things at least.


Exactly, and after the "all liberals are liars" and "liberals think they are God" statements, and the circumsicion vs abortion thread, given that, and later having a "thinking people" list. Can you make some sense of it?

Except he isn't doing the things the Bible prescribe for salvation. There are Christians who are more interested in living the Sermon on the Mount than on making faulty generalizations about other religions. I think the difference between these two types of 'religious' personalities does reflect one group that is self-assured in their beliefs, and another that is insecure or paranoid. In my experience, this personality difference goes beyond religious beliefs and manifests it in other parts of a persons life.

Yeah, the question is a little confusing. Meant to vote "Conservative and yes"