The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Hessy on November 08, 2010, 10:08:47 AM

Title: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 08, 2010, 10:08:47 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 08, 2010, 10:40:52 AM
Yes. No. He does.

He actually made a thread in which the title was that website. Just is another example of the conservative closed-minded christian he is. He hears something and thinks, "OMG ITS TRUE, THEY TOLD ME SO!!" then runs around spreading the website's hate message.

I bet he is a tea party'er.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
I wish I had the mental concentration to create a site with all of the non-Islamic terrorist events. Sadly, I do not.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Mykael on November 08, 2010, 10:57:09 AM
Wardogg is full of Republican and lulz.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 11:00:42 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if the figure is true if you consider it globally to be honest. I don't see how stating a fact can be offensive...

My God, I just supported Wardogg
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 11:02:27 AM
The fact may be true, but the fact that they are Muslims doesn't make them terrorists. The avatar doesn't specifically say that, but you know that's what he believes.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 11:05:10 AM
The fact may be true, but the fact that they are Muslims doesn't make them terrorists. The avatar doesn't specifically say that, but you know that's what he believes.

True, but then it's WD's attitude to Muslims you have a problem with, not his avatar.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Wendy on November 08, 2010, 11:06:32 AM
I'd like to know how many terrorist acts have happened since 9-11.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 11:08:04 AM
The fact may be true, but the fact that they are Muslims doesn't make them terrorists. The avatar doesn't specifically say that, but you know that's what he believes.

True, but then it's WD's attitude to Muslims you have a problem with, not his avatar.

Actually, you know what, the avatar does in a way explicitly state that. The phrase "Religion of peace" is meant to be ironic, IE Islam is not peaceful is what he is inferring from the statistic.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 11:21:32 AM
Can you seriously argue that it is? At least modern interpretations of it?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 11:31:24 AM
Can you seriously argue that it is? At least modern interpretations of it?

No, but...

How can I put this?

Though many of the violent people today tend to be Islamic, the followers of Islam are not necessarily violent. The phrase "Religion of Peace" implies that because of Islam, Muslims are violent, when that is not the case. Muslims are violent for other reasons, not Islam.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 08, 2010, 11:42:10 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.

Its Wardogg....with 2 g's.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 11:42:45 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.

Its Wardogg....with 2 g's.

Yeah, motherfucker.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 11:45:37 AM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lorddave on November 08, 2010, 12:24:34 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 08, 2010, 12:31:51 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Crustinator on November 08, 2010, 12:36:41 PM
Wardogs avatar offended me.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 08, 2010, 01:20:32 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.

Only when compelling evidence suggests they should do otherwise. 
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lorddave on November 08, 2010, 01:23:05 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.

Only when compelling evidence suggests they should do otherwise. 
No they don't.  How long did it take before the great scientists of the Renaissance were accepted and people changed?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 01:24:32 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.

Only when compelling evidence suggests they should do otherwise. 
No they don't.  How long did it take before the great scientists of the Renaissance were accepted and people changed?

They had compelling evidence.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lorddave on November 08, 2010, 01:29:05 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.

Only when compelling evidence suggests they should do otherwise. 
No they don't.  How long did it take before the great scientists of the Renaissance were accepted and people changed?

They had compelling evidence.
I know and it took decades before most people changed their minds.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 08, 2010, 01:30:03 PM
I find it a reminder that he hasn't changed.
People generally don't.

Only when compelling evidence suggests they should do otherwise. 
No they don't.  How long did it take before the great scientists of the Renaissance were accepted and people changed?

They had compelling evidence.
I know and it took decades before most people changed their minds.

It took me 35 years to realize muslims aren't peaceful.  What's you point?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Crustinator on November 08, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
It took me 35 years to realize muslims aren't peaceful.

You mean you spent 35 years believing they were?

Wow didn't think they had pinko bleeding heart socialist communists in your neck of the woods.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 08, 2010, 01:56:32 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.

Ignorant perhaps, offensive no. How is it in any way offensive?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Wendy on November 08, 2010, 01:57:51 PM
It took me 35 years to realize muslims aren't peaceful.  What's you point?

People in general aren't peaceful. What's yours?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:04:50 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

Sure, but take that religion away and you get rid of their justification for suicide bombs, oppressing women etc
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
I will admit, though, that Islam may be more susceptible to violent acts than other religions because of the fundamentalism associated with it, whereas Christians don't tend to take the violent parts of the Bible seriously, and sometimes completely ignore them.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 08, 2010, 02:08:18 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

I love this comparison.  Please see my other thread for comparable numbers and or actual deaths from above groups.

It took me 35 years to realize muslims aren't peaceful.

You mean you spent 35 years believing they were?

Wow didn't think they had pinko bleeding heart socialist communists in your neck of the woods.

They're everywhere.


It took me 35 years to realize muslims aren't peaceful.  What's you point?

People in general aren't peaceful. What's yours?


You just don't like me because I'm not Swedish.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

Sure, but take that religion away and you get rid of their justification for suicide bombs, oppressing women etc


Nah, I believe the greater cause of the terrorist acts are politically driven. I don't really think any Muslim care deep down about killing infidels. The terrorists care about making political statements, not religious ones.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:09:45 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

I love this comparison.  Please see my other thread for comparable numbers and or actual deaths from above groups.

I'm not saying Muslims don't kill more people; I'm saying the root reasons aren't truly religious in nature.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 02:10:57 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

Sure, but take that religion away and you get rid of their justification for suicide bombs, oppressing women etc


Nah, I believe the greater cause of the terrorist acts are politically driven. I don't really think any Muslim care deep down about killing infidels. The terrorists care about making political statements, not religion ones.

You think they'd be so willing to take themselves out if they didn't believe honestly and sincerely there was somewhere better waiting for them?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:15:25 PM
I would dispute that. While it might be aggravations besides religion which drive a person to hate, religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East, provides a fertile bed of justification and righteous indignation. Sam Harris puts the case against Islam very convincingly in 'The End of Faith' in 'The Problem with Islam' including a statistic where over 80% of those asked in Lebanon whether suicide bombing in defence of Islam was justified agreed that it was.

Yeah, but I still don't think it's believing in a magic skydaddy that makes them violent. Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They believe in Christianity, yet there are many Christians who don't act like they do. Likewise there are many Muslims that aren't violent, leading me to believe that its not the actual religion but rather one's interpretation of it, which could change greatly from person to person.

Sure, but take that religion away and you get rid of their justification for suicide bombs, oppressing women etc


Nah, I believe the greater cause of the terrorist acts are politically driven. I don't really think any Muslim care deep down about killing infidels. The terrorists care about making political statements, not religion ones.

You think they'd be so willing to take themselves out if they didn't believe honestly and sincerely there was somewhere better waiting for them?

I don't know about that, but people would still kill other people.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 08, 2010, 02:16:45 PM
Most of the problems related to Islam are socio-cultural and historical rather than religious in nature. The Qu'ran does not really prescribe violence to any greater degree than Christianity. That's not to say I think Islam is 'okay', because ultimately I think religion is almost always bad except when it is entirely and exclusively personal. Once you have a movement, you have a mob.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:20:29 PM
No doubt, if the religion was gone, the violence would be less severe. However, like I said, this isn't due directly to the religion but to the interpretation of it.

The Bible is just as violent as the Qu'ran. It's just that Muslims tend to be more fundamentalist than Christians, mostly due to what Wilmore said above.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2010, 02:23:31 PM
Ok I'll concede it isn't the book alone but the whole culture of modern Middle-eastern Islam is violent and extremist, from the preachers in the mosques to the mobs burning effigies in the street. When considering religion I don't think it's right to criticize what it 'could be' but what millions of adherents practice it
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 08, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
Ok I'll concede it isn't the book alone but the whole culture of modern Middle-eastern Islam is violent and extremist, from the preachers in the mosques to the mobs burning effigies in the street. When considering religion I don't think it's right to criticize what it 'could be' but what millions of adherents practice it

So it's more middle eastern culture than anything. Any religion could produce the same result.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 12:23:47 AM
It's extremely hard to argue that Islam in any form is beneficial to modern society. And no, I dont find his avatar to be any more offensive than an avatar making a sarcastic observation on christianity (which would be more acceptable in our society).
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 01:00:01 AM
Ok I'll concede it isn't the book alone but the whole culture of modern Middle-eastern Islam is violent and extremist, from the preachers in the mosques to the mobs burning effigies in the street. When considering religion I don't think it's right to criticize what it 'could be' but what millions of adherents practice it

So it's more middle eastern culture than anything. Any religion could produce the same result.

Middle Eastern culture is informed by the beliefs of Islam and Islamic beliefs are built up from middle Eastern culture, the two are intertwined. While it's possible that any religion *could* have become indistinct from Islam the fact remains that at the moment Islam occupies that position.

In the same way that in the woods you might be attacked by a bear. Evolution *could* have taken something else to fill the bear's niche but it makes more sense to be wary of bears than bear-like cats for instance.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: frostee on November 09, 2010, 01:18:07 AM
Wardogg is a god. All of you, shut your mouths!
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: spanner34.5 on November 09, 2010, 02:26:12 AM
I'd like to know how many terrorist acts have happened since 9-11.
Very true, It cut down the largely American funded Noraid support for the IRA to almost nil. 


Noraid.............
American/Irish campaign that supported mass murder in Northern Ireland and the UK by funding the IRA between 1970 up until 9/11 when America got some back and didn't like it.
"Ouch, them terrorists hurt, better stop funding Irish ones like Noraid."
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 03:12:39 AM
I'd like to know how many terrorist acts have happened since 9-11.
Very true, It cut down the largely American funded Noraid support for the IRA to almost nil. 


Noraid.............
American/Irish campaign that supported mass murder in Northern Ireland and the UK by funding the IRA between 1970 up until 9/11 when America got some back and didn't like it.
"Ouch, them terrorists hurt, better stop funding Irish ones like Noraid."

The agenda of the US government doesn't represent American citizens overall.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: spanner34.5 on November 09, 2010, 05:10:19 AM
I'd like to know how many terrorist acts have happened since 9-11.
Very true, It cut down the largely American funded Noraid support for the IRA to almost nil. 


Noraid.............
American/Irish campaign that supported mass murder in Northern Ireland and the UK by funding the IRA between 1970 up until 9/11 when America got some back and didn't like it.
"Ouch, them terrorists hurt, better stop funding Irish ones like Noraid."

The agenda of the US government doesn't represent American citizens overall.
It does, that's what elections are for.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 09, 2010, 09:33:52 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.

Ignorant perhaps, offensive no. How is it in any way offensive?

It's offensive because he's generalizing and stereotyping Muslims because many are doing what they believe to be right.

For example, Jews traditionally circumsize their kids.  Yet others may label them genital-mangling freaks because they don't hold the same beliefs.

Besides, I'm not sure why everyone is condemning Islam when thousands of men invaded the Middle East in a bloody rampage, massacring, raping, and enslaving thousands of innocent people (not all were Muslims) in the name of God.  Yet they did so because they thought it was right.

I'm offended because he seems to think all Muslims are angry terrorists simply because they're Muslim.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Mykael on November 09, 2010, 09:39:02 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14185

Anyone else find it ignorant or offensive?  As far as I can tell, he actually believes what the website says.

Ignorant perhaps, offensive no. How is it in any way offensive?

It's offensive because he's generalizing and stereotyping Muslims because many are doing what they believe to be right.

For example, Jews traditionally circumsize their kids.  Yet others may label them genital-mangling freaks because they don't hold the same beliefs.

(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2242/14065465.png)


I'm offended because he seems to think all Muslims are angry terrorists simply because they're Muslim.

Pretty much this.

Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 09:41:27 AM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 09, 2010, 09:46:26 AM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Some part of me says that number is ridiculous.  The news would be all over 5 deadly terrorist attacks per day.  They also don't even post sources for their statistics.

And I also realized the website is anti-gay. 

Quote from: TheReligionOfPeace.com
Gay Pride Day in Iran

<Image Permanently Removed to Satisfy Censorware Providers>

But it was a good one...  two gay teens hanging out in Iran, as it were.  Good times...
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 09:49:37 AM
Wardogg may have that opinion but that's not what I get from his avatar.

If it is factually correct regarding the number of terror attacks perpetrated by people who happen to be Muslim then I don't see how it is offensive. If they all happened to be chartered accountants then 'x deadly terror attacks commited by Chartered Accountants' would be just as accurate and innoffensive.

The phrase 'x number of children circumcised by Jews' would be equally factual and innoffensive.

'x number of people killed in pub fights by Brits' by 'Britain-safest-pubs.com' would not be offensive, either

Now, if the number is innaccurate then you can take umbrage with it but I don't think it actually sounds all that far-fetched if you consider honour-killings and shootings to be acts of terror.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 09, 2010, 09:52:22 AM
I just find it odd and suspicious that the site doesn't even cite a source.

And it's still offensive because he's promoting a site with wildy extremist, bigotted, and racist views.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 09:54:24 AM
The Independant in 2007 reported that "The count - excluding the Arab-Israel conflict - shows the number of deaths due to terrorism rose from 729 to 5,420"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-the-war-on-terror-made-the-world-a-more-terrifying-place-438190.html
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 10:18:16 AM
Except that in the British pubs example, the fact that the pubs are British does not inherently make them unsafe. Similarly, the fact that a person is Musim does not inherently make them violent or a terrorist. However, both of the phrases "Britain: Safest Pubs" and "Religion of Peace" are meant to convey irony in the supposed fact that a British pub is inherrently not safe and that Islam makes someone inherently violent and/or terroristic.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 11:00:05 AM
Maybe they aren't inherently violent, but they are inherently more prone to violence.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 09, 2010, 12:36:22 PM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 12:41:14 PM
Except that in the British pubs example, the fact that the pubs are British does not inherently make them unsafe. Similarly, the fact that a person is Musim does not inherently make them violent or a terrorist. However, both of the phrases "Britain: Safest Pubs" and "Religion of Peace" are meant to convey irony in the supposed fact that a British pub is inherrently not safe and that Islam makes someone inherently violent and/or terroristic.

No, but I'm reminded of the old poster "you don't have to be crazy to work here... but it helps!"

There's a reason why murderous loonies don't indoctrinate kids with the principles of Jainism...
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 12:52:12 PM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

Would have been nice if they had listed citations.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 09, 2010, 01:48:22 PM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

There are no citations or sources. How are we to know they didn't make up the events?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Crustinator on November 09, 2010, 01:56:39 PM
Wow didn't think they had pinko bleeding heart socialist communists in your neck of the woods.

They're everywhere.

Then you'll fit right in.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

There are no citations or sources. How are we to know they didn't make up the events?

I don't think it's an issue of whether or not that exact number of attacks have occurred, rather it's more of an issue of motive and willingness to carry out the attacks. Their motive is to wipe out western society and they certainly are willing.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 02:26:51 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 02:33:00 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

When there are riots or bombings in Northern Ireland, the news reports these as 'Republican' or 'Unionist' they know full well that not all unionists or republicans are fucking stupid terrorists but for the purposes of conveying the news that some faction who happened to be republican set off a pipe bomb 'republican' is a good enough catch-all term. Same as 'Muslim' or 'Islamist'
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 02:36:40 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

Not just Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but no doubt there are plenty of individuals who hold similar beliefs. The fact remains that Islam is a catalyst for their violent actions. Psychological studies have shown that people are more willing to carry out violent acts if they are supported by scripture.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 02:37:21 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

When there are riots or bombings in Northern Ireland, the news reports these as 'Republican' or 'Unionist' they know full well that not all unionists or republicans are fucking stupid terrorists but for the purposes of conveying the news that some faction who happened to be republican set off a pipe bomb 'republican' is a good enough catch-all term. Same as 'Muslim' or 'Islamist'

Except that the ratio of terrorist:Muslim is so small, that the comparison is retarded and solely based on fear. Islam currently has, what, over a billion followers?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 02:38:04 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

Not just Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but no doubt there are plenty of individuals who hold similar beliefs. The fact remains that Islam is a catalyst for their violent actions. Psychological studies have shown that people are more willing to carry out violent acts if they are supported by scripture.

And there are many Christians who support killing Muslims for similar reasons. Your point?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 02:40:07 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

Not just Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but no doubt there are plenty of individuals who hold similar beliefs. The fact remains that Islam is a catalyst for their violent actions. Psychological studies have shown that people are more willing to carry out violent acts if they are supported by scripture.

And there are many Christians who support killing Muslims for similar reasons. Your point?

My point is that violence based on idealistic notions is dangerous to society.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 02:42:28 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do want to wipe out western society. However, Muslims are no necessarily a part of Al Qaeda.

Not just Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but no doubt there are plenty of individuals who hold similar beliefs. The fact remains that Islam is a catalyst for their violent actions. Psychological studies have shown that people are more willing to carry out violent acts if they are supported by scripture.

And there are many Christians who support killing Muslims for similar reasons. Your point?

My point is that violence based on idealistic notions is dangerous to society.

Yes it is. I agree that religion does cause more harm that good. However, this is not limited to Islam, so trying to claim that Islam = violence is ludicrous, especially when the comparison doesn't even hold since not all Muslims are violent.

The site should state "Religions of predisposition to violence".
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 02:50:23 PM
Yes Islam has many, many different sects and interpretations and groups and prejudices, which is why it's easier to group them by the one thing they all have in common - Islam.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 09, 2010, 02:50:48 PM
However, this is not limited to Islam, so trying to claim that Islam = violence is ludicrous, especially when the comparison doesn't even hold since not all Muslims are violent.

Fundamentally, both Christianity and Islam are violent religions. This is mainly due to the fact that they were invented by humans and humans are naturally inclined to do violent acts.

I think it is right to criticize Islam as a religion, but not necessarily right to criticize all those who follow it.  
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 09, 2010, 02:51:46 PM
However, this is not limited to Islam, so trying to claim that Islam = violence is ludicrous, especially when the comparison doesn't even hold since not all Muslims are violent.

Fundamentally, both Christianity and Islam are violent religions. This is mainly due to the fact that they were invented by humans and humans are naturally inclined to do violent acts.

I think it is right to criticize Islam as a religion, but not necessarily right to criticize all those who follow it.  

This.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 09, 2010, 02:59:07 PM
However, this is not limited to Islam, so trying to claim that Islam = violence is ludicrous, especially when the comparison doesn't even hold since not all Muslims are violent.

Fundamentally, both Christianity and Islam are violent religions. This is mainly due to the fact that they were invented by humans and humans are naturally inclined to do violent acts.

I think it is right to criticize Islam as a religion, but not necessarily right to criticize all those who follow it. 

This.

I agree with this.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 14, 2010, 04:14:24 AM
However, this is not limited to Islam, so trying to claim that Islam = violence is ludicrous, especially when the comparison doesn't even hold since not all Muslims are violent.

Fundamentally, both Christianity and Islam are violent religions. This is mainly due to the fact that they were invented by humans and humans are naturally inclined to do violent acts.

I think it is right to criticize Islam as a religion, but not necessarily right to criticize all those who follow it.  

Are you saying that a large majority of Christians today are violent...or just in the past?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 14, 2010, 07:35:10 AM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).

I would say that islam is a rather more violent religion. I am not talking about the followers, simply the religion. The rules for treating non believers are completely inhuman, especially compared to the new testament.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 14, 2010, 10:22:20 AM
I would probably agree, but Wardogg seems to be treating a religion and its followers as equivalent or interchangeable:


Fundamentally, both Christianity and Islam are violent religions. This is mainly due to the fact that they were invented by humans and humans are naturally inclined to do violent acts.

I think it is right to criticize Islam as a religion, but not necessarily right to criticize all those who follow it.  

Are you saying that a large majority of Christians today are violent...or just in the past?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 14, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).

I would say that islam is a rather more violent religion. I am not talking about the followers, simply the religion. The rules for treating non believers are completely inhuman, especially compared to the new testament.

The Old Testament is just as violent as the Quran.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2010, 10:10:53 PM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).

I would say that islam is a rather more violent religion. I am not talking about the followers, simply the religion. The rules for treating non believers are completely inhuman, especially compared to the new testament.

The Old Testament is just as violent as the Quran.

Having exactly what to do with christianity? That is the story of Judaism.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 14, 2010, 10:32:28 PM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).

I would say that islam is a rather more violent religion. I am not talking about the followers, simply the religion. The rules for treating non believers are completely inhuman, especially compared to the new testament.

The Old Testament is just as violent as the Quran.

Having exactly what to do with christianity? That is the story of Judaism.

Just because you think the sequel is better doesn't mean it's not part of the Christian holy book.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2010, 11:19:55 PM
Wardogg, please try and grasp that Christians/Muslims != Christianity/Islam.


However, as nations with predominantly Christian populations usually top homicide rate tables, I think the argument could be made that Christians are in general more violent than Muslims (though it's a retarded argument no matter which way you play it).

I would say that islam is a rather more violent religion. I am not talking about the followers, simply the religion. The rules for treating non believers are completely inhuman, especially compared to the new testament.

The Old Testament is just as violent as the Quran.

Having exactly what to do with christianity? That is the story of Judaism.

Just because you think the sequel is better doesn't mean it's not part of the Christian holy book.

Which has what to do with what?

A story inside of our religious text does not determine the rules/behavior of the religion.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 14, 2010, 11:23:17 PM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2010, 11:33:30 PM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?

Since those laws do not apply to christianity, a lot.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 15, 2010, 01:38:09 AM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?

Since those laws do not apply to christianity, a lot.

The bible is the common denominator among all sects of Christianity. The fundamentalists interpret it as the literal word of God while some view the various scriptures as metaphors. However, all Christians view the bible as a holy book from which morality is derived. The ten commandments for example are moral laws which apply to both Christians and Jews. I think you're definitely wrong when you say that the Old Testament is somehow exempt or does not apply to Christianity because it really does.

But I'd agree that the teachings of Jesus are much more peaceful than Islamic teachings. Still, I'm not sure how many Christians actually subscribe 100% to the teachings of Jesus. They're pretty hard to be faithful to with such concepts as "loving your enemy" or "doing good to those who persecute you". While they're noble endeavors they're just not very realistic.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 15, 2010, 02:43:06 AM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?

Since those laws do not apply to christianity, a lot.

The bible is the common denominator among all sects of Christianity. The fundamentalists interpret it as the literal word of God while some view the various scriptures as metaphors. However, all Christians view the bible as a holy book from which morality is derived. The ten commandments for example are moral laws which apply to both Christians and Jews. I think you're definitely wrong when you say that the Old Testament is somehow exempt or does not apply to Christianity because it really does.

But I'd agree that the teachings of Jesus are much more peaceful than Islamic teachings. Still, I'm not sure how many Christians actually subscribe 100% to the teachings of Jesus. They're pretty hard to be faithful to with such concepts as "loving your enemy" or "doing good to those who persecute you". While they're noble endeavors they're just not very realistic.

My point is the bible is not christianity, while it is held as sacred, the stories contained within are not always representative of christianity, and the new testament even says that most of the old testament should be interpreted differently. Jesus flat out tells people to turn the other cheek when attacked and won't let them kill a woman that the old testament claims should be killed. The teachings of jesus are the essence of christianity, judaism is just the tribal religion that it sprung from.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Keldarion Typrax on November 15, 2010, 03:29:03 AM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?

Since those laws do not apply to christianity, a lot.

The bible is the common denominator among all sects of Christianity. The fundamentalists interpret it as the literal word of God while some view the various scriptures as metaphors. However, all Christians view the bible as a holy book from which morality is derived. The ten commandments for example are moral laws which apply to both Christians and Jews. I think you're definitely wrong when you say that the Old Testament is somehow exempt or does not apply to Christianity because it really does.

But I'd agree that the teachings of Jesus are much more peaceful than Islamic teachings. Still, I'm not sure how many Christians actually subscribe 100% to the teachings of Jesus. They're pretty hard to be faithful to with such concepts as "loving your enemy" or "doing good to those who persecute you". While they're noble endeavors they're just not very realistic.

My point is the bible is not christianity, while it is held as sacred, the stories contained within are not always representative of christianity, and the new testament even says that most of the old testament should be interpreted differently. Jesus flat out tells people to turn the other cheek when attacked and won't let them kill a woman that the old testament claims should be killed. The teachings of jesus are the essence of christianity, judaism is just the tribal religion that it sprung from.

The Jewish, Christian and Islamic god are all the same. The thing about Christianity is that Jesus coming to Earth was supposedly a "new covenant" between god and man. However, Christians still believe that scripture from the Old Testament is the word of god. Whether you want to classify it as Christianity or not, there's still the issue of there being a jealous, violent and tyrannical being in the universe.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 15, 2010, 06:10:12 AM
They're more than stories. God tells people to do stuff like murder people. What's so different between that and the Quran?

Since those laws do not apply to christianity, a lot.

The bible is the common denominator among all sects of Christianity. The fundamentalists interpret it as the literal word of God while some view the various scriptures as metaphors. However, all Christians view the bible as a holy book from which morality is derived. The ten commandments for example are moral laws which apply to both Christians and Jews. I think you're definitely wrong when you say that the Old Testament is somehow exempt or does not apply to Christianity because it really does.

But I'd agree that the teachings of Jesus are much more peaceful than Islamic teachings. Still, I'm not sure how many Christians actually subscribe 100% to the teachings of Jesus. They're pretty hard to be faithful to with such concepts as "loving your enemy" or "doing good to those who persecute you". While they're noble endeavors they're just not very realistic.

My point is the bible is not christianity, while it is held as sacred, the stories contained within are not always representative of christianity, and the new testament even says that most of the old testament should be interpreted differently. Jesus flat out tells people to turn the other cheek when attacked and won't let them kill a woman that the old testament claims should be killed. The teachings of jesus are the essence of christianity, judaism is just the tribal religion that it sprung from.

The Jewish, Christian and Islamic god are all the same. The thing about Christianity is that Jesus coming to Earth was supposedly a "new covenant" between god and man. However, Christians still believe that scripture from the Old Testament is the word of god. Whether you want to classify it as Christianity or not, there's still the issue of there being a jealous, violent and tyrannical being in the universe.


I am not arguing about the gods being different, or the bible saying something different. The religion, christianity, is following the new covenant of jesus. This religion is a peaceful one. Judaism is a rather violent religion in parts, but it has nothing to do with the christian religion other than shared roots.

(A religion is a set of shared practices and beliefs. It is not the god, or the book. And the beliefs and customs of christianity are peaceful, even if the christians themselves aren't)
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 16, 2010, 01:08:48 AM
(A religion is a set of shared practices and beliefs. It is not the god, or the book. And the beliefs and customs of Christianity are peaceful, even if the Christians themselves aren't [peaceful])
Wouldn't shared mentalities of violence amongst Christians would constitute shared beliefs or practices? How could Christianity be peaceful if it is the product of shared non-peaceful mentalities? And although my sample size is relatively small, less than 9 percent of the Christian's I know are tolerant of Islam.  ???

Also, this conversation was started on the premise that it is different from the Quran. If the Christian book doesn't define Christianity wouldn't that mean the Quran doesn't have to define Islam?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 16, 2010, 03:30:02 AM
His avatar and the site does have some truth to it. If Muslims preach their religion is peaceful, why do quite a few (compared to other religions) interpret the Quran as a message of "kill the infidels"? Is it the religion itself, or is could it be the nature of the people? Either way, you can't say Islam is more peaceful than modern day Christianity or Judaism.

Also, what bothers me about this is that their kind of terrorism/war is they aren't doing it out of being repressed, but more of 'hate' for a certain group.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 16, 2010, 09:40:33 AM
His avatar and the site does have some truth to it. If Muslims preach their religion is peaceful, why do quite a few (compared to other religions) interpret the Quran as a message of "kill the infidels"? Is it the religion itself, or is could it be the nature of the people? Either way, you can't say Islam is more peaceful than modern day Christianity or Judaism.

Of course we can't.  But arguably, any of the religions can be interpreted numerous ways; peacefully or not.  The Westboro Baptist Church firmly believes "God hates fags" and kills military servicemen and women out of anger for our tolerance.  A great example of a violent interpretation of the Christian religion.

ReligionofPeace.com just generalizes Muslims and thinks they all interpret Islam violently.  They're also gay-hating religious nutjobs.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 16, 2010, 02:10:04 PM
His avatar and the site does have some truth to it. If Muslims preach their religion is peaceful, why do quite a few (compared to other religions) interpret the Quran as a message of "kill the infidels"? Is it the religion itself, or is could it be the nature of the people? Either way, you can't say Islam is more peaceful than modern day Christianity or Judaism.

Of course we can't.  But arguably, any of the religions can be interpreted numerous ways; peacefully or not.  The Westboro Baptist Church firmly believes "God hates fags" and kills military servicemen and women out of anger for our tolerance.  A great example of a violent interpretation of the Christian religion.

ReligionofPeace.com just generalizes Muslims and thinks they all interpret Islam violently.  They're also gay-hating religious nutjobs.

WBC sure they are 'extreme', but do you see them blowing themselves up? Their interpretation is extreme, but its extreme to the point that 'God will come down and kill all the sinners.' For Muslims its, I have to take God's will upon myself to kill the sinners/infidels. Huge difference there.

Westboro's are douchebags, I'll give them that, but they are extremely peaceful in their actions. Sure they convey messages of hate....but have they killed anyone over it?

Generalizations are not up to the outgroup to discard, its the ingroup that's responsible for tossing aside the generalizations that get made against their group. Yes, the media doesn't cover a lot of the good the Islamic faith has done. Still, if the Islamic people want to get rid of that "terrorist" stigma, they need to actively (strongly etc) campaign against it, not shrug it off and say 'its bad, our faith would never do that!'

Also, between Christianity and Islam, Christianity is more open to change (more liberal) than the Islamic faith. Both are still way behind, but in terms of actually changing for the current society, Christianity is miles ahead.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 16, 2010, 10:15:46 PM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

There are no citations or sources. How are we to know they didn't make up the events?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 17, 2010, 06:04:20 AM
(A religion is a set of shared practices and beliefs. It is not the god, or the book. And the beliefs and customs of Christianity are peaceful, even if the Christians themselves aren't [peaceful])
Wouldn't shared mentalities of violence amongst Christians would constitute shared beliefs or practices? How could Christianity be peaceful if it is the product of shared non-peaceful mentalities? And although my sample size is relatively small, less than 9 percent of the Christian's I know are tolerant of Islam.  ???

Also, this conversation was started on the premise that it is different from the Quran. If the Christian book doesn't define Christianity wouldn't that mean the Quran doesn't have to define Islam?

Shared mentalities of violence amongst christians are simply shared mentalities of violence among humans. It is in no way part of the religion and is simply a correlation. I will admit there are some violent forms of "christianity" but they disobey enough of jesus' main teachings that they are really christian by their proclamation alone.

You are making the huge assumption that the bible is to christians like the quran is to muslims. Considering the bible is an incorporation of many generations, several covenants, and even full changes in the religion, the bible tends to be a history of christianity/judaism. The quran on the other hand was written towards the inception of the religion and is a guidebook.

And being tolerant of islam is not a religious belief, it is a personal one.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 17, 2010, 06:53:09 AM
And the ones that don't stone adulterers are disobeying the word of God.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 5:18-19)
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 17, 2010, 07:00:13 AM
And the ones that don't stone adulterers are disobeying the word of God.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 5:18-19)

You people are hilarious although sad at the same time. 
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 17, 2010, 07:04:53 AM
And the ones that don't stone adulterers are disobeying the word of God.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 5:18-19)

Hmm, what did Jesus himself say on the issue of stoning people who cheat on their husbands? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I don't care what some poor monk in his lust penned under the name of mathew, christ already spoke on the issue.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 17, 2010, 07:09:31 AM
And the ones that don't stone adulterers are disobeying the word of God.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 5:18-19)

Hmm, what did Jesus himself say on the issue of stoning people who cheat on their husbands? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I don't care what some poor monk in his lust penned under the name of mathew, christ already spoke on the issue.

I wasnt even going to point it out Raist.  They wont ever get it.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 17, 2010, 08:36:56 AM
And "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," is in John 8:7. What's the difference? Obviously there is a contradiction here.

Basically:

Quote
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Apparently this one doesn't count, but this one:

Quote
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7)

does count. Why?


The point I'm trying to make is that both books are violent, it depends on how you read them. Don't try and say that the Bible isn't violent when it is.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 17, 2010, 09:13:06 AM
And "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," is in John 8:7. What's the difference? Obviously there is a contradiction here.

Basically:

Quote
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Apparently this one doesn't count, but this one:

Quote
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7)

does count. Why?


The point I'm trying to make is that both books are violent, it depends on how you read them. Don't try and say that the Bible isn't violent when it is.

The books are violent I've admitted that.

All you are showing here is that mathew is obviously a book written by someone with a more violent slant. I somehow doubt a direct quote will pass down the generations and make it into the bible, but I do think the actions of jesus (or the stories he told that later were turned into actions) would at least keep their main meaning.

Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed. Their religion is based entirely on it. The Bible on the other hand is just a compilation of holy books written by many different authors throughout christian/jewish history, and most reasonable christians understand that a lost of it is opinion from the authors.

If you want to claim that christianity (the religion) believes in stoning women, then show that that is a custom or practice of the religion. So far you have shown that a passage, within a book, that records the history of the religion, shows that someone said we should stone adulterers. I have shown that the man that decided what the religion is and started it was against stoning adulterers.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 17, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
From July 7 2010

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/still-stoning-women-to-death-and1/


Oops wait...thats the wrong religion isn't it.  Sorry my bad.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 17, 2010, 09:22:44 AM
From July 7 2010

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/still-stoning-women-to-death-and1/


Oops wait...thats the wrong religion isn't it.  Sorry my bad.

As has been said before, the reason Islam is violent has more to do with the history of the region rather than the history of the religion.

I will concede that Islam in its current state is violent in many respects, though. Here's an interesting picture from Iran, which was mentioned in your article, before Islam was dominant.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Atomic_women_Iran.JPG)

From 1968, "A quarter of Iran's Nuclear Energy scientists are women."
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 17, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
In order for his avatar's statistic to be correct, there would have to be five terrorist attacks per day. Has anyone checked if his statistic is even accurate?

Im sure with a little searching you could find each one listed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2009.htm

There are no citations or sources. How are we to know they didn't make up the events?

Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: theonlydann on November 17, 2010, 09:56:53 AM
Be liberated from the slavery of the imaginary Allah and the false Prophet Mohammed and leave Islam today.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 17, 2010, 10:13:14 AM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 17, 2010, 02:03:42 PM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 17, 2010, 03:14:24 PM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

These people probably take it a bit too seriously:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ACQccpcVwNk/TCuudVFSFXI/AAAAAAAAJyU/jxowvH6_XJg/s1600/god-hates-fags.jpg)


There are a spectrum of believers in all religions.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 17, 2010, 04:50:08 PM

As has been said before, the reason Islam is violent has more to do with the history of the region rather than the history of the religion.

I will concede that Islam in its current state is violent in many respects, though. Here's an interesting picture from Iran, which was mentioned in your article, before Islam was dominant.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Atomic_women_Iran.JPG)

From 1968, "A quarter of Iran's Nuclear Energy scientists are women."

Thank you for proving my point.  Now, pay attention Trekky.  Watch for yourself and make up your own mind....but its going to get worse before it gets better.  You will see.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 17, 2010, 08:22:27 PM
Eh, people always say that.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s4oDBszE_5E/TN1T8DWjF-I/AAAAAAAADmM/B4Ev9SuPE_8/s1600/ChillTheFuckOut.png)
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 17, 2010, 09:04:39 PM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

Maybe I'm am just from a freaky part of the country, but here there are bible literalists that do think every word is the word of God. They justify not stoning people by saying Jesus made the Old Testament Laws not matter. If you point out any places that do not make sense or are contradictory they just reply that the "original" bible is the perfect world of God, but translators are shit and that's why there may be errors.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 21, 2010, 08:52:35 AM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

Maybe I'm am just from a freaky part of the country, but here there are bible literalists that do think every word is the word of God. They justify not stoning people by saying Jesus made the Old Testament Laws not matter. If you point out any places that do not make sense or are contradictory they just reply that the "original" bible is the perfect world of God, but translators are shit and that's why there may be errors.

Well, those people are idiots. I don't think that they represent christianity as a whole or even views typical for a christian.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 21, 2010, 10:14:43 AM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

Maybe I'm am just from a freaky part of the country, but here there are bible literalists that do think every word is the word of God. They justify not stoning people by saying Jesus made the Old Testament Laws not matter. If you point out any places that do not make sense or are contradictory they just reply that the "original" bible is the perfect world of God, but translators are shit and that's why there may be errors.

Well, those people are idiots. I don't think that they represent christianity as a whole or even views typical for a christian.

Maybe the Southwest and Texas is just retarded then. I can accept that. I actually find it interesting that the mormons here (there are lots) tend to be more reasonable than the Christians.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 21, 2010, 11:15:33 AM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

Maybe I'm am just from a freaky part of the country, but here there are bible literalists that do think every word is the word of God. They justify not stoning people by saying Jesus made the Old Testament Laws not matter. If you point out any places that do not make sense or are contradictory they just reply that the "original" bible is the perfect world of God, but translators are shit and that's why there may be errors.

Well, those people are idiots. I don't think that they represent christianity as a whole or even views typical for a christian.

Maybe the Southwest and Texas is just retarded then. I can accept that. I actually find it interesting that the mormons here (there are lots) tend to be more reasonable than the Christians.

Mormons are christians....

redacted after remembering mormon doctrine. While they do think the christian god was a "god" they think he is one that used to be a man, like everyone else. So they more just acknowledge Christianity.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2010, 12:45:55 PM
Quote
(http://moneysavingmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/debt-is-normal-300x300.jpg)

Magical thinking is
     normal.
       Be weird.

  ﮎingulaЯiτy.urface/
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Beorn on November 23, 2010, 11:47:57 PM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 24, 2010, 03:02:42 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?
I was under this impression, but I never bothered to confirm.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 24, 2010, 03:48:10 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?

Look kids i can make wacky claims without any kind of evidence to back it up.  Fun stuff.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 24, 2010, 04:12:16 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?

Look kids i can make wacky claims without any kind of evidence to back it up.  Fun stuff.

It's not so nutty if you include the Klan in your calculations or are we going to get a re-hashed 'No True Scotsman' defence here?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Beorn on November 24, 2010, 09:21:28 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?

Look kids i can make wacky claims without any kind of evidence to back it up.  Fun stuff.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[10] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[16] More recent incidents have included:[5]

    * December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[17][18][19]
    * October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[20]
    * May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.[21]
    * September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[22]
    * June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.[20]
    * July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[20]
    * December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.[23]
    * September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[24]
    * April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[25]
    * May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[26]
    * December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[27]
    * January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [28] rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[29]

Just a few though.

Maybe Muslim terrorist had more killings in one time, but anti abortionist still hold the number 1 position of the amount of terrorist attacks.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 25, 2010, 12:21:59 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?

Look kids i can make wacky claims without any kind of evidence to back it up.  Fun stuff.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[10] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[16] More recent incidents have included:[5]

    * December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[17][18][19]
    * October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[20]
    * May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.[21]
    * September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[22]
    * June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.[20]
    * July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[20]
    * December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.[23]
    * September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[24]
    * April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[25]
    * May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[26]
    * December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[27]
    * January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [28] rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[29]

Just a few though.

Maybe Muslim terrorist had more killings in one time, but anti abortionist still hold the number 1 position of the amount of terrorist attacks.

Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

There is a HUUUGGEE difference here. The Muslim terrorists today kill in the name of Allah/Muhammed or w/e they believe. They physically BELIEVE that if they kill FOR their God, they will get into heaven. Way different than a mother who wants all life a chance, or the KKK who kill because of skin color. Sure, some of the KKK/anti-abortionists could be Christian, but most of them do it for the cause, not for God.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on November 25, 2010, 01:06:20 AM
I'm willing to bet that all anti-abortionists that commit acts of terrorism are Christian extremists.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Vindictus on November 25, 2010, 01:52:05 AM

Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

There is a HUUUGGEE difference here. The Muslim terrorists today kill in the name of Allah/Muhammed or w/e they believe. They physically BELIEVE that if they kill FOR their God, they will get into heaven. Way different than a mother who wants all life a chance, or the KKK who kill because of skin color. Sure, some of the KKK/anti-abortionists could be Christian, but most of them do it for the cause, not for God.

Wait, so you claim generalizing all of one group is incorrect, but generalizing all of another is correct?
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on November 25, 2010, 02:37:37 AM

Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

There is a HUUUGGEE difference here. The Muslim terrorists today kill in the name of Allah/Muhammed or w/e they believe. They physically BELIEVE that if they kill FOR their God, they will get into heaven. Way different than a mother who wants all life a chance, or the KKK who kill because of skin color. Sure, some of the KKK/anti-abortionists could be Christian, but most of them do it for the cause, not for God.

Wait, so you claim generalizing all of one group is incorrect, but generalizing all of another is correct?

Don't you know its alright to generalise Muslims cos they all think the same and believe the same and act the same.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 25, 2010, 05:15:08 AM
I might be wrong but isn't the amount of terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Christians way higher than by Muslims in USA?

Look kids i can make wacky claims without any kind of evidence to back it up.  Fun stuff.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[10] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[16] More recent incidents have included:[5]

    * December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[17][18][19]
    * October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[20]
    * May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.[21]
    * September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[22]
    * June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.[20]
    * July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[20]
    * December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a ?memorial lamp? for an abortion she had had there.[23]
    * September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[24]
    * April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[25]
    * May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[26]
    * December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman?s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[27]
    * January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [28] rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[29]

Just a few though.

Maybe Muslim terrorist had more killings in one time, but anti abortionist still hold the number 1 position of the amount of terrorist attacks.


Ive done this before...and used the same stats I think....shall we compared body counts?  You should find my post.  Its quite enlightening.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 25, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
Quote
Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

Of for the love of the fucking spaghetti monster wake up you ignorant fuck. Don't you see the fucking similarities? The Muslim extremists do not fucking represent most of modern Islam! Most Muslims are quite happy to spend their days working out how to pay the mortgage and how to put food on their families (sorry, couldn't resist a Bushism)

Fucking Hell, where do you get off generalising Muslims but pulling the old-as-fuck 'No-true-Scotsman' defence for YOUR fucking brand of bronze-age mythology?! Oh wait, I forgot that followers of the One True Faith (TM) were allowed to do that, except of course that ALL faiths think they're the 'One True Faith'

Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 25, 2010, 04:56:07 PM
Here is the difference, the quran is believed by muslims to be the exact word of muhammed.

You don't think many Christians believe the Bible to be the exact word of God?

Most do not, I hope.

While it is true that it is a custom that god inspired those who wrote it, you would have to be rather extreme to say that every word is the word of god.

Either way, the bible is mostly a history book.

As shown by the stoning example, the bible may say to stone people, but christians do not turn that verse into a custom of the religion. The quran tells to stone people and muslims do take that into the custom of their religion.

Maybe I'm am just from a freaky part of the country, but here there are bible literalists that do think every word is the word of God. They justify not stoning people by saying Jesus made the Old Testament Laws not matter. If you point out any places that do not make sense or are contradictory they just reply that the "original" bible is the perfect world of God, but translators are shit and that's why there may be errors.

Well, those people are idiots. I don't think that they represent christianity as a whole or even views typical for a christian.

Maybe the Southwest and Texas is just retarded then. I can accept that. I actually find it interesting that the mormons here (there are lots) tend to be more reasonable than the Christians.

Mormons are christians....

redacted after remembering mormon doctrine. While they do think the christian god was a "god" they think he is one that used to be a man, like everyone else. So they more just acknowledge Christianity.

They strongly feel that they are Christians since they follow the word of Christ (Though ya, most other Christians feel they spread false doctrine and therefore aren't Christian). They believe that if you make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom then you will be on the same level of glory and power of God. Meaning that then, if you so wanted, could go and make your own planet and people. After all, what loving Father wouldn't want his children to succeed him?

Mormons also don't really have a hell. People don't go there unless they were handpicked by God. (Which has been like four people) Everybody goes to heaven, but just to different levels of it.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 25, 2010, 09:32:35 PM
Quote
Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

Of for the love of the fucking spaghetti monster wake up you ignorant fuck. Don't you see the fucking similarities? The Muslim extremists do not fucking represent most of modern Islam! Most Muslims are quite happy to spend their days working out how to pay the mortgage and how to put food on their families (sorry, couldn't resist a Bushism)

Fucking Hell, where do you get off generalising Muslims but pulling the old-as-fuck 'No-true-Scotsman' defence for YOUR fucking brand of bronze-age mythology?! Oh wait, I forgot that followers of the One True Faith (TM) were allowed to do that, except of course that ALL faiths think they're the 'One True Faith'



Hey, Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

I did not generalize Muslims. All I stated was that the people in the middle east committing terrorists attacks, are the extremist Islamic people. Hard to comprehend? I didn't generalized the Muslim people at all. Fuck this world where anything anyone says is "OMFG GENERALIZING" Its fucking horrible. GTFO you politically correct faggots.

Is it so hard to comprehend that the ones blowing themselves up are doing it for Allah/Muhammed? That's what their version of Islam teaches. You do this, you get 40 virgins or w/e. I'm also PRETTY FUCKING SURE, that not all the anti-abortionists are extremist Christians. Fuck, they can be any religion for that matter, even no religion at all. I'm against abortion, and I'm agnostic, can you comprehend that?

It doesn't fucking matter at all, when one strongly supports a position, like you fucktards on this board, me defending the opposite position only makes you strongly agree with your side more.

I'd also like to note, Mormonism is the weirdest religion (thats actually regarded as one) ever conceived.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 25, 2010, 09:34:40 PM
Everybody goes to heaven, but just to different levels of it.
Interesting. When multiplying the subtle shifts of happiness between levels of heaven across an eternity, people would be cheated out of infinite amounts of pleasure for the most insignificant things.

JamesJamie, watch the language. This could easily merit a temporary ban, but I think a warning will make do.
Do take care to brush up on the rules (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0).
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Beorn on November 25, 2010, 11:48:36 PM
Quote
Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

Of for the love of the fucking spaghetti monster wake up you ignorant fuck. Don't you see the fucking similarities? The Muslim extremists do not fucking represent most of modern Islam! Most Muslims are quite happy to spend their days working out how to pay the mortgage and how to put food on their families (sorry, couldn't resist a Bushism)

Fucking Hell, where do you get off generalising Muslims but pulling the old-as-fuck 'No-true-Scotsman' defence for YOUR fucking brand of bronze-age mythology?! Oh wait, I forgot that followers of the One True Faith (TM) were allowed to do that, except of course that ALL faiths think they're the 'One True Faith'



Hey, Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

I did not generalize Muslims. All I stated was that the people in the middle east committing terrorists attacks, are the extremist Islamic people. Hard to comprehend? I didn't generalized the Muslim people at all. Fuck this world where anything anyone says is "OMFG GENERALIZING" Its fucking horrible. GTFO you politically correct faggots.

Is it so hard to comprehend that the ones blowing themselves up are doing it for Allah/Muhammed? That's what their version of Islam teaches. You do this, you get 40 virgins or w/e. I'm also PRETTY FUCKING SURE, that not all the anti-abortionists are extremist Christians. Fuck, they can be any religion for that matter, even no religion at all. I'm against abortion, and I'm agnostic, can you comprehend that?

It doesn't fucking matter at all, when one strongly supports a position, like you fucktards on this board, me defending the opposite position only makes you strongly agree with your side more.

I'd also like to note, Mormonism is the weirdest religion (thats actually regarded as one) ever conceived.

Yes very true, except that they were ALL christians. And the only point that I wanted to make is that people should stop saying there are muslim terrorists so all muslims are terrorists.


And i still think scientology is pretty high up the weird ladder.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 26, 2010, 12:21:05 AM
Quote
Huh? Are you concluding that all anti-abortionists are Christians? Or in the above post, that all Klan members are killing in the name of Christ?

Of for the love of the fucking spaghetti monster wake up you ignorant fuck. Don't you see the fucking similarities? The Muslim extremists do not fucking represent most of modern Islam! Most Muslims are quite happy to spend their days working out how to pay the mortgage and how to put food on their families (sorry, couldn't resist a Bushism)

Fucking Hell, where do you get off generalising Muslims but pulling the old-as-fuck 'No-true-Scotsman' defence for YOUR fucking brand of bronze-age mythology?! Oh wait, I forgot that followers of the One True Faith (TM) were allowed to do that, except of course that ALL faiths think they're the 'One True Faith'



Hey, Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

I did not generalize Muslims. All I stated was that the people in the middle east committing terrorists attacks, are the extremist Islamic people. Hard to comprehend? I didn't generalized the Muslim people at all. Fuck this world where anything anyone says is "OMFG GENERALIZING" Its fucking horrible. GTFO you politically correct faggots.

Is it so hard to comprehend that the ones blowing themselves up are doing it for Allah/Muhammed? That's what their version of Islam teaches. You do this, you get 40 virgins or w/e. I'm also PRETTY FUCKING SURE, that not all the anti-abortionists are extremist Christians. Fuck, they can be any religion for that matter, even no religion at all. I'm against abortion, and I'm agnostic, can you comprehend that?

It doesn't fucking matter at all, when one strongly supports a position, like you fucktards on this board, me defending the opposite position only makes you strongly agree with your side more.

I'd also like to note, Mormonism is the weirdest religion (thats actually regarded as one) ever conceived.

Yes very true, except that they were ALL christians. And the only point that I wanted to make is that people should stop saying there are muslim terrorists so all muslims are terrorists.


And i still think scientology is pretty high up the weird ladder.

Is scientology a real religion though? Or just an extravagant money making scheme... and on topic here a little, they have been responsible for a lot of deaths as well. Maybe not directly, but sure as hell non-directly. John Tavolta's kid died cause of that shit.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 26, 2010, 06:45:05 AM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 26, 2010, 07:30:35 AM
They say the Catholic church is the largest bank in the world.  Good thing they aren't Christians.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 26, 2010, 07:42:44 AM
Yeah, the worst people in the world are from Glasgow, good thing they aren't True Scotsmen.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 26, 2010, 07:51:01 AM
Yeah, the worst people in the world are from Glasgow, good thing they aren't True Scotsmen.



Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 26, 2010, 08:31:56 AM
Can you summarise? I can't open youtube links here and I'll be too pissed to remember later on.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 26, 2010, 10:03:11 AM
Can you summarise? I can't open youtube links here and I'll be too pissed to remember later on.

If its not Scottish, its crap!!
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 26, 2010, 11:15:06 AM
They say the Catholic church is the largest bank in the world.  Good thing they aren't Christians.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Catholics aren't Christian. DO IT. 

Also, happy Thanksgiving  :-*
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: JamesJamie on November 26, 2010, 02:18:12 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 26, 2010, 02:37:56 PM
They say the Catholic church is the largest bank in the world.  Good thing they aren't Christians.

Wow, that's funny.  I guess that Christianity just didn't exist for the first fifteen hundred years after Christ's death then?  ???
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 26, 2010, 04:49:35 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

You just made the baby Jesus cry.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: EnglshGentleman on November 26, 2010, 05:57:19 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.
BAAAAAWWW!!!

Stop making assumptions about people and what they are saying and grow some balls.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 26, 2010, 06:36:47 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Do you seriously want me to drive over to your house and kick your ass?  Leave SCG alone.  You're playing with snakes boy, and you're going to get bit.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 27, 2010, 10:51:24 AM
RAWR!  :-*

 
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 27, 2010, 10:53:26 AM
We takes care of our womens around here.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 28, 2010, 11:42:15 AM
Scientology is cool cuz brad pit sponsors it (but he's nuts), but Catholicism has a WWII war hero (except for the wrong side), so all in all they are about even. I am going to send my money to al gore and let him "discover" something else that we already know about. It is by far the most entertaining option.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 29, 2010, 09:42:45 AM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Scientolgy and Christianity are both equally plausible religions.  I'm not sure why you find that offensive.  And yes, religious people due tend to lead a "better life".  Religions like Christianity are great in that respect.  However, there's no need to attend a church, give money to it, and follow some of its more extreme views (hating gays?) for the sake of happiness.  I'm sure people who simply believe in a higher power get all the benefits of Christianity without all the crazy.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Benocrates on November 29, 2010, 01:27:00 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Tone the rhetoric down. You haven't earned the right to be that self-righteous yet.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 30, 2010, 09:51:51 AM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Scientolgy and Christianity are both equally plausible religions.  I'm not sure why you find that offensive.  And yes, religious people due tend to lead a "better life".  Religions like Christianity are great in that respect.  However, there's no need to attend a church, give money to it, and follow some of its more extreme views (hating gays?) for the sake of happiness.  I'm sure people who simply believe in a higher power get all the benefits of Christianity without all the crazy.

I think the motives at the beginning of each religion would call scientology farther into question than they would christianity. While this is proof neither way, you should remember who became insanely rich off of starting a religion, and who keeps their holy book copyrighted and under lock and key.

While the ideas may be equally silly, one group certainly is doing much more harm and is much more likely to have malicious and self serving intentions.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Hessy on November 30, 2010, 09:54:31 AM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Scientolgy and Christianity are both equally plausible religions.  I'm not sure why you find that offensive.  And yes, religious people due tend to lead a "better life".  Religions like Christianity are great in that respect.  However, there's no need to attend a church, give money to it, and follow some of its more extreme views (hating gays?) for the sake of happiness.  I'm sure people who simply believe in a higher power get all the benefits of Christianity without all the crazy.

I think the motives at the beginning of each religion would call scientology farther into question than they would christianity. While this is proof neither way, you should remember who became insanely rich off of starting a religion, and who keeps their holy book copyrighted and under lock and key.

While the ideas may be equally silly, one group certainly is doing much more harm and is much more likely to have malicious and self serving intentions.

Well, I think some "motives" get distorted (for better or for worse) over time, but you're right.  Some religious groups certainly are more harmful than others, but most (if not all) prey on people's desires for redemption, spirituality, community, etc.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 30, 2010, 12:53:05 PM
Is Christianity a real religion, or just an extravagant money making scheme?  Most religions are about power and money.  One cult is just as good as another.

Are you saying Christianity is the same as Scientology? GTFO you atheist penguin. This is why no one likes arguing with "holier than thou" Atheists. Oh shit I forgot, you don't like the word holier, bark me up the tree on that one will ya?

Yes, religions have their downside, but when you compare an actual cult, with an actual religion, it makes you seem...idk, like a chauvinistic prick.

Religion bashing needs to stop. It serves a deeper purpose. Religious people live longer, have less rates of depression, and are more likely to give to the poor/charities. Religious organizations amount to the vast majority of aid going to other countries, and here at home.

I still can't believe you compared Scientology to Christianity...

Scientolgy and Christianity are both equally plausible religions.  I'm not sure why you find that offensive.  And yes, religious people due tend to lead a "better life".  Religions like Christianity are great in that respect.  However, there's no need to attend a church, give money to it, and follow some of its more extreme views (hating gays?) for the sake of happiness.  I'm sure people who simply believe in a higher power get all the benefits of Christianity without all the crazy.

I think the motives at the beginning of each religion would call scientology farther into question than they would christianity. While this is proof neither way, you should remember who became insanely rich off of starting a religion, and who keeps their holy book copyrighted and under lock and key.

While the ideas may be equally silly, one group certainly is doing much more harm and is much more likely to have malicious and self serving intentions.

Well, I think some "motives" get distorted (for better or for worse) over time, but you're right.  Some religious groups certainly are more harmful than others, but most (if not all) prey on people's desires for redemption, spirituality, community, etc.

Scientology was originally formed to charge money to join, and the money went to the founder. It still charges massive amounts of money for whatever they call redemption. Christianity (if not always by practice) does not require any money, only good intentions etc. Scientology also has a massive philosophy of attacking anyone who attempts to discredit them. Christianity only really did that in the middle of the religion and that was after a massive highjacking of the religion by the upper class.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Benocrates on November 30, 2010, 01:20:22 PM
On the subject of scientology, in general it's ethical principles are rather sound. I got caught up watching a 2 hour special called The Way To Happiness the other day and rather enjoyed it. I then looked it up and realized it was Hubbard's doing. In this way it's similar to Christianity, but the whole money-per-level thing and all that other thetan nonsense is its downfall.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 30, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
I wonder what celebrities get out of Scientology, they have to know about all that Xenu shit. 
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Benocrates on November 30, 2010, 02:04:40 PM
I wonder what celebrities get out of Scientology, they have to know about all that Xenu shit. 

I honestly believe that it comes from a deep intuition that something very expensive must inherently be better than something for free.
Title: Re: Warrdog's Avatar
Post by: Raist on November 30, 2010, 06:12:38 PM
The real question, are they breaking the law by allowing their members to sell themselves into indentured servitude post mortem?

Do slavery laws apply to the soul?