Tolerance in action

[TIGERassault]

I think it's a shame that these days, our government is so sold out, that they will not stretch their necks out for 2 missionaries, stranded in a foreign land.

Oh? And what about all those other Indians in a considerably worse position? I mean, over 210 million people in India alone are malnourished! So why on earth should a government care about just two relatively well-off unimportant people there?

Seriously, this entire thread is actually insulting to me as part of the human race! It's full of blatant ignorance regarding both other religions and other living standards. You all know well that the majority of Christians and Muslims keep to themselves, and you all know well that there are SOOOOOO many worse-off people than these two!

[roid]

Yet here in America we cannot say anything bad about them as Islam is a peaceful religion

in America it is.

What, you've never heard of Christian mobs slaughtering thousands in other countries?
On your part this is either Naïvity or a Double standard.

When? Back during the crusades? Inquisition?

one that comes to mind is Rwanda.

And don't explain it away as saying "oh but unlike Christianity, the Bible doesn't tell us to kill infidels".... that's debatable, there are sections of the Bible where believers were ordered to kill each one their brother, their parents, their neighbours. Most Christians that I know do not take this as justifying killing infidels - but i could see how it could be interpreted as such by someone either sidelined in society or living in a violent culture.
Just the same - American Muslims do NOT want to kill you.
Muslims in MOST places don't want to kill you - you can goto Indonesia and likely not be blown up.
The militant fundamentalist crazies are rare. In America they don't even exist - why is that?
CULTURE.

If i went to the center of red-neck county America and conducted my own little gay parade - rubbing it in everyone's intolerant faces. I'd expect to be beat up by some crazy rednecks in a side alley, my car keyed, and/or some other form of targeted unpleasantness basically telling me to piss off.

I'd expect a lot of Christian missionaries to have a martyr complex.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Oh? And what about all those other Indians in a considerably worse position? I mean, over 210 million people in India alone are malnourished! So why on earth should a government care about just two relatively well-off unimportant people there?

Not a government, they're government. They're American citizens, TIGERassault, and they have ties with an American organization. America is not truly responsible for the sufferings of citizens of other nations, though we are concerned as a matter of compassion (let's hope that's the motivation). American citizens come first. It only makes sense.

Personally I think that within reason the government ought to expect the organization to deal with its own problems. Like a few people here have stated in various ways, they know what they're getting into. Any Christian who carries out the great commission does.

You all know well that the majority of Christians and Muslims keep to themselves ...

I know that the majority around here seem to. At least nothing particularly eyebrow-raising as made the popular news. I don't know what the percentage is for other countries. Unlike some folks on here, I'm not tapped in to a universal consciousness.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And don't explain it away as saying "oh but unlike Christianity, the Bible doesn't tell us to kill infidels".... that's debatable ...

Under the New Covenant we are told to love our enemies. People can make what they want of about anything, given the motivation, but there is simply no room for debate on the subject. Christians are called to be despised, cast out, well-doing pilgrims who suffer as Christ did, leaving vengeance or recompense to their creator. It doesn't leave much room for justified violence.

While no one can say that Christianity has not or can not be hijacked, there is no room for debate concerning the validity of any such movements.

[Sergeant Thorne]

If there is a GOD, and he made himself known through Jesus, I'm sure you could get to know him without any man's help at all. If you don't care, well, that's fine to. You have every right to make that decision.

I think you're mistaken on two points, Flip. I'm optimistic about a man's ability to seek God, very particularly from/through his word (the Bible), without following another man, but there is a realistic aspect to it as well. When people are so surrounded by misinformation, wrong ideas, and spiritual blindness, it very well may take an individual who knows God to help them. Motivation isn't the only problem.

Secondly, if God created us and the world, and we reject him as being what he is, I don't see that as a right so much as a choice. We have free will, but that doesn't mean we have a right to do wrong, merely the ability--the choice. Some might see that is hair-splitting, but I think there's a point to be made there.

[Duper]

I'd expect a lot of Christian missionaries to have a martyr complex.

what's "a lot"? The one's I've talked to over the years are more concerned about the people and the communities they are in than being a martyr. Being a missionary can be someone that is studying the language so they can translate the Bible or someone who is there to give medical aid or build structures. It's not all pamphlet passing and door knocking. .. in fact most of that only goes on in Western countries. In hostile countries, if someone from the west is watch very closely and contact is normally one on one or visiting an existing group of believers. The ones who are martyred are the Christians that live there. (normally) If a Western mission becomes very visable, they can be tortured and/or deported.

[flip]

I think you're mistaken on two points, Flip. I'm optimistic about a man's ability to seek God, very particularly from/through his word (the Bible), without following another man, but there is a realistic aspect to it as well. When people are so surrounded by misinformation, wrong ideas, and spiritual blindness, it very well may take an individual who knows God to help them. Motivation isn't the only problem.

The Word says that those that seek shall find. I believe that. Here we're talking about people that are not, nor have the desire to. Say what ya gotta say and move along.

We have free will, but that doesn't mean we have a right to do wrong, merely the ability--the choice.

Freewill is the ability to make any decision about God that you choose.Freedom is the ability to not be persecuted for it. Whether it being right or wrong choices? Reap what you Sow. Don't need me to identify what's right or wrong. I have no doubt we all know the the instant it is.

[TechPro]

Are all Christians a nusiance? No, no, only those that decide they're going to harass me about the Tooth Fairy being better than Santa Claus.

But, but, ... but... Sh... she's better? Oh, shoot! You just ruined one of my favorite misconceptions!

[roid]

And don't explain it away as saying "oh but unlike Christianity, the Bible doesn't tell us to kill infidels".... that's debatable ...

Under the New Covenant we are told to love our enemies. People can make what they want of about anything, given the motivation, but there is simply no room for debate on the subject. Christians are called to be despised, cast out, well-doing pilgrims who suffer as Christ did, leaving vengeance or recompense to their creator. It doesn't leave much room for justified violence.

While no one can say that Christianity has not or can not be hijacked, there is no room for debate concerning the validity of any such movements.

So the Rwandan's wern't real Christians eh?

I've heard moderate Islam say that those engaging in violent Jihad arn't real Muslims.

These 2 things sounds quite similar.

You should have heard at home (USA yes?), Muslims denouncing such attacks. I'm sure the USA muslim community regularly denounces such attacks. They do here - i always hear it on the Media. Doesn't your news report such things?

hmmmm

[roid]

I'd expect a lot of Christian missionaries to have a martyr complex.

what's "a lot"? The one's I've talked to over the years are more concerned about the people and the communities they are in than being a martyr. Being a missionary can be someone that is studying the language so they can translate the Bible or someone who is there to give medical aid or build structures. It's not all pamphlet passing and door knocking. .. in fact most of that only goes on in Western countries. In hostile countries, if someone from the west is watch very closely and contact is normally one on one or visiting an existing group of believers. The ones who are martyred are the Christians that live there. (normally) If a Western mission becomes very visable, they can be tortured and/or deported.

To be persecuted in God's name is one of the greatest honors.
Matthew 5:10-12
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(you made me lookup and quote scripture, now i feel dirty. But i guess as 2 Peter 2:22 says - "a dog returns to it's own vomit")

JWs temper this with the "be as cautious and snakes and innocent as doves" scripture, and thus try to avoid being stupid. They don't openly witness in areas where they are at great risk (they use SNEAK TACTICS!!). Unlike the clowns in the OP.


I QUOTED 3 SCRPITURES IN THIS POST
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[TIGERassault]

Not a government, they're government. They're American citizens, TIGERassault, and they have ties with an American organization. America is not truly responsible for the sufferings of citizens of other nations, though we are concerned as a matter of compassion (let's hope that's the motivation). American citizens come first. It only makes sense.

To me, what you just said sounds like "They were born in the USA, therefore they're superior to everyone else". That's EXACTLY what it sounds like, actually! Which makes you a full representation of that stereotypical self-centered American. Doesn't that make you feel great inside?

I know that the majority around here seem to. At least nothing particularly eyebrow-raising as made the popular news. I don't know what the percentage is for other countries. Unlike some folks on here, I'm not tapped in to a universal consciousness.

Read up on REAL world affairs, then start joining in on world debates! And remember, the world does not consist solely of North America and the Middle East

[Sergeant Thorne]

The Word says that those that seek shall be able to find on their own. I believe that.

Good enough for me.

Yeah, I believe that too (less the red), and it's a good point. In a way it's all about where your heart is at. I guess it's the context that's the problem. The context is dismissing preaching in saying that someone could find God on their own ("Listen to no man"). It's kind of subtle, but I see a wrong emphasis there. Those who seek will find, but if the context is not wanting to hear the messenger, then its ridiculous to suppose that God would reveal himself directly in lou.

Basically I'm retarded at communicating effectively. It's like I've made a killing thrust, only to find that my opponent was not behind it, but 60 degrees to the right... on a TV... in the apartment across the alley, while the tip of my rapier is embedded in my favorite portrait of Elvis. How embarrassing. (it was a good thrust, though)

Basically I find this statement to be made in error:

I will say this to you then. Listen to no man, but at least investigate further. If there is a GOD, and he made himself known through Jesus, I'm sure you could get to know him without any man's help at all. I f you don't care, well, that's fine to. You have every right to make that decision.

But I'm going to leave it at that because I have no desire to belabor the point at anyone's expense.

To me, what you just said sounds like "They were born in the USA, therefore they're superior to everyone else". That's EXACTLY what it sounds like, actually! Which makes you a full representation of that stereotypical self-centered American. Doesn't that make you feel great inside?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about value or superiority, merely responsibility. A country's responsibility is first to its own citizens.

Read up on REAL world affairs, then start joining in on world debates! And remember, the world does not consist solely of North America and the Middle East

Well, that may be partly deserved.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I've heard moderate Islam say that those engaging in violent Jihad arn't real Muslims.

Well are they or aren't they? "Moderate" Islam aren't real Muslims if their moderation is caused by something outside of fundamental Islamic teaching. It could be anything from a difference of opinion to vying for 21st-century public approval.

You should have heard at home (USA yes?), Muslims denouncing such attacks. I'm sure the USA muslim community regularly denounces such attacks. They do here - i always hear it on the Media. Doesn't your news report such things?

Kind of like how folks in the middle-east denounce it, the same folks that were partying in the hours following the 9/11 attacks? Yes, Ive heard it, and I even suppose that there is sincerity there, but I don't totally buy it.

[flip]

Flip wrote:
I will say this to you then. Listen to no man, but at least investigate further. If there is a GOD, and he made himself known through Jesus, I'm sure you could get to know him without any man's help at all. I f you don't care, well, that's fine to. You have every right to make that decision.

I admit I was somewhat vague here. My point actually is to eliminate the middle man and send people to the source.Being the Word. If you believe in the Bible, it's alot safer to read it for yourself, and not rely on anothers interpretation. I really should have expressed that more strongly.
I find no preacher I will wholly trust, but I do wholly trust the Word. If I'm going to commit my life to something, it will not be on the word of another, but under my own scrutiny.

The Bible was:
1 Wrote over a period of 1600 years.
2.In 3 different languages
3.On 3 different continents
4. with over 40 different authors(1600 years)

There are no contradictions in it. The authors of 66 books all wrote in total agreeance. In not one book can you find where they disagree with each other. Many other things , but those are significant by themselves. Open it up and find a contradiction. We can't find anybody here on the DBB that TOTALLY agrees with each other.

So had I rather say, \"go to church and listen to the preacher\" or Here \"Read these words and judge for yourself\" Then if a man decides he believes it, no man can deceive him, because he knows for himself.

[roid]

I've heard moderate Islam say that those engaging in violent Jihad arn't real Muslims.

Well are they or aren't they? "Moderate" Islam aren't real Muslims if their moderation is caused by something outside of fundamental Islamic teaching. It could be anything from a difference of opinion to vying for 21st-century public approval.

The thing is, i could say that YOU arn't a REAL Christian. Because your believe different to whatever faith i singularly think are the TRUE Christians. You really have no claim to truth in the eyes of outsiders, who am i to tell you apart from the millions of other Christians who say you're wrong on various issues?

The concept of who is and isn't a true member of a faith is irrelevant to me, as i recognise NONE of them as having any claim to truth. They are ALL wrong, and the books they all stumble over one another to say proves THEY are the TRUE faith - those books are also wrong themselves. So it's all meaningless to me, ALL of them have claims that their neighbours arn't worshiping or interpreting the books right. None of them is safe from accusation from someone else.

So what a text does or doesn't say in the end is irrelevant. As there is never agreement as to howto interpret texts, and what's metaphorical, what's archaic and what isn't.

You should keep an eye on those who think we should take up arms. But really - we keep our eyes on militants irrespective of religion.

Apparently some religious texts can be used as incitements to violence. Apparently this isn't the only interpretation, and plenty (ie: those in your country and others) are peaceful.
Given that your own Bible can be interpreted violently.
Moderate Christians think violent Christians are just as crazy as Moderate Muslims think violent Jihadists are crazy.

You should have heard at home (USA yes?), Muslims denouncing such attacks. I'm sure the USA muslim community regularly denounces such attacks. They do here - i always hear it on the Media. Doesn't your news report such things?

Kind of like how folks in the middle-east denounce it, the same folks that were partying in the hours following the 9/11 attacks? Yes, Ive heard it, and I even suppose that there is sincerity there, but I don't totally buy it.

oh the 911 celebrations eh? Analyze that footage - what i saw was mostly children and very small groups of people right infront of low cameras (so you couldn't see past the first few people) - it was a while ago, but i do not ever recall being able to count more than a dozen adults in any "celebration group" at once. "Whole nations rejoicing" was apparently going on - but impossible to film? A fabrication i was keeping track of in the media from the very beginning.
(During 2001 i was researching propeganda techniques, it just so happened the WTC was hit and i could use what i'd learned to watch the USA propaganda machine in motion. It was scary... what people were saying on this DBB was scary too)

Compare this to the on-camera celebrations during the toppling of Saddam's Statue. Another totally staged stunt for USA's Propaganda war.
Google about the Saddam Statue.

There are entire industries dedicated to lying to you.

The fallout from the WTC attacks was always carefully managed to enrage you, and eventually invade Iraq. Please do not forget what the plan was the whole time. And please remember that there are entire industries... dedicated... to lying to you.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well said, Flip.

Is it 1600 years? I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

The thing is, i could say that YOU arn't a REAL Christian. Because your believe different to whatever faith i singularly think are the TRUE Christians. You really have no claim to truth in the eyes of outsiders, who am i to tell you apart from the millions of other Christians who say you're wrong on various issues?

Truth is not relative. It is certainly possible to tell where an individual or a group stands in relation to the source that they purport to follow. In this case the Muslims and their Koran.

The concept of who is and isn't a true member of a faith is irrelevant to me, as i recognize NONE of them as having any claim to truth.

Then you'll never know. But it is worthwhile to know where a religion truly stands, apart from whether one believes it or not. There are things that make even that difficult for the undiscerning--people who have degrees in knowing why a text doesn't really mean what it plainly says. I don't believe any of that. There certainly is truth in the fact that there are different forms of writing, not everything is to be taken only blindly for its first dictionary definition, with no consideration for language, but people abuse that in order to further whatever pre-assumptions or agendas they bring with them, and that accounts for at least a large part of the difficulty you're portraying.

You may be right about post-9/11. I didn't study it, I just observed things here and there. I saw rejoicing. Later on I saw denouncing. These conflict, in my mind.

Muslims--true Muslims--don't like the west. That's fact, not propoganda. And there certainly are aspects where that's justified, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off under Islamic rule, and I believe that is the goal of a true Muslim. True Islam clashes with our country's core ideals/values of freedom, and if that isn't reason enough for Americans to distrust its presence, then I don't know what is. You and some of the others here are only too happy to see the positive in Islam and Muslims in general, but for whatever reason(s) you don't want to acknowledge the potential danger of a religion who's true ultimate goal is very literally world domination.

An interesting contrast I just thought of: what is the goal of Judaism? To have the land that God gave to them.

[TOR_LordRaven]

I had guy take a swing at me recently for trying to share a scripture with him.

Was that you Ferno?

[Cuda68]

I had guy take a swing at me recently for trying to share a scripture with him.

Was that you Ferno?

If it happened in Co it may have been me

[roid]

The thing is, i could say that YOU arn't a REAL Christian. Because your believe different to whatever faith i singularly think are the TRUE Christians. You really have no claim to truth in the eyes of outsiders, who am i to tell you apart from the millions of other Christians who say you're wrong on various issues?

Truth is not relative. It is certainly possible to tell where an individual or a group stands in relation to the source that they purport to follow. In this case the Muslims and their Koran.

You think you know the Truth about a religion you've never been exposed to? You think you - who have never studied the Koran or called yourself a Muslim - know better than millions of Muslims who believe otherwise?
Don't you think that's incredibly arrogant of you?

The concept of who is and isn't a true member of a faith is irrelevant to me, as i recognize NONE of them as having any claim to truth.

Then you'll never know. But it is worthwhile to know where a religion truly stands, apart from whether one believes it or not. There are things that make even that difficult for the undiscerning--people who have degrees in knowing why a text doesn't really mean what it plainly says. I don't believe any of that. There certainly is truth in the fact that there are different forms of writing, not everything is to be taken only blindly for its first dictionary definition, with no consideration for language, but people abuse that in order to further whatever pre-assumptions or agendas they bring with them, and that accounts for at least a large part of the difficulty you're portraying.

You may be right about post-9/11. I didn't study it, I just observed things here and there. I saw rejoicing. Later on I saw denouncing. These conflict, in my mind.

Muslims--true Muslims--don't like the west. That's fact, not propoganda. And there certainly are aspects where that's justified, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off under Islamic rule, and I believe that is the goal of a true Muslim. True Islam clashes with our country's core ideals/values of freedom, and if that isn't reason enough for Americans to distrust its presence, then I don't know what is. You and some of the others here are only too happy to see the positive in Islam and Muslims in general, but for whatever reason(s) you don't want to acknowledge the potential danger of a religion who's true ultimate goal is very literally world domination.

An interesting contrast I just thought of: what is the goal of Judaism? To have the land that God gave to them.

who are you to define what a true Muslim is?

Seriously. What are your qualifications - you're not even a Muslim. And all of your education about what Muslims are come from sources who want you to hate Muslims - you have an inability to identify propeganda?

I have just as much qualification to say that you're not a real Christian.

Actually - i have MORE. Coz i have been a Fundamentalist Christian, you have never been a Muslim (let alone a fundamentalist). You've never been a part of the culture, and you think you can define if they are frauds or not on your gut feeling and "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Muslims are terrible - here's their actual beliefs" Christian propeganda emails.

Like i said - there are entire industries dedicated to lying to you. Don't be their tool.

True Islam clashes with our country's core ideals/values of freedom

Urgh. I've linked to the NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN logical falacy how many ★■◆●ing times? Have you read it? This is all answered!
Protip: You are incredibly negatively biased against Islam, so you are changing the definition of Islam to suit your negative stereotype.
"There's Muslims who arn't psychos? Oh they arn't TRUE Muslims then, coz we all know Muslims are psychos"

When confronted with evidence that counteracts your predisposition to hate Muslims, you are changing the definition of "Muslim" instead of changing your opinion. As if you - who has no experience with Muslims - know Muslims better than Muslims themselves. You simply have no position saying such things. You can suggest it as a hypothesis, but you'd better be ready to mend that hypothesis when the evidence counteracts it.

[Spidey]

Funny thing is, I have never seen Thorne say he hated Muslims.

[roid]

it was an obvious euphasisim on my part.

STOP TROLLING

[Spidey]

A euphemism for what? If that was a euphemism, then I would hate to hear what you really think of Thorne.

Lol, don’t tell me what to do, I am never going to post here on your terms.

eu·phe·mism

eu·phe·mism
(plural eu·phe·misms)
n
1. less offensive synonym: a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive
2. use of inoffensive words: the use of a word or phrase that is more neutral, vague, or indirect to replace a direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive term


[Late 16th century. < Greek euphēmismos < euphēmizein \"speak with pleasing words\" < phēmē \"speech\"]

[woodchip]

Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

As to your gayness problem, I suspect you will find a cross aisle mix of people who do not believe gays should legally be allowed to marry or adopt children. Do you have some source that empirically shows gay rights are being thwarted solely by social conservatives or is it as Will says you are listening to too many biased news outlets and web sites that want to paint conservatives in a bad light any way they can?
Try to use all that psychology you've picked up over the years and apply it to real world events instead of having it used against you.

[TOR_LordRaven]

If it happened in Co it may have been me

I KNEW IT! lol

[roid]

Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

I don't see a Chart in this thread. Maybe you refer to another thread.

By world standards USA's Democrat party are Conservative, but yeah i get what you mean.
Even progressives are politicians. Politicians are generally vote panderers - You must get the Social Conservative vote to get elected.
Like i said in another thread (maybe the thread you are referring to) - this vote-pandering by politicians (of ANY philosophy) to the Social Conservative voting base is the source of many problems.
By First World standards current America is Socially Conservative and Fiscally Liberal. A terrible combination. A nation happily paying through the nose to lock up OVER ONE PERCENT OF IT'S POPULATION - YES, over 1% of USA's population is in prison.
That's a world record.

Here's the slightly lower figures from 2006, compare to other countries:



YOWZA!

As to your gayness problem, I suspect you will find a cross aisle mix of people who do not believe gays should legally be allowed to marry or adopt children. Do you have some source that empirically shows gay rights are being thwarted solely by social conservatives or is it as Will says you are listening to too many biased news outlets and web sites that want to paint conservatives in a bad light any way they can?

i have a gayness problem? hehe nice.

no i don't bother to source what you ask for. it's common sense, plainly obvious to everyone.
How could people who want to thwart gay rights be anything BUT Socially Conservative? What is your definition of what the seperate words "Social", "Conservative", and together as "Social Conservative"?

The news does not talk to me in terms such as "Social Conservatives". This isn't a political party remember.
Social Conservatism is a philosophy. You are essentially asking me "how can you say that Social Conservatives are Social Conservatives?".
Stop wasting my time.

Try to use all that psychology you've picked up over the years and apply it to real world events instead of having it used against you.

i'm not sure what you are talking about. i think you're trying to insult me, but try as i might to find something solid you're actually trying to tell me - in the end you had nothing but hot air.
How surprising.
Maybe you should just stop trying to insult me? haha Nah

[Spidey]

What goes around, comes around.