Insult my Religious beliefs, Go ahead...!

Your God is so fat my car ran out of gas trying to drive around it.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Sam let His Ego get in the way and He has been out of the picture for a few ... A couple of "clearinghouse questions" before I provide her digits..

Does a Female who thinks for her own Self make You feel inferior? Do You think it is "Women's work" to do the laundry and do the dishes? How many parts of the Bible do You think were written from a Female's point of view?

And "Yes" She can drive a stick...

How about if your country was invaded by a superior Muslim nation with high tech weapons,killing potentially millions of Christians in your country and putting into power their own people to aid their country

Then year after year you get insulted about your faith while more of your kin fall in the meat grinder

How long would it take before you thought,enough is enough?

I'm not religious but surely if you reversed rolls with Muslims and endured personally or had relatives effected by our countries actions in the Middle East you might have a different outlook

The thugs who killed because of a drawing are despicable but it wasn't just that image that created this horrific act,it was also our countries actions in Muslim countries that started the bonfire of madness that created extremists with heads full of hatred rather than compassion and understanding

a reply to: JimNasium

She sounds like a strong independent woman that's why I asked If she was available.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Your question is really based in Politics....


This thread was originally posted in the (Religious Conspiracy Forum) *I think the idea that one has to kill in the name of their God to validate their beliefs as a 'Conspiracy" which belonged in that forum but the Mod gods thought otherwise and moved to rant. For that I'm not responsible.

Feel free to post as you please and provide us with your opinions.

All is welcome

Pro, Con and Other.


Takes foil hat off...

originally posted by: elysiumfire

You gave a general invitation to have YOUR religious beliefs insulted, yet when I came and posted a response lacking insult, you respond as if mildly offended. Lol!

SLAYER:

Stop projecting... I'm mildly amused, not offended. There's those assumptions of yours again...

Methinks, thou doth protest innocence too much. Me, projecting? Lol Get a grip!

a reply to: elysiumfire

Hows the weather there?

Here, it's a bit chilly.

So, whats on your agenda today?

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
How about if your country was invaded by a superior Muslim nation with high tech weapons,killing potentially millions of Christians in your country and putting into power their own people to aid their country

Then year after year you get insulted about your faith while more of your kin fall in the meat grinder

How long would it take before you thought,enough is enough?

I'm not religious but surely if you reversed rolls with Muslims and endured personally or had relatives effected by our countries actions in the Middle East you might have a different outlook

The thugs who killed because of a drawing are despicable but it wasn't just that image that created this horrific act,it was also our countries actions in Muslim countries that started the bonfire of madness that created extremists with heads full of hatred rather than compassion and understanding

from what i'm hearing, the usa went over there to kill one group of muslims so that the other group of muslims, would accept their business deals. the ones who accepted, did so as a sort of devil's bargain. in the same deal, was also included the killing of any remaining christians who lived there. this also happened in libya and syria. one muslim sect makes a devil's bargain and his brother sect is wiped out, along with any remaining christians. end result, the globalists and the muslims who remained, brokered their next move in the formation of their new world order, which according to bush sr. was a sort of inevitable future utopia. (to be honest, i am not so sure we are all invited to the party. ya know what i mean?)

i'm always shocked when i hear people say they think this stuff is christian lol
what kinda christians are we talking about here?

a reply to: OpinionatedB

The point being made I think is that we are allowed to judge the fruit. "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." If you run into someone bearing bad fruit, you are completely allowed to keep clear of them for your own good. Yes, it is judgmental, but sometimes, you do have to judge and you allowed to. You are not passing judgment on the person, but on their actions and their fruit, and bad fruit is no good for you.

People get too caught up in judge not, but we do have to judge. And we are meant to.

And before anyone gets accusatory, I have run into very few people, less than I can count on one hand, that I have had to shut out for being that toxic, and none of them were shut out for being of a differing faith tradition, lack of faith tradition or alternate sexuality. They had particularly toxic lifestyles and personalities.

SLAYER69:

Hows the weather there? Here, it's a bit chilly. So, what's on your agenda today?

Well, it's January, late evening, dark, raining and windy, with the expectation of gale-force winds and more rain. As for an agenda, I don't have one. No. that's not quite accurate. If I have an agenda, it's the same everyday, one where I hope to see everyone use the learning of their education and put it to good use through the application of simple common sense, reason and logic. Other than that, I have no agenda at all.

Anyway, let's bring this back to the topic of your thread, which revolves around the subject of causing offence which may elicit a disproportionate response.

For my own part, there''s little that offends me. Certainly there is nothing that offends me whereby I respond by killing people. Think about that action. A person or persons can feel themselves so offended that they slaughter others as a response.

Now, as a human being, someone could probably wound me emotionally with a few well-placed barbed truths, particularly one's I had hoped remained confidential from the world. It would hurt, and maybe perhaps, I would feel humiliated. If a person had set out to maliciously make me feel this way, my remonstration would be with that person only, and after I had done remonstrating with him or her, both of us would part alive and well, but maybe friendship over or put on hold. No one would die.

When a person feels themselves offended by the words or actions of another, the only thing that happens is that one feels bad in oneself as one stews in one's own umbrage.

I'm not religious, or a 'person of faith', and I often feel despair that an educated person could be a person of faith, as I see that as a contradiction. It's just not logical and reasonably indefensible. I don't take this stance because I am driven by a personal agenda, but because I can't understand why people will believe in something for which there is no evidence, or rather, the preponderance of evidence shows the belief to be erroneous, yet they still cling to the belief in hope that it might be proved true to them.

However, if we take the recent killings in France, what we have there is not only an alleged sense of feeling offended, but an order of Jihad to kill the offending infidels by a sect of Islamic fundamentalists. So through the alleged sense of offence, the slaughter of those twelve people was a justified action in the warped and twisted minds of those two who did the killing. As far as my logic allows, being offended carries no justification for killing others, or for any other extreme action carried out as an act of remonstration. That is the sense of my innate morality, and it doesn't come from a book or preacher, because I don't need to be educated on how to act morally or ethically...I can censor my own behaviour if I deem it necessary. There are, however, some things I just won't allow myself to tolerate, and religious absurdity is one them.

a reply to: elysiumfire

you have such a pleasant vocabulary and writing style. it's almost lyrical. i was reading along, almost swaying to the cadence of it, till you got to the part where you made the absolute statements. it went something like this

beautiful music
la la la
beautiful words
la la la
wisdom
la la la
no way no how never nada absolutely not
oops, what happened there?

undo:

oops, what happened there?

Apologies. I coughed and fell into an apoplectic fit.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
undo:

oops, what happened there?

Apologies. I coughed and fell into an apoplectic fit.

aww i was hoping for another one of your eloquent posts. that really was a finely crafted response you had to slayer. it just kinda lost its rhythm when you went from talking about your moral values (which were quite similar to mine), to the idea that you have no reason to believe something is real, simply because you haven't experienced it. that's kinda unscientific, ya know? it seemed out of place in the flow of the rest of your wisdom. like a hiccup in the middle of an aria.

undo:

...to the idea that you have no reason to believe something is real...

I thank you for your compliments.

Did Zeus ever exist? How about Osiris, or Odin? How many Christians deny any of these other gods ever existed, or even how many Muslims believe they did? There is as much evidence for the existence of those other mythological gods as there is for Allah or God. Why, if one is an educated person, would one deny that either Zeus, or Osiris, or Odin ever existed, thereby placing oneself within the same mind frame and parameters as an atheist, claim the existence of an Allah or God?

Allah and God belong to the same mythic meme as Zeus, and Osiris and Odin. It simply isn't logical to believe in a deity whilst denying other deities, and expect non-believers to agree. Hence the line of logic that broke the harmony of resonance.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
undo:

...to the idea that you have no reason to believe something is real...

I thank you for your compliments.

Did Zeus ever exist? How about Osiris, or Odin? How many Christians deny any of these other gods ever existed, or even how many Muslims believe they did? There is as much evidence for the existence of those other mythological gods as there is for Allah or God. Why, if one is an educated person, would one deny that either Zeus, or Osiris, or Odin ever existed, thereby placing oneself within the same mind frame and parameters as an atheist, claim the existence of an Allah or God?

Allah and God belong to the same mythic meme as Zeus, and Osiris and Odin. It simply isn't logical to believe in a deity whilst denying other deities, and expect non-believers to agree. Hence the line of logic that broke the harmony of resonance.

well you put your foot in that one! hehe
i actually think the stories are cross cultural and talking about the same gods/goddesses/etc as any of the sumerian, egyptian or ancient hebrew texts. only the names have changed.

whatdya make of this? (warning, lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng video. 7 hours and 22 minutes, to be exact)

undo:

i actually think the stories are cross cultural and talking about the same gods/goddesses/etc as any of the sumerian, egyptian or ancient hebrew texts. only the names have changed.

Exactly. Yet, Christians would deny any interrelation of God to the 'older' previous gods, they would utterly denounce any connection, and in doing so show themselves by alignment as atheists of the old gods, but still continue to denounce atheism. Oh the irony!

Muslims don't escape this faux pa, either.

In pointing this out, I am not insulting any religion, but merely highlighting the contradiction of fallacious belief that is indefensible.

a reply to: elysiumfire

that was mostly the result of the rise of enlightenment, in which higher critics of the german universities, who's job it was to prove the papal interpretation of ancient history was the only viable view, by criticizing all ancient texts, threw out all ancient histories and called them mythologies. that's where that whole thing started. not long after, luther started the protestant movement and incorporated new info from the enlightenment university texts, into his deliberations.

undo:

...that was mostly the result of the rise of enlightenment...

To which 'schism' are you referring? Help me out here please.

...to prove the papal interpretation of ancient history was the only viable view...

So, there was no divine intervention. Just an edict of Papal interpretation of ancient history? Sounds man-made to me, and thus a candidate for analysis and scepticism.

...rise of enlightenment...

Ah, the Enlightenment. Pools of intellectual light that shone like stars in the dark and dying universe of the Middle-Ages.

"You can blow out a candle,
But you can't blow out a fire.
Once the flame begins to catch,
The wind (of change) will blow it higher"

Peter Gabriel - philosopher musician.