Persecution or Imagination

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Actually the first post that was speaking about the US was asmeone2's first post which was also the first post of the thread after the original post, and mmariebored's fourth post clarified that the thread was about Christians in the U.S. I do agree that it probably should have been clarified in the OP, but I assumed they meant the U.S. when I first started reading the thread... Of course I typically assume that people mean the U.S. when talking about groups of people unless they state otherwise in the original post, which I admit is probably not the best idea in the world. And I, though I'm probably the only one, see mmariebored's point when saying they have been attacked throughout the thread. I would like to point out specific examples, but the original one has been snipped by a mod (one of yours actually) and I honestly don't feel like wading through 9 pages of posts to find them all.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, back on topic with me. Well, I would like to anyway but the last few pages aren't really on topic either. Mostly just debating on hypocrisy and a stubborn refusal to believe that the thread is about the U.S.

As I have said before, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who see persecution where it does not exist. I don't deny that it is real, or that it does in fact happen to some, but the majority of people who believe they are persecuted against are only seeing what they expect to see. If I believe that people are going to persecute me for my religious beliefs, skin color, age, sexual orientation, job, etc. I will see it where it doesn't exist. People in the U.S. are too sensitive if you ask me.

It reminds me of a line from a movie, which I can't for the life of me remember the title of right now, where a guy, who happens to be white, is on a plane and says something along the lines of "What is wrong with you people?!" A flight marshal, who happens to be black, takes that to mean "what is wrong with you black people" when what is really meant is "what is wrong with you airline people". A small misunderstanding, but a perfect example of someone seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. The flight marshal in this scene believes that he is persecuted for his race, and thus hears the remark as derogatory, even though it isn't.

Like I have said in several other threads about several other topics, the massive levels of sensitivity of those in the U.S. to the comments of others is all caused by parenting. You tell or show little Timmy that people will persecute him for something, and claim that you are being persecuted or treated badly due to your religion, and little Timmy will grow up seeing it where it doesn't exist. Little Timmy will grow up expecting to be treated badly over his religion, and will only hear things to confirm his expectations. He won't grow up knowing that just cause someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are treating you badly or that they are persecuting you. Several decades ago the comments that people get all in a rage about now wouldn't have seemed like personal attacks. They may have seemed like uninformed ignorant fools, but people didn't get their feelings hurt as much as they do now. Like I said, parenting.



Disclaimer: None of the above comments are intended to offend anyone. If you take offense to anything I have said, I apologize in advance though I stand by my statements. This is my personal opinion and nothing more. None of it is directed at any specific poster with the exception of the first paragraph and I did my best not to be offensive.

Edit: fixed some typos I missed the first time. I hate typos!


[edit on 8-10-2008 by Jenna]




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Actually the first post that was speaking about the US was asmeone2's first post which was also the first post of the thread after the original post, and mmariebored's fourth post clarified that the thread was about Christians in the U.S. I do agree that it probably should have been clarified in the OP, but I assumed they meant the U.S. when I first started reading the thread...


Oh, sorry. I should have been more clear. That was my fault. The original poster specifically claimed to use the words 'Here in America' and placed it into quotes. But those were not their words- those were found in someone else's post.

The original poster said:


Originally posted by mmariebored
Nice try. I never once said it was ONLY ATS posters who do this. I said "here in America".


From THIS post. When it was originally someone else's words from THIS post:


Originally posted by asmeone2
Hey now, I'm not saying those lives are worthless at all.

I'm calling out the people here in America...


My fault. I should have been more clear with what I was referring to. Other people made the distinction between the West and the East then the original poster seemed to cling on to their distinction in an effort to save face. At least, that is how it appeared to me. Judging by the original post and the subsequent post by the O.P., it seems they felt persecution in America was imagined and persecution in the East was understandable in an effort to 'prevent mass stupidity.' Then once they were called out on that, they shuffled things around as if they only wanted to focus on America.

Their O.P. even seems to imply a world wide interest due to the fact it mentions the persecution of Christians in the past, at its onset, and things in history. That was my impression, at least. Looked like an effort to save face. JMHO.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Cha'........ I know exactly what y'all talkin' bout. Persecution... blah... blah... paranoids. I live in a University town where the gays and lesbians are always squeelin' "haters...... homophobes..... bigots....... etc." I think it's all a scam to weasel jobs & power by makin' folks bend-over-backwards (no pun intended) just to make 'em feel more "at home". Then there are those pesky Jews always screamin' 'bout that holosomething deal... I mean get over it. That was way back when... antisemiwhackiness just doesn't cut it in the "real world". Then there are da' blacks...... Al "Tawany Brawley" Sharpton... slavery...... I mean gimme a break... how long does the world have to feel guilty over old history? Thank God... there's no more Soviet Union.... when I was a kid I had to check under the bed every night to make sure no commie pinkoes were hidin under there. Wow! The commies are comin'.... the commies are comin' to get the capitalists... what a crock of paranoia. Now we got those qwazy Arabs terrorists blowin' up buildings..... Sheeeeeesh........ talk bout persecution...... THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS! Now.... I'm really feelin' persecuted....... or maybe not.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TALIN
Yeah,, umm that would help remove the evidence clearskies was right in addition to the apology you owe her.

Not really. I never insulted clearskies so no apology is necessary here. It's not like I told her that every where she goes she leaves the place in a worse condition than when she first went there like you said to me.
Hypocrisy indeed.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
In an attempt to address what I THINK was meant in the OP (I'm emphasizing THINK as I don't want to be called a liar again), I believe that the discussion was intended to claim that Christians in the U.S. often claim to be persecuted when such persecution doesn't exist because they believe that their eschatological texts claim that they will be persecuted for following Christ (especially in the last days).

I don't think that we can find any studies that have been done on this (although I would love to see one if there has been a study conducted!), so what we are left with is a back and forth of anecdotal evidence.

'Members of Church X sued the government because they felt they were unjustly treated due to their religious affiliations.'

'I've been a Christian all my life and I've never heard another Christian claim to be persecuted.'

Such claims by either side really can't be quantified in any meaningful manner.

In my opinion, there are Christians (and those that claim to Christians but aren't) who will claim to be persecuted when in reality they aren't. That's because Christians are found in every demographic, including those that are unbalanced and not very bright.

I also believe that the occurences of this are so infrequent and so minor to be statistically irrelevant.

It seems to me that this is so close to being non-existent that being concerned with it is fruitless and a waste of time unless you have a predilection for being interested in activities by Christians that you can find fault with.

Eric



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Anyway, back on topic with me. Well, I would like to anyway but the last few pages aren't really on topic either. Mostly just debating on hypocrisy and a stubborn refusal to believe that the thread is about the U.S.

As I have said before, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who see persecution where it does not exist. I don't deny that it is real, or that it does in fact happen to some, but the majority of people who believe they are persecuted against are only seeing what they expect to see. If I believe that people are going to persecute me for my religious beliefs, skin color, age, sexual orientation, job, etc. I will see it where it doesn't exist. People in the U.S. are too sensitive if you ask me.

It reminds me of a line from a movie, which I can't for the life of me remember the title of right now, where a guy, who happens to be white, is on a plane and says something along the lines of "What is wrong with you people?!" A flight marshal, who happens to be black, takes that to mean "what is wrong with you black people" when what is really meant is "what is wrong with you airline people". A small misunderstanding, but a perfect example of someone seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. The flight marshal in this scene believes that he is persecuted for his race, and thus hears the remark as derogatory, even though it isn't.

Like I have said in several other threads about several other topics, the massive levels of sensitivity of those in the U.S. to the comments of others is all caused by parenting. You tell or show little Timmy that people will persecute him for something, and claim that you are being persecuted or treated badly due to your religion, and little Timmy will grow up seeing it where it doesn't exist. Little Timmy will grow up expecting to be treated badly over his religion, and will only hear things to confirm his expectations. He won't grow up knowing that just cause someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are treating you badly or that they are persecuting you. Several decades ago the comments that people get all in a rage about now wouldn't have seemed like personal attacks. They may have seemed like uninformed ignorant fools, but people didn't get their feelings hurt as much as they do now. Like I said, parenting.

Thank you, this goes along with the OP perfectly. I greatly appreciate people who can understand and follow the OP without excessive explaining.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


No problem. I hate to see a thread with potential die due to misunderstandings and things being read into what is posted that aren't actually there or meant.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 

Hey,mmariebored,These people will always stick to what fits comfortably in their worldview,no matter how much you try to reason with them.It really is like arguing with a brick wall.I did think that you were trying to find like minded people to share their own opinions on the subject,but the conversation quickly degenerated to a battle of semantics and proof.Proofs,mind you,that rely on histories that have often been rewritten by Christian and Protestant revisionists whose mission was to obfuscate the others claims.

This world is a madhouse.Religion has hurt and helped,true objectivity tells us the former more than the latter.But not all can be truly objective.If they could,most would denounce organized religion in general for the sham it is.There is nothing wrong with being religious,or even praying together,but once you start proselytizing,it is over.You are attempting to hijack another persons soul,telling the person that they must put the chains on themselves,and abandon reason and prostrate themselves before another persons interpretation of some ancient text or worldview.It is rubbish,and invariably leads to mental slavery and suppression of thought and xenophobic ideas about others with different thoughts.

I would focus on the thoughts of those who have only intelligent additions to the topic,it is very interesting,I think that we can come to more reasonable conclusions about this issue if you ignored the fundamentalists who have replied.Not all Christians who have replied on this thread have been unreasonable,and I think some Christian input is a good idea to keep some of us honest.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 

I agree and thank you.
And I'm not anti-christian at all, only against people who zealously spread their beliefs onto other people and verbally attack people who don't accept their offering. It wouldn't even bother me if the belief system was kinder and more accepting of other people, as they expect people to be of them, but they are taught, and teach others, that those who don't believe as they do will suffer horrors such as the world has never seen until one day they find themselves burning in Hell forever and ever amen. I have a problem with that message and I try to avoid people who spread that message. If you have a large enough group of people like me who have a problem with that message and reject the teachings of a smaller group in one area, they shout "persecution" at the larger group.


And this is the kind of persecution I'm speaking of in this thread, not the bloodthirsty people around the world, including Christians, who murder everyone, including Christians. Once again, I do not approve of or condone such violence.

People like me, who have been through the system, survived it and are now trying to help other people who may be going through what they went through, are popping up all over the country. In fact, the largest group of what Christians will eventually refer to as a "cancer" will come from their very own and will outnumber fundamentalists, in my estimates, by 10 to 1 in ten years time(*). How is this possible? Technology and the ability to have conversations just like this one with people who haven't decided what they want to believe yet. The largest percentage of people on the net are children. Children talking to other children, educating themselves, learning what kind of people there are in the world. Who to follow, who to avoid and why. Children grow up, having taken it all in. They look around a forum like this and see people claiming to be of a certain religion being far more nasty and illogical than the people NOT in this religion and who do you think they will follow?

The army of people now in Christian collages, preparing to spread their doctrine around the world, will be the largest "cancer" taking down that very doctrine they're planning on spreading, and they'll do it pleasantly, with a solid education behind them. All the more attractive for the masses to follow OUT of the blindness of religious dogma.

People don't follow nasty people. People don't follow illogical people.
People, with a world of education at their fingertips, don't want to be told
"have faith" in an old book.


*In another thread on here I mentioned that a religion will rise and cover a large portion of America, it isn't Christianity. It's religions that restrict their women and most of their members from secular education that will be "successful" in domination(because all religions aim for world domination). Christian religions adapt to the laws of the land, for the most part, and this will turn out to be their undoing in the end.





[edit on 9-10-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
It's not that complicated.

The president of the US claims to be a christian. You can say Jesus all you want, you can wear a cross all you want. But the moment you quit following the symbolism blindly(false idol), and you start to actually stand up for the things christ stood for, you will be persecuted.

You can wave a cross and talk about Jesus and be in favor of war, which goes directly against his teachings. But if you are against the war, then you are labeled unpatriotic, muslim lover and all sorts of names.

Stand up to the economic slavery and against the fed, as Jesus did with the money changers. Every president who has ever been assassinated or had it attempted was against central banks and such. But you can wear the cross around your neck and be a banker charging people interest and putting people in economic slavery all day long.

You can worship false idols all you want. You won't find persecution. But if you stand up for the things Jesus did and try to spread the message, people will step on you - even if you never mention the bible or Jesus - because that is just image.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

In other words, the peacemakers are really the ones who get trampled the most, not the ones crusading carrying Bibles and wearing crosses? If I were to base my opinion on what I've seen in this forum alone, particularly in the "christian" section, I'd have to believe you are right.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


Yes. It's not the image that matters. With philosophy, such as that which the peacemakers follow, you can exchange any number of images. Part of the false idol, and what creates duality and division between cultures is that they all claim their image/idol is the "1 true" image. That the others are a fake.

It's like Christians who think they are the only ones that go to heaven. Which is silly and wrong. It's because they worship image. If they understand the philosophy then they realize the image isn't important, and anyone in any culture is capable of having that understanding.

The dogma that exists in religion only exists among the image worshipers. I have no dogmas in my beliefs. If you give me a dogma in my beliefs, then it must be wrong.

And it's 2 fold here. The people who see the bad stuff done in image, who also do not understand the philosophy are also focusing on just the image. I see people arguing over if Jesus was real, and people point out the dogmas, and people point out the bad stuff done in the name of Jesus. But you never see them do so against the teachings of Jesus. The belief is that if it gets people to do that stuff, it's brainwashing and control.

No better way to deceive people. BUT. As the image was never important, the truth will still make it to people. I have friends and they dislike Christians and all that. I tell them they are more christian then they realize, and they are for the most part. Not perfect, but who is?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
oh having faith in an old book (or several old books) might actually be a better idea than you think. not that i can prove beyond a doubt that every last word and idea of these old texts are 100 percent accurate, i think modern perspective on the ancient past is rife with assumption. in addition, when the original theories upon which atheism was founded, arose, they did so without the benefit of archaeology and assumed their research was thorough enough to prove their theories, but it didn't work out that way. now they just ignore the implications of archaeology. it's yet another interesting human foible.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by undo]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
You can wave a cross and talk about Jesus and be in favor of war, which goes directly against his teachings. But if you are against the war, then you are labeled unpatriotic, muslim lover and all sorts of names.


I'm going to have to disagree with that second line there. I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, including out loud in the real world, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of this war. There is a difference, to me anyway, between supporting the war and supporting the troops and I can do one without the other. Not once have I ever been called anything for that statement. I also personally know quite a few Christians who feel the same way I do about the war and the troops and none of them have been called or labeled anything for it either.


Originally posted by badmedia
I see people arguing over if Jesus was real, and people point out the dogmas, and people point out the bad stuff done in the name of Jesus. But you never see them do so against the teachings of Jesus. The belief is that if it gets people to do that stuff, it's brainwashing and control.

No better way to deceive people. BUT. As the image was never important, the truth will still make it to people. I have friends and they dislike Christians and all that. I tell them they are more christian then they realize, and they are for the most part. Not perfect, but who is?


I think that the arguments are more over whether he was real or not than his teachings for a few reasons. First, regardless if he was a real person, if he was the son of God, or if he even said anything attributed to him, the message is a good one. Most people, Christian or not, agree with what he said simply because it is a good message that tells us basically to be kind to others and to do to others what we want done to us. The teachings themselves are something that everyone should be doing anyway, regardless of what religion they identify with.

Second, I think his existence is argued more for the simple fact that there is only sketchy evidence outside of the Bible that a man named Jesus, from Nazareth, who was put on a cross, ever existed. To me this is no different than arguing for or against the existence of Siddhārtha Gautama. Who may or may not have been or done what he is said to have been or done, just like Jesus, but who had a very good message, just like Jesus.

And really, it should be the message that is important, not where it came from. If the message is a sound one, which I think few will argue over either of their teachings as a whole, then the source means nothing to me. Honestly, the teachings of Jesus could have been written in the last 100 years by some guy who was crazy as a loon and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. A person doesn't have to be Christian to recognize a message of kindness and tolerance as being a good thing. It is only when the message is twisted by the followers that I take issue, and it's the same for many others I think.

The brain washing and control, I think, comes from the rest of the junk involved in most religions not just Christianity. I believe, and I am sure I am not alone on this one, that it is entirely possible to live by the teachings and not be a follower of the religion. And really, the majority of people are offended and become angry when they are told by those who really don't follow the religion exactly anyway that they are living their lives wrong, are guilty of sins they have never committed, and are going to hell for not subscribing to a particular religion.

At the heart of it, most religions are fundamentally the same, so what does it matter what name you choose to call your God. If there is one, I'm sure he/she/they/it wouldn't give a rats behind what you thought their name was, or if you declared you believe in them, so long as you are a good person, and treat others well. If that isn't good enough to get me into a heaven that may or may not exist, then I'm pretty sure I don't want to be there anyway. The persons character should be the important thing, not which prophet they choose to believe.

It has been my experience that those who do not claim to be Christian, and often claim to be of a different religion, are more Christlike than those who fervently claim they are Christian. Which is part of my above point, doesn't take a Christian to be a good person, and a lot of Christians I personally know are a lot less Christlike than a lot of atheists and Pagans I know.


Originally posted by undo
in addition, when the original theories upon which atheism was founded, arose, they did so without the benefit of archaeology and assumed their research was thorough enough to prove their theories, but it didn't work out that way. now they just ignore the implications of archaeology. it's yet another interesting human foible.


I'm afraid you've lost me here.. Can you please explain what exactly you mean? What implications of archaeology are you speaking of? A bit of elaboration would be greatly appreciated!



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
By the tone of the this thread and attitudes of many of the posters it is pretty clear that the persecution of Christians is the wave of the future. It's not like one day it just starts happening, it's starts with arrogance and attitudes of superiority I am seeing demonstrated here and like those held by the leaders of the communist regimes.




This video contains the testimony of Richard Wurmbrand who was imprisoned for 14 years for his Christian faith. He later founded Voice of the Martyrs



Richard Wurmbrand was born in 1909 at Bucharest, as the youngest of four boys in a Jewish family. He lived with his family in Istanbul for a short while; his father died when he was 9, and the Wurmbrands returned to Romania when he was 15.

He married Sabina Oster on October 26, 1936. Wurmbrand and his wife were converted to Christianity in 1938 through the witness of Christian Wolfkes, a Romanian Christian carpenter; they joined the Anglican Mission to the Jews. Wurmbrand was ordained twice - first as an Anglican, then, after World War II, as a Lutheran pastor.

In 1944, when the Soviet Union occupied Romania as the first step to establishing the communist regime, Wurmbrand began a ministry to his Romanian countrymen and to the Red Army soldiers. When the government attempted to control the churches, he immediately began an "underground" ministry to his people. He was arrested on February 29, 1948, while on his way to church services.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
I'm going to have to disagree with that second line there. I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, including out loud in the real world, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of this war. There is a difference, to me anyway, between supporting the war and supporting the troops and I can do one without the other. Not once have I ever been called anything for that statement. I also personally know quite a few Christians who feel the same way I do about the war and the troops and none of them have been called or labeled anything for it either.


I was against the Iraq war from the start. I was called every name you can think of for pointing out why it was wrong. People even told me they hoped I died. Of course, I wasn't hanging around like minded people, I was debating and arguing with people who were very much in favor of the war.

And I'm sorry, but supporting the troops means to support the war. The only way you are supporting the troops is if you are working to bring them home to their families. I have family fighting in those wars, so for someone to tell me to support the troops is a big fat lie. My little brother is heading back to Iraq in less than a month. Lets just go ahead and deny ignorance on that support the troops myth.

Feeling the same way, being against it and actually stepping up to those who agree and want it are 2 different things. If you were to get on O'Reily against the Iraq war, how would have been treated? Or any number of news outlets?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


This is getting way off topic, but I'm intrigued by your belief that you can only support the troops by working to bring them home.

You wouldn't consider it 'supporting the troops' to organize Girl or Boy Scout troops in letter writing campaigns? Or sending holiday cards, or boxes with cookies or candy? Or organizing fundraisers that pay for body armor? Or working with groups who organize 'welcome home' parties for returning military men and women?

I don't mean to disrespect the op and derail the thread, so feel free to pm me if this is too far off the track of the discussion of Christians believing they are persecuted.

Thanks!

Eric



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Couldn't agree more!

The worship of images and nixing the history of each image is a very big part of religion. A person will fight for the belief in the cross, for instance, and not really care about its history or even whether it is a real truth or not. Nothing can rock the boat!

Let's keep all the dogma in line so we don't have to alter our thinking or question our loyalty to something that needs judging!



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
This is getting way off topic, but I'm intrigued by your belief that you can only support the troops by working to bring them home.

You wouldn't consider it 'supporting the troops' to organize Girl or Boy Scout troops in letter writing campaigns? Or sending holiday cards, or boxes with cookies or candy? Or organizing fundraisers that pay for body armor? Or working with groups who organize 'welcome home' parties for returning military men and women?

I don't mean to disrespect the op and derail the thread, so feel free to pm me if this is too far off the track of the discussion of Christians believing they are persecuted.

Thanks!

Eric



Nah, the stuff you mention is what I call paying tribute. The armor stuff would be the closest thing to supporting the troops. But that is not what people mean when they say support the troops. Even that is only needed because they have falsely been put in harms way.

When they say support the troops, what they mean and want you to do is shut up. That if you merely suggest the job they doing is wrong, then you are not supporting the troops. If you don't do that, then you aren't supporting the troops. So now every time someone wants to complain about the war, it's always - I support the troops, but etc. Which is done to cut off and keep the person from claiming they don't support the troops. And now of course peer pressure as well - so you don't get persecuted.

Tell me. What would your definition of not supporting the troops be? And what would happen to someone if they did not support the troops, or came out and said they did not support the troops?

As for taking it off topic, I personally don't believe it is. IMO, it's related because we are talking about things one might be persecuted for, which is relation to if it's real or imagination.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Just a little FYI for all those who keep saying things like "I don't hate Christianity, I just hate people who shove their beliefs down my throat". Perhaps you don't seem to understand that spreading the Christian message, or proselytizing as some of you like to call it, is a VITAL and irreplaceable part of the Christian faith. It was taught by Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, if you have a problem with that, then you do, in fact, have a problem with Christians. Perhaps you should try some intellectual honesty instead of trying to appear more tolerant than you really are.

And lets get real here. Nobody is shoving anything down your throats. When you hear the message, you are quite free to accept or reject it as you see fit. You are your own person and you are free to make your own decisions. If it really bothers you that much to simply hear the Christian message, then the intolerance is actually on YOUR part, not the Christians.

Actually, Christians are among the most tolerant people that I know. It takes A LOT of tolerance to be of a strict monotheistic belief system while living in a society that tends to openly mock people who favor absolutism over relativism and political correctness. Just a little something to consider.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join