Hatred of Christianity!

[Nakosis]

What do you mean by "against homosexuality"? If you mean that you are not sexually attracted to men, that is fine. Unfortunately, the vast majority of other Muslims in the world do not agree with your liberal position, even most Muslims who live in moderate Muslim countries. I doubt that Muhammad would have approved of men being sexually attracted to other men.

No reason to think Prophets are free of personal bias. The Apostle Paul had his own bias. Ok, some people like to think every word a prophet spoke and was written down divinely inspired. You ever watch the "Life of Brian"?

Maybe we should start a thread "Hatred of Muslims"?
Anyway IMO no reason to hate a person because of their religion. If you're going to hate someone, if should be for their actions. Not their belief/religion.

 

[Nakosis]

well, being put to death surely counts as being harmed, no?

If someone is trying to put you to death, I think it's fair to hate or at least greatly dislike that person. However they are acting out of their own fears and ignorance.

I wouldn't personally hold it against them and would work to fix their ignorance, deal with their fears if possible. However I've no problem defending myself against any real threat.

Do you hate a person because of what they believe or what they do? I don't care if a person believes every homosexual should die. If that is what they believe that is what they believe. However if they start acting on that belief, that's another matter.

What if they believe every homosexual will go to hell and be eternally tortured? So what. Someone else can believe every heterosexual will go to hell. Why should I care what they believe?

 

[not nom]

If someone is trying to put you to death, I think it's fair to hate or at least greatly dislike that person. However they are acting out of their own fears and ignorance.

I wouldn't personally hold it against them and would work to fix their ignorance, deal with their fears if possible. However I've no problem defending myself against any real threat.

Do you hate a person because of what they believe or what they do? I don't care if a person believes every homosexual should die. If that is what they believe that is what they believe. However if they start acting on that belief, that's another matter.

oh BS. if someone's a racist, that annoys me wether they "act on that" or not. that distinction between thought and action is arbitrary anyway. actions are just thoughts directed at muscles if you will. and the only difference between acting it out and not, is POWER. they don't because they're in a minority. not because "they think homosexuals should die, but not really". what a joke.

of course I don't *hate* them, but then again that's rather the OP being whiny than actual hate taking place. and don't mistake contempt for hate, either.

What if they believe every homosexual will go to hell and be eternally tortured? So what. Someone else can believe every heterosexual will go to hell. Why should I care what they believe?

did I say you should? I can only speak for myself, why I feel contempt: because they don't keep it to themselves, and dodge and moan whenever someones takes time out of their day to utterly destroy their fairy tales. because they're looking forward to the good old times coming back. because in the meantime there's plenty of guilt ridden homosexual believers, and plenty of people who killed themselves after failing to pray themselves into straightness. ("why should I care?" he asks, BAH!). because western societies are not the whole world. because "mein kampf" is "mein kampf" by any other name, and just because people only repeats soundbites of it, doesn't mean they're not prolonging its life.

if they don't look into what they profess as belief, they shouldn't ******* whine, and *if* they do, they shouldn't whine either, because criticism, or even "hate", is peanuts compared to what they look forward to being done unto others. I don't hate mediocre, sloppy people, but I don't exactly like them, either. and that won't ever change, nor should it.

 

[Nakosis]

oh BS. if someone's a racist, that annoys me wether they "act on that" or not. that distinction between thought and action is arbitrary anyway. actions are just thoughts directed at muscles if you will. and the only difference between acting it out and not, is POWER. they don't because they're in a minority. not because "they think homosexuals should die, but not really". what a joke.

Ok, whatever reason they don't act, they don't act. Would you like to control how they think as well?

of course I don't *hate* them, but then again that's rather the OP being whiny than actual hate taking place. and don't mistake contempt for hate, either.

contempt
a : the act of despising :

Kind of hate without the hostility? Dislike without the desire to act on it?

did I say you should? I can only speak for myself, why I feel contempt: because they don't keep it to themselves, and dodge and moan whenever someones takes time out of their day to utterly destroy their fairy tales. because they're looking forward to the good old times coming back. because in the meantime there's plenty of guilt ridden homosexual believers, and plenty of people who killed themselves after failing to pray themselves into straightness. ("why should I care?" he asks, BAH!). because western societies are not the whole world. because "mein kampf" is "mein kampf" by any other name, and just because people only repeats soundbites of it, doesn't mean they're not prolonging its life.

IMO we should remain aware of mein kampf as well as people who use religion to make others feel guilty so we can guard ourselves against such thinking. Greed, lust the desire for power are part of human nature. You can't cut out the cancer and assume it will never return. People will always find a way to justify their contempt of each other. Eventually contempt if not dealt with will turn into hatred.

if they don't look into what they profess as belief, they shouldn't ******* whine, and *if* they do, they shouldn't whine either, because criticism, or even "hate", is peanuts compared to what they look forward to being done unto others. I don't hate mediocre, sloppy people, but I don't exactly like them, either. and that won't ever change, nor should it.

It's not for me to tell you how you should think. You are free to dislike or feel contempt for who ever you want. If you act on it however, someone is going to have to deal with it.

I'm happy to criticize people who kill or make homosexuals feel guilty or someone who kills for religious reasons or tries to make people feel guilty for religious reasons. I don't care what they think or how they justify it. It's the action itself that has to be dealt with.

 

[not nom]

Ok, whatever reason they don't act, they don't act.

BS :sarcastic

and lol at me trying to "control" anyone by saying what I think, with the bonus of not lying about having divine authority for it.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course they are. People who introduce religion are very well educated and creative in inventing methods of manipulating masses.

What are you basing this or any of your arguments on other than a personal dislike of religion?

Priests were known for trying to understand nature but not to share their knowledge but to use it to enslave mases like eclipse for instance.

For instance?

Of course they would, I didn't say it was good

You offered the Inquisitions as an example of "Religion at it's best".

I said that that kind of behaviour is characteristic for most religions,

Nope, that's not what you said.

kill thse that think differently, this s the essence of religion instead of discussion who is correct.

The "essence" of religion? You should take a moment and look up the word "essence".

When someone has some new idea which questions current truth this new idea is being discussed rather then killing the person that pruposd it. Science confronts different theories and discussses which one is better through the things you mentioned.

And you should also look up "confront" while you're at it.

 

[Nakosis]

BS :sarcastic

and lol at me trying to "control" anyone by saying what I think, with the bonus of not lying about having divine authority for it.

That's what people do. Influence, at least, what others think with their words.

Divine authority is convenient as long as you get others to buy into it.

Talk Radio, TV ads, billboards, peer pressure. Sound bites in campaign ads. Lots of ways to control how others think. Not really that hard but it is a skill.

 

[Nakosis]

What Muhammad believed is already obvious. What you need is credible evidence that the revelations were authentic.

I guess God would have to provide that.

Non sequitur. Your premise is that Muhammed had divine authority. What Jesus did is irrelavant to that claim.


Non sequitur. Your premise is that Muhammed had divine authority. What Jesus did is irrelavant to that claim.

What do you mean my premise, I thought it was your premise.

 

[Agnostic75]

gnostic75][/b] What Muhammad believed is already obvious. What you need is credible evidence that the revelations were authentic.

I guess God would have to provide that.

If God provides evidence entirely on his own, there would not be any need for religious discussion forums.

I doubt that any God would use written texts as a primary means of communicating with humans since that would create many problems, and frequently lots of confusion, even among followers of the same religion. A God would easily be able to speak to everyone in the world, tangibly, if he wanted to communicate with humans. It could not be advantageous to God, or to humans, for him to want to communicate with humans, but refuse to tangibly, publically, show himself to everyone in the world.

Written records have only been around for a relatively short time during human existence. That shows that if a God exists, he has not considered written records to be an important means of communicating with humans for the majority of the time that humans have existed.

The simple truth is, the universe is vast, old, and complex, and humans have not even learned how the simplest cell works, and how to cure the common cold, let alone determine if a God exists, who he his, and what his agenda are. The best way for people to live is to love their neighbor, and not preach to their neighbor about who God is, and what God's agenda are. Logic should be used to determine what behavior is acceptable, not religious books. For example, if homosexuality is not generally harmful to homosexuals, and to society, it should be considered appropriate behavior. If a person eats pork, and has good health, eating pork should be considered acceptable for that person.

Although various religions have motivated many people to do many good things, many people have said that religion has been the most divisive social institution in human history. I think that that is true. I am tired of people who say that God wants this, and God wants that, when they do not have a clue what God wants. It is not comforting to not have well-defined reasons for living, but we are stuck without having all of the answers to life that we want.

 

[Agnostic75]

What do you mean my premise, I thought it was your premise.

Oh, I thought that your [unstated but implied] premise is that Muhammad had divine authority. If you do not believe that, that is fine.

 

[Agnostic75]

No reason to think Prophets are free of personal bias. The Apostle Paul had his own bias. Ok, some people like to think every word a prophet spoke and was written down divinely inspired. You ever watch the "Life of Brian"?

Maybe we should start a thread "Hatred of Muslims"?

Anyway IMO no reason to hate a person because of their religion. If you're going to hate someone, if should be for their actions. Not their belief/religion.

Well, I must say that it is very pleasing to hear a Muslim talk like that. However, what percentage of Muslims who live in the U.S. do you think are as liberal as you are?