[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Real Christians are defined by their paying attention to the teachings of Christ.

Then I don't think there are many real Christians in the world. How many give away all that they have? How many truly look at the log in their own eye first. How many are truly able to love their neighbor as themselves? (He set the bar pretty high there, most religious teachers just said do unto others.) How many are able not to sin in their hearts? And if Jesus forgives them all these trespasses, I'm sure he will forgive others for theirs. Probably even understand the person who didn't believe in Him until he met Him face to face. I'm sure Thomas was forgiven too.

I believe Judas was too.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Which is all I did in posting a news story which you cried about.

I didn't realize my criticism of the article was criticizing you too. I can freely criticize a news piece. If you take it as personal criticism, then, well, that's a personal issue on your part, not mine.

$1:

No, YOU DID THAT. I didn't post some comment decrying all christians in a manner that usually accompanies and thread with postings of awful things muslims do. YOU did that or rather you assumed that.

I did nothing of the sort. Read what I said:

"Of course, once again you can think I express hatred for an entire religious faith, when that is certainly isn't the case. I have never expressed the opinion that I hate Islam or all Muslims. I certainly dislike, or hate, radical versions of Islam, but I hate radical Christians, radical Hindus, radical Sikhs, and radical atheists as well."

I do make a distinction between regular religious faith and extremist versions thereof. You, on numerous occasions, have labeled me as somebody who hates all of those of a religious faith or ethnicity due to the actions of a few, as we will see by the quotation below.

I do not know, nor do I care if you make that distinction. I cannot control your actions or thought processes.

$1:

Kinda like twisting and overblowing not even my words but the simple fact I posted a news story around into me attacking all people of christian faith? That faulty opinion?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that attempting to make this into an issue beyond three people's extremist beliefs is wrong. Actually, it was you who stated:

"Awfully ironic that the people complaining this is an attempt to smear an entire faith is being held by those who have no problem doing it when it suits them."

After quoting me. You are attempting to make yourself a victim after attacking me, and of course, I will not grant you leeway at all.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yet people disagree on that very fundamental part. Do you follow the teachings?

Thou shall not kill. Is that a commandment you live by?

The accurate translation is "You shall not murder" and, yes, I live by that.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Mathew 25:40 "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." -- That would include muslims. Quite frankly is any of you behaviour and opinion about muslims very christian?

Actually, I do just fine with that. I've repeatedly said that those who grant me peace with receive it. Myself, I start with peace. But I don't necessarily end with it.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Are you a very forgiving man who will let your god be the person to judge others or are you more about enacting your own vengeance?

Nope. Slap me on the cheek and you're likely to end up in the morgue. I may be a Christian, but I never said I was any good at it, now did I?

DerbyX DerbyX:

The religious opposition to homosexuality is almost exclusively based on the bible AKA the teachings of JC. Are they following his teachings or distorting his meanings?

What Bible are you reading?

Jesus is silent on homosexuality. It's the Old Testament that speaks to it.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I know at least part of you response be you recognize yourself to be a flawed christian but a christian non-the-less. That can be applied to people of other faiths as well.

I fail in my Christianity when I speak out of turn, a Muslim, however, succeeds in his Islam when he blows up a bus full of non-believers. "Slay them (infidels) wherever you find them" is pretty clear about what is expected of a Muslim. The failures in Islam are those who have Jews or Christians for friends and the heretics in Islam are those who assert that they can coexist equally with non-believers. There's some big differences here.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I didn't realize my criticism of the article was criticizing you too. I can freely criticize a news piece. If you take it as personal criticism, then, well, that's a personal issue on your part, not mine.

Yeah you did and you know what post you did it in to. "Hit the nail on the head".

$1:

No, YOU DID THAT. I didn't post some comment decrying all christians in a manner that usually accompanies and thread with postings of awful things muslims do. YOU did that or rather you assumed that.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I did nothing of the sort. Read what I said:

"Of course, once again you can think I express hatred for an entire religious faith, when that is certainly isn't the case. I have never expressed the opinion that I hate Islam or all Muslims. I certainly dislike, or hate, radical versions of Islam, but I hate radical Christians, radical Hindus, radical Sikhs, and radical atheists as well."

YOU assumed this was about demonizing an entire faith based on simply posting the news story when you agree with another posters assertion it was.

YOU assumed that was the case despite the fact that nobody was posting any such thing. You knew exactly what was being said, who it was being said about, and why it was said. Denying it is just dishonest.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I do make a distinction between regular religious faith and extremist versions thereof. You, on numerous occasions, have labeled me as somebody who hates all of those of a religious faith or ethnicity due to the actions of a few, as we will see by the quotation below.

I labelled you exactly as I see you. You post an extremist opinion about other faiths and political opinions and you are an apologist for your religion and political opinions.

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Kinda like twisting and overblowing not even my words but the simple fact I posted a news story around into me attacking all people of christian faith? That faulty opinion?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that attempting to make this into an issue beyond three people's extremist beliefs is wrong. Actually, it was you who stated:

Yes you did and right here:

$1:

The reporter has every right to write a news story and blow it out of proportion to cater to individuals like yourself, who take any radical opinion of anybody with religious faith as an attack of everyone of that religion, or of religion in general.

That was an attack on me and the implication that I was the person trying to blow it out of proportion when I did no such thing. I posted the news link and would not have posted anything further until you posted what you did.

commanderkai commanderkai:

After quoting me. You are attempting to make yourself a victim after attacking me, and of course, I will not grant you leeway at all.

So says the hypocrite who posted the very sentiment I bolded despite me not having posted a single thought on the article.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The accurate translation is "You shall not murder" and, yes, I live by that.

That is an interpretation and not one held by say people like the Amish. Do you not support execution which is state sanctioned murder?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Actually, I do just fine with that. I've repeatedly said that those who grant me peace with receive it. Myself, I start with peace. But I don't necessarily end with it.

Bart, far from it. You believe in dealing with just about every muslim country with violence despite the fact that none of them are actual threats to your life and liberty.

In fact if we left them alone to their own devices they would go happily back to running their religious societies as they see fit and not really give a shit about us.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nope. Slap me on the cheek and you're likely to end up in the morgue. I may be a Christian, but I never said I was any good at it, now did I?

I think killing somebody because they slapped you would constitute murder and that would invalidate your previous statement about living by "though shall not murder". I also made the point that I understand you consider yourself a flawed christian but then that was my point about trying to say which people are "true" christians and which aren't. You said that true christians follow the teachings of JC but then you acknowledge that you don't always and realize you don't always. To me that sounds contradictory.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What Bible are you reading?

Jesus is silent on homosexuality. It's the Old Testament that speaks to it.

So what? Did Jesus invalidate the OT? If so then why is it still revered in your religion and used in sermons at church?

People who adhere to the bible believe they are following his teachings and that includes the people who quote the bible for the anti-homosexual passages.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I fail in my Christianity when I speak out of turn, a Muslim, however, succeeds in his Islam when he blows up a bus full of non-believers. "Slay them (infidels) wherever you find them" is pretty clear about what is expected of a Muslim. The failures in Islam are those who have Jews or Christians for friends and the heretics in Islam are those who assert that they can coexist equally with non-believers. There's some big differences here.

YOU say that. I however and seen lots of them say those people are distorting the truth about islam.

I don't subscribe to your interpretation of them or their intentions.

[BartSimpson]

For starters, the Old Testament is a Hebrew document, not an Amish document. The Torah, to include Exodus, says; "You shall not murder". Elsewhere in Exodus and, more so, in Leviticus are scores of commands to kill. The Torah distinguishes between killing as part of the duty of a soldier and murdering. King David, for instance, was lionized for killing Goliath, but excoriated for conspiring to murder Uriah.
Myself, I'm not terribly calm some days and were someone to slap me out of the clear blue sky they are, indeed, likely to end up regretting it. I've had people slap me on the back at church and I've found myself going into full-on battle mode over it. Call it PTSD, if you want. It's not uncommon and it doesn't make me any less of a Christian.
As to the truth about Islam? Go to a Muslim country and see for yourself. I doubt that anything less will teach you what they are all about.

[Public_Domain]

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I fail in my Christianity when I speak out of turn, a Muslim, however, succeeds in his Islam when he blows up a bus full of non-believers. "Slay them (infidels) wherever you find them" is pretty clear about what is expected of a Muslim. The failures in Islam are those who have Jews or Christians for friends and the heretics in Islam are those who assert that they can coexist equally with non-believers. There's some big differences here.

You’re no different than the radical Muslim. You point you fingers without the common sense to compare it to your own bible and think you’re superior. Following that quote literally is no different than any of the radical fundamentalists in the “Christian persuasion” taking the same kind of biblical quotes literally.

There are no differences.

[MGX]

poquas poquas:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I fail in my Christianity when I speak out of turn, a Muslim, however, succeeds in his Islam when he blows up a bus full of non-believers. "Slay them (infidels) wherever you find them" is pretty clear about what is expected of a Muslim. The failures in Islam are those who have Jews or Christians for friends and the heretics in Islam are those who assert that they can coexist equally with non-believers. There's some big differences here.

You’re no different than the radical Muslim. You point you fingers without the common sense to compare it to your own bible and think you’re superior. Following that quote literally is no different than any of the radical fundamentalists in the “Christian persuasion” taking the same kind of biblical quotes literally.

There are no differences.

See? No believed me when I told them that, there was a lot of bigotry towards other religions on this forum. Islam specifically gets targeted for this. Stop generalizing other religions! It would be embarassing to introduce my muslim friends to bigotted narrowminded people like you! Extremism exists in every religion! The Quran is grossly misinterpreted by extremists. Get it through your thick skull!

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yeah you did and you know what post you did it in to. "Hit the nail on the head".

Because I agreed with Shep? You took that as personal criticism, instead of criticism over the written article, and, I would say, the suggestive nature of the article?

If you have issues with what Shep said, take it up with him. I agreed with him that 95% of those in the West ridicule and disagree with "Blame the Victim" bullshit, and attempting to label religions, or religious faith with such an attitude on crime is wrong. I took that as criticism of the article itself. You didn't even make a post before that.

$1:

YOU assumed this was about demonizing an entire faith based on simply posting the news story when you agree with another posters assertion it was.

I agreed with the criticism of a news article by another poster on this site.

$1:

YOU assumed that was the case despite the fact that nobody was posting any such thing. You knew exactly what was being said, who it was being said about, and why it was said. Denying it is just dishonest.

I never said people posted that. Neither did Shep (from what I got from his post). I thought the article was slanted against those of religious faith, when the pamphlets seemed much more the rantings of a person using religious faith to justify their extreme beliefs, and there was no mainstream, or even extreme religious sect taking credit for said pamphlets.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I labelled you exactly as I see you. You post an extremist opinion about other faiths and political opinions and you are an apologist for your religion and political opinions.

I have never posted an extremist opinion over any religious faith or political opinion, unless being a conservative Catholic is somehow extremist these days. I always try to make the distinction between all Muslims, and Muslims who twist their faith to carry out violent acts against non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. This goes for any faith or non-faith. I have not expressed extremist opinions against liberals, socialists, communists, or any political view against my own.

I have not been an apologist for my own faith. I criticize it when I see legitimate criticism, like over abusing priests and poor Church policy. HOWEVER, and you dislike this, I do not see the history of the Church in specific periods of history as totally wrong, and do not accept revisionist history that speaks to that effect. Nor will I be an apologist for my political views when I deem that criticism is justified.

Now, if you have a particular issue with one of my beliefs, be it political, ethical, religious, or historical, there is the LXD thread that I will be more than willing to have a discussion with you as long as you are civil in your comments. Until then, you can call me whatever you like, but you will be wrong.

Derby Derby:

Yes you did and right here:

$1:

The reporter has every right to write a news story and blow it out of proportion to cater to individuals like yourself, who take any radical opinion of anybody with religious faith as an attack of everyone of that religion, or of religion in general.

That was an attack on me and the implication that I was the person trying to blow it out of proportion when I did no such thing. I posted the news link and would not have posted anything further until you posted what you did.

This was after you said statements like this:

"Awfully ironic that the people complaining this is an attempt to smear an entire faith is being held by those who have no problem doing it when it suits them." directly quoting me

"Seems a few people are being overly defensive. Its too bad these people were quoting from the bible rather then the koran. Be a far different story were that the case." and a post after me, but certainly addressing my comments.

You took off the gloves by these statements. You just expect to personally attack me without receiving any blowback? Just like Bart, turning the other cheek is something I had a hard time learning back in Sunday School.

$1:

So says the hypocrite who posted the very sentiment I bolded despite me not having posted a single thought on the article.

Derby, your attack came first. Your perceived attack when I agreed with Shep is both wrong, and does not justify your statements.

However, in the essence of civil debate, I shall keep my statements less emotionally driven, even when I essentially do not believe I was incorrect on this. If you have issues with Shep's original statement, take it up with him.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Because I agreed with Shep? You took that as personal criticism, instead of criticism over the written article, and, I would say, the suggestive nature of the article?

If you have issues with what Shep said, take it up with him. I agreed with him that 95% of those in the West ridicule and disagree with "Blame the Victim" bullshit, and attempting to label religions, or religious faith with such an attitude on crime is wrong. I took that as criticism of the article itself. You didn't even make a post before that.

You seem awfully defensive since in my post I didn't even mention you even though it was implied just like I think what was about me.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I never said people posted that. Neither did Shep (from what I got from his post). I thought the article was slanted against those of religious faith, when the pamphlets seemed much more the rantings of a person using religious faith to justify their extreme beliefs, and there was no mainstream, or even extreme religious sect taking credit for said pamphlets.

Well since we have our issues I didn't see that. I saw something else. The article didn't blame an entire faith nor was it even part and parcel to it. That was somebody elses agenda to say that.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I have never posted an extremist opinion over any religious faith or political opinion, unless being a conservative Catholic is somehow extremist these days. I always try to make the distinction between all Muslims, and Muslims who twist their faith to carry out violent acts against non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. This goes for any faith or non-faith. I have not expressed extremist opinions against liberals, socialists, communists, or any political view against my own.

Your opinion, not mine. I'm quite sure I don't agree with your opinion about me.

commanderkai commanderkai:

This was after you said statements like this:

"Awfully ironic that the people complaining this is an attempt to smear an entire faith is being held by those who have no problem doing it when it suits them." directly quoting me

"Seems a few people are being overly defensive. Its too bad these people were quoting from the bible rather then the koran. Be a far different story were that the case." and a post after me, but certainly addressing my comments.

You took off the gloves by these statements. You just expect to personally attack me without receiving any blowback? Just like Bart, turning the other cheek is something I had a hard time learning back in Sunday School.

That is funny since I was thinking quite the opposite. I felt you were posting an attack on me in a passive aggressive way and I responded. Funny how that works isn't it?

commanderkai commanderkai:

Derby, your attack came first. Your perceived attack when I agreed with Shep is both wrong, and does not justify your statements.

However, in the essence of civil debate, I shall keep my statements less emotionally driven, even when I essentially do not believe I was incorrect on this. If you have issues with Shep's original statement, take it up with him.

Not from my position. My issues with him are between us and the mods and as yet remain unresolved. The difference is that except in responses to what are obviously digs at me (based on forum history) I make no effort to reference him, engage him, infer about him or in any way acknowledge his existence. It is not something that works in reverse.

Now if you say you weren't agreeing with what I know to be a reference to me then so be it and for what its worth I'm actually sorry for the misinterpretation.

[commanderkai]

Glad that's resolved.For future reference, if I'm going to personal attack you, I'm not passive aggressive, you'll know without a doubt. That, or I just won't respond.

[Faye]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Could you kindly tell the rest of your gender this reality?

Looking and smiling is ok. Just keep in mind that drooling and stalking is too much. And if girls react angrily, just think that in a few years time... she probably would wish someone would show his appreciation. If I like what I see I just smile.

[andyt]

Faye Faye:

Looking and smiling is ok. Just keep in mind that drooling and stalking is too much.

“I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, drooling or stalking to anyone, but they've always worked for me.” (sorry, HST)

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well, let's look at it this way. PETA operates in much the same manner as these twits did, so hey, let's condemn ALL animal lovers as being whacked out fundies.