Islamic Cultural Center/Muslim Mosque near ground Zero

[Syn7]

I would agree, but I'm an atheist, so, as you know, I'm busy invading Poland.

Who hasn't indoctrinated an ancient people into Confucian ethics? Let those among you without shame cast the first unwanted girl child!

ouch....!!!

[Syn7]

IMO, you're an idiot.

When I start inciting followers to murder innocent people, when I start beheading people solely because of their religion, when I start demending rape victims face the death penalty, then you can say that. Until then, you're an idiot. And an idiot that can't see true evil even when it's staring you right in the face.

certainly a christian wouldnt harm you for being different... never that... christianity is all about religious freedom... mmhhmmm

choose your words carefully when casting stones...

[sanjuro_ronin]

As a Christian it pains me to know the horrid things that have been done in God's name and there is no putting the "head in the sand" about it.
Christianity is an ideal that is hard to live up to because it demands so much of what we do NOT want to give: ourselves.
The failure of Christianity in the people that have done these things is not too much Christianity though, it is TOO LITTLE.

As for Islam, I am caught in the middle, I know so many good and decent muslims that I can't just be the horridness of some extermists, condem them.
Yet, there is a "evil" about Islam at times, much like there was about the hebrew YHWH and the horrible events of the crusades and inquisitions.
If we look with objective eyes we see that religion is what people make it to be and as such PEOPLE are the problem, not some book, not some deity, PEOPLE.
Lets put the prespective back on the ones that actually cause the problems.

[KC Elbows]

You can't divide a human work from people. As soon as it is deemed divine, it may seem to be about something other than people, but such works were written by people, interpreted by people, and lived in some form by people.

In other words, there is no stage at which religion should be approached as if it is provided by anything but people, whether one believes in that religion or not, yet, the culture of religion almost always will preclude this, just as the culture of politics creates conservatives who expand government and liberals who base decisions on a nonexistent bipartisan idea.

When we believe in things to the extent of trumping reality, we will have issues like agonizing over Iran while avoiding knowing anything about it pre 1980s, a total cognitive dissonance between reality and our beliefs. If we are unprepared and unwilling for reality to influence our beliefs, we cannot be responding to reality, whatever we believe in. All this does for our belief is make it relevaant culturally, but deny it real relevance historically.

In ways, the buddhists and taoists and such groups have an advantage. They have core texts, but those texts were written over many eras in different lands as they moved about, while largely staying closer together into a framework that held consistent despite the fact that Indians and Tibetans and Chinese and Koreans and Japanese and Indonesians wrote those words.

The Christian and Islamic faiths don't share this. There are thinkers past the Bible and Quran, but they are largely stuck explaining why the Bible and Quran are right and the naysayers are wrong, because truly original thought on the topic is not possible. The only source is God, the only reliable tongue is that of Jesus, the miracles are done, and so the message cannot shift. There is no serious attempt at Communion with the God of the Bible in order to relate timely messages about different eras, except as apostacy. What is a virtue of the characters of the Bible and Quran is often a sin for their followers in this sense, and so the message must be ancient and its application must require a constantly growing preistly class to explain what cannot be explained sufficiently.

Still, some claim communion, and so you get your Mormons with the magic underwear and Jehova's Witnesses with animals serving in the afterlife, but these are still christian groups with completely different views on what must be done to be Christian, in otherwords, to believe in Jesus and go to heaven.

Honestly, the branches of buddhism are not, on the whole, at odds over much more than which way is the most reliable or simple. The branches of Christianity are at odds over which way actually works. The branches of islam are at odds over which is the way at all.

To suggest that religion is always a problem requires a comparison, and, while buddhism has its issues, its history in this light is frankly much better than Christianity's. If the question is which religion lead more people over time to evil, Christians are not on strong ground in the whole comparison. That is assuming the question is on the nature of people's relation to a religion being problematic. Thus, the Buddhist has more moral ground to raise the assertion, the Christian and muslim, almost none at all. Christian tolerance came with near total victory: in short, when everyone agrees with your religious views, and this historically came at the end of a sword and at the end of assistance, how tolerant have you ever had to be?

[Reality_Check]

IMO, you're an idiot.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=931

But I'm not just gonna ride a one-way street with you and get called names. That's pointless.

Maybe you should recall what you've posted in the past re: insults. Hmm....?

[Syn7]

As a Christian it pains me to know the horrid things that have been done in God's name and there is no putting the "head in the sand" about it.
Christianity is an ideal that is hard to live up to because it demands so much of what we do NOT want to give: ourselves.
The failure of Christianity in the people that have done these things is not too much Christianity though, it is TOO LITTLE.

As for Islam, I am caught in the middle, I know so many good and decent muslims that I can't just be the horridness of some extermists, condem them.
Yet, there is a "evil" about Islam at times, much like there was about the hebrew YHWH and the horrible events of the crusades and inquisitions.
If we look with objective eyes we see that religion is what people make it to be and as such PEOPLE are the problem, not some book, not some deity, PEOPLE.
Lets put the prespective back on the ones that actually cause the problems.

you know, im willing to buy that to an extent... we can all agree, that if everyone followed the basic tenents of christianity, judaismor and islam, the world would be a better place... they preach good things... even if some of the smaller details are ignorant or seriously outdated...

and thats where it starts to get murky, with the interpretations of these old passages... and the times have to change, yet the books dont want to change... thats a problem too... but for me, i judge on actions, not words... and the leaders in all these groups are nefarious at best... even if its not intentional... thats irrelevant...

now if you are a good christian, keep your nose to yourself, dont stir any pots and dont try and push it on others, simply live happy and lead by example, you have a friend in me... if you use your faith to justify any sort of negativity, we have beef... period... im not perfect, but then neither is my faith... i find it offensive when people say their faith is perfect... or better.,.. to say something like that is to not understand what faith is... it shouldnt be confused with desire... unfortunately it most often is mistaken, in just that manner...

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can't divide a human work from people. As soon as it is deemed divine, it may seem to be about something other than people, but such works were written by people, interpreted by people, and lived in some form by people.

In other words, there is no stage at which religion should be approached as if it is provided by anything but people, whether one believes in that religion or not, yet, the culture of religion almost always will preclude this, just as the culture of politics creates conservatives who expand government and liberals who base decisions on a nonexistent bipartisan idea.

When we believe in things to the extent of trumping reality, we will have issues like agonizing over Iran while avoiding knowing anything about it pre 1980s, a total cognitive dissonance between reality and our beliefs. If we are unprepared and unwilling for reality to influence our beliefs, we cannot be responding to reality, whatever we believe in. All this does for our belief is make it relevaant culturally, but deny it real relevance historically.

In ways, the buddhists and taoists and such groups have an advantage. They have core texts, but those texts were written over many eras in different lands as they moved about, while largely staying closer together into a framework that held consistent despite the fact that Indians and Tibetans and Chinese and Koreans and Japanese and Indonesians wrote those words.

The Christian and Islamic faiths don't share this. There are thinkers past the Bible and Quran, but they are largely stuck explaining why the Bible and Quran are right and the naysayers are wrong, because truly original thought on the topic is not possible. The only source is God, the only reliable tongue is that of Jesus, the miracles are done, and so the message cannot shift. There is no serious attempt at Communion with the God of the Bible in order to relate timely messages about different eras, except as apostacy. What is a virtue of the characters of the Bible and Quran is often a sin for their followers in this sense, and so the message must be ancient and its application must require a constantly growing preistly class to explain what cannot be explained sufficiently.

Still, some claim communion, and so you get your Mormons with the magic underwear and Jehova's Witnesses with animals serving in the afterlife, but these are still christian groups with completely different views on what must be done to be Christian, in otherwords, to believe in Jesus and go to heaven.

Honestly, the branches of buddhism are not, on the whole, at odds over much more than which way is the most reliable or simple. The branches of Christianity are at odds over which way actually works. The branches of islam are at odds over which is the way at all.

To suggest that religion is always a problem requires a comparison, and, while buddhism has its issues, its history in this light is frankly much better than Christianity's. If the question is which religion lead more people over time to evil, Christians are not on strong ground in the whole comparison. That is assuming the question is on the nature of people's relation to a religion being problematic. Thus, the Buddhist has more moral ground to raise the assertion, the Christian and muslim, almost none at all. Christian tolerance came with near total victory: in short, when everyone agrees with your religious views, and this historically came at the end of a sword and at the end of assistance, how tolerant have you ever had to be?

I won't argue your points because they are, at core, correct.
However, I do ask that you don't paint all of us that are devote with the same brush.
I have spent more years than I care to admit studying "The Word", not because I had to but because I choose to, not because I belong to a denomination but because I wanted to confirm MY beliefs for MYSELF.
Apostacy is a word created by MEN fearful of not losing or having to justify their Faith but having to justify their explotation of others through religion.
The bible teach us, tell us to question all we are taught, including scripture.
The bible is full of passages that warn us against taking scripture over God, The bible mentions, like in Jeremiah, the abuse of the scribes in writing things and saying it was "god's words", Jesus himself lays into the scribes and teachers of his day.
And rightfully so.
As christian it is our duty to follow the teachings of Christ and His Commandments, things like Matthew Chapter 25 and Christ's commandment to Love each other, John's description of God and Jesus as love and his telltale sign of what it means to be a follower of Christ - To have love.
The writings and teachings we hold dead MUST be inline with love for each other and for all, if they are not then they must be found to NOT be "of God".
As christians we must also realise that just as Jesus forced NO ONE to his faith, we can't and do NOT have the right to do that either.
We must love, forgive, accept and be tolerant of all.

It is quite interesting that in modern times the greatest "Christian" we had was Ghandi.

[Syn7]

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=931



Maybe you should recall what you've posted in the past re: insults. Hmm....?

well in his defence i did call him out on his faith, that p i s s e s christians off pretty hard... it probably came across as offensive to him as i find his comments to me... just mine were generalizations he took personally... infact i think i even switched from saying "them" to saying "YOU" half way thru that whole mess... anyways, its not something i worried about... its a religion that preaches an eye for an eye, like islam, and i expect that sort of thing... and take it into consideration before i even engage... i know i wont get anywhere... this is more for me and anyone else who will benefit... i dont expect him to say "oh youre so right, i was so wrong... im sorry for being a douchebag" yaknow

[sanjuro_ronin]

Christianity does not preach an "eye for an eye" dude.
We are of the 'turn the other cheek" crowd.




Though a spinning elbow does come out of that turn sometimes

[KC Elbows]

I won't argue your points because they are, at core, correct.
However, I do ask that you don't paint all of us that are devote with the same brush.

I do not think all Christians are one thing. I've known Christians who were good in the epic sense.

But, I also can't name a single Christian thinker in history worth mentioning who championed for understanding towards atheists based on more than "we should be kind of their ignorance." Including the otherwise epic ones I've known. It has been a huge blind spot in their moral code.

Until there is parity, there is not real common ground, there is only the ground the one who holds all the ground allows, and that is not the same as parity, and so, ground must be taken.

It is not that I attack your faith, you specifically have impressive faith(even if all your scantily clad lady pics on facebook get me in dutch with my wife), but simply, some arguments from Christianity cannot get a free ride from me with good conscience, and the abdication of all responsibility to people then ultimately justifies many things, and, where it is caused by the books themselves, absolves many people, when I don't think it does or can.

As christians we must also realise that just as Jesus forced NO ONE to his faith, we can't and do NOT have the right to do that either.
We must love, forgive, accept and be tolerant of all.

These are good points, and relevant.

If I argue with some feistiness, it is because I do not think you are made of glass, and neither am I.

[BJJ-Blue]

I even provided one of many exact search criterion would give you all you needed. You're a forty year old man, not a baby, you can do your own searches in order to take an honest role in conversations you've already chosen to take part in.

I actually did some research, since asking you to prove your assertions was obviously an exercise in futility. What I found was interesting.

"Several African states, Cameroon and Togo for example, have reestablished witchcraft-accusations in courts. A person can be imprisoned or fined for the account of a witch-doctor."

"In March 2009 Amnesty International reported that up to 1,000 people in the Gambia had been abducted by government-sponsored "witch doctors" on charges of witchcraft, and taken to detention centers where they were forced to drink poisonous concoctions. On May 21, 2009, The New York Times reported that the alleged witch-hunting campaign had been sparked by the Gambia's President Yahya Jammeh."

"In Sierra Leone, the witch-hunt is an occasion for a sermon by the kɛmamɔi (native Mende witch-finder) on social ethics : "Witchcraft ... takes hold in people’s lives when people are less than fully open-hearted. All wickedness is ultimately because people hate each other or are jealous or suspicious or afraid. These emotions and motivations cause people to act antisocially". The response by the populace to the kɛmamɔi is that "they valued his work and would learn the lessons he came to teach them, about social responsibility and cooperation."

So it looks like the Governments and the local populaces of these African countries are the ones conducting these witch hunts, not Christians as you claimed.

I was being facetious. You're choosing to be a jerk. It's okay, I recognize that this is an online posture that you indulge in, this self riightousness, while you'd never do so at work, in your neighborhood, in public, etc. It's an unimportant little extravagance you allow yourself, calling people idiots when they aren't there in front of you.

I'm like this in public too. As you don't know me personally, maybe you should ask how I conduct myself in public rather that posting on an internet forum telling me how I act in public.

FYI, I'm the nicest guy in public when I'm around nice, polite people. When I'm around *******s in public, I'm usually quite vocal about it.

Witchcraft sources:
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/researc...gotorec=451284
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/...nt-campaign-20
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/wo...r=1&ref=africa
STUDIA INSTITUTI ANTHROPOS, Vol. 41 = Anthony J. Gittins : Mende Religion. Steyler Verlag, Nettetal, 1987. p. 197 & p. 201

[BJJ-Blue]

well in his defence i did call him out on his faith, that p i s s e s christians off pretty hard... it probably came across as offensive to him as i find his comments to me...

If you are referring to me, that doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is hearing idiots say that my religious beliefs are worse than the religious beliefs of animals who think murdering innocents will bring you an afterlife filled with virgins, and that rape victims need to be stoned to death, and that Jews should be beheaded on TV.

Sanjuro is right, my religion teaches "turn the other cheek". It doesn't teach 'plant a bomb in a crowded mall and go to heaven'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I do not think all Christians are one thing. I've known Christians who were good in the epic sense.

But, I also can't name a single Christian thinker in history worth mentioning who championed for understanding towards atheists based on more than "we should be kind of their ignorance." Including the otherwise epic ones I've known. It has been a huge blind spot in their moral code.

Until there is parity, there is not real common ground, there is only the ground the one who holds all the ground allows, and that is not the same as parity, and so, ground must be taken.

It is not that I attack your faith, you specifically have impressive faith(even if all your scantily clad lady pics on facebook get me in dutch with my wife), but simply, some arguments from Christianity cannot get a free ride from me with good conscience, and the abdication of all responsibility to people then ultimately justifies many things, and, where it is caused by the books themselves, absolves many people, when I don't think it does or can.



These are good points, and relevant.

If I argue with some fiestiness, it is because I do not think you are made of glass, and neither am I.

No argument should get a free ride and questioning religion is a time honoured pass time and indeed should be.
Augustine of Hippo was defending Genesis 1600 years ago in a way that, in some points, mirrors what science now postulates about the "beginning" of the Universe.
The thing with Christianity is that it is not a house of saints, but a hospital for sick people and we have A LOT of them.
I apreciate your kind words about my faith and apologise ( not) about getting you in trouble with your wife ( ).
As christians we must relaise one of two things:
1) the bible was written by man, inspired men yes, but men nevertheless.
2) the bible itself mentions attempts to "speak for God" so we must be cautious in what we take as literal and what we take as God's word.

From that we need to realize that even if we believe the bible to be innerrant and even if it IS, bible interpretation is NOT.

As for moral code, all christians would do well to remember Our Lord's example.

[KC Elbows]

I actually did some research, since asking you to prove your assertions was obviously an exercise in futility.

First, it was not my assertion, I was merely commenting on it.

Second, it's roots as a tradition in Africa have Christian influence, as one of your sources states.

I'm like this in public too. As you don't know me personally, maybe you should ask how I conduct myself in public rather that posting on an internet forum telling me how I act in public.

Maybe when I'm respectful and you don't agree, you can respectfully disagree like an adult, instead of treating everyone else like they're all idiots while not really providing the same level of proof you constantly whine about, and then whining about the response THAT gets you, yathink?

Don't bother, done arguing with our token birther.