You didn't answer me. Do you think all religions are equally violent or not?

I might let them know that they were misguided

but I wouldn't want to destroy them.

I don't think you would.

And you aren't.

Where did this 'destroy them' enter the conversation?

It is true that many call themselves christians without believing in the entire bible etc. But christianity without the bible isn't christianity, it is religion-pulled-out-of-my-own-ass.

How can those people point to the 'word of god' when they don't believe in it themselves? Yet they stand shoulder to shoulder with the true bible bashers screaming 'XXXX is wrong because the bible says so'. (that part really annoys me )

So what is wrong with telling those kind of 'christians' that they have no foundation and their belief, compared to the historical christianity, is wrong?

I don't think you would.


why not?


And you aren't.


aren't what?


Where did this 'destroy them' enter the conversation?


I just assumed that you wanted religion gone from this world, as vuzman does.

on lector argument...

You keep acting like there is no difference between who wrote a story about hannibal lecter and who wrote the bible. There is no way to interpret silence of the lambs in a way to dispute that hannibal lecter killed people. With the bible, there is all sorts of possibilities to pick and choose. The bible is simply a collection of old texts and you can claim to believe in any or all parts of it as you please because nobody can ever prove you wrong by interviewing the author, God to clear up the misunderstandings. Not so with hannibal lecter and whoever wrote that story.


It is true that many call themselves christians without believing in the entire bible etc. But christianity without the bible isn't christianity, it is religion-pulled-out-of-my-own-ass.


If we're talking definitions here, then the definition of christianity is certainly not a litteral interpretation of the bible. All the multitude of different branches withing christanity itself all stem from different bible interpretations. You might call it religion-pulled-out-of-my-own-ass, but if we're going to argue about it, then the normal definition of christianity clearly encapsulates more than a fundamental, litteral interpretation.


How can those people point to the 'word of god' when they don't believe in it themselves? Yet they stand shoulder to shoulder with the true bible bashers screaming 'XXXX is wrong because the bible says so'. (that part really annoys me )


Because THEIR interpretation of the bible is the right one. Just like THEIR God is the only God. They know which parts of the bible are to be taken litterally and which parts are to be disregarded as historical artifacts etc. How do they know this? because they believe in God and His Spirit guides them in interpretating the bible.

The only way to question this argument is to question wether God really guides them at all. You can question if god exists but you cannot question how God wants you to read the bible, because we can't just phone him up and ask him like the creator of hannibal lecter.



So what is wrong with telling those kind of 'christians' that they have no foundation and their belief, compared to the historical christianity, is wrong?


The only thing wrong with it is that it's simply not true. They are firmly founded and their beliefs not anymore wrong than that of any other religion. They are interpreting the bible the way they believe it is supposed to be interpreted according to their particular brand of faith. That's the foundation and it is not in any way different from the foundation of every other type of christianity save the one type that doesn't allow for any interpretation at all, i.e. Christian fundamentalism.

I think its' the military uniforms! ban them! military clothes have never done anything good for anyone which is clearly demonstrated by this video. Same goes for kindergardens. They are the breeding ground for terrorists! ban them!

And yeah, the native americans didn't even have booze before the yanks took their lands. Clearly they're better off now!

My point is the same as always and i'm tired of making it.


"islamic extremism is to islam as **** is to christianity"

Solution?

Religion will naturally be at the root of conflicts because a given religion encompasses all the beliefs an individual holds dear. His morality is rooted in his religion. If that morality were to be rooted in something else, like humanism, these people would be just as prone to conflict if someone attacked their morals. It just so happens, that today the majority of the world has their morals rooted in some religion or another, which is why you see it as a cause of conflict. The real cause of this type of conflict will always be deeply held beliefs that run counter to oneanother.

I might let them know that they were misguided, but I wouldn't want to destroy them.

You keep acting like there is no difference between who wrote a story about hannibal lecter and who wrote the bible. There is no way to interpret silence of the lambs in a way to dispute that hannibal lecter killed people. With the bible, there is all sorts of possibilities to pick and choose. The bible is simply a collection of old texts and you can claim to believe in any or all parts of it as you please because nobody can ever prove you wrong by interviewing the author, God to clear up the misunderstandings. Not so with hannibal lecter and whoever wrote that story.

If we're talking definitions here, then the definition of christianity is certainly not a litteral interpretation of the bible.

All the multitude of different branches withing christanity itself all stem from different bible interpretations.

You might call it religion-pulled-out-of-my-own-ass, but if we're going to argue about it, then the normal definition of christianity clearly encapsulates more than a fundamental, litteral interpretation.

They know which parts of the bible are to be taken litterally and which parts are to be disregarded as historical artifacts etc. How do they know this? because they believe in God and His Spirit guides them in interpretating the bible.

The only way to question this argument is to question wether God really guides them at all. You can question if god exists but you cannot question how God wants you to read the bible, because we can't just phone him up and ask him like the creator of hannibal lecter.

They are firmly founded and their beliefs not anymore wrong than that of any other religion.

Do you even want me to answer? might be too unpleasant a read for you

I guess I am pretty serious about discussing topics like this and therefore answer all questions that are posed to me and argue my points conprehensively. I know some people don't care for such discussions and I respect that somewhat. I didn't count you among those people. And yeah, it is slightly annoying to find that out in the middle of a discussion after I took some time explaining my point of view, only to have it dismissed out of hand. Still, now I know not to take you seriously again.

If I had read it first my reply would be much shorter and less polite. I feel no need to debate you anymore, so whatever you post will get no response from me Griz.