• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP PHOTOS: Mob in Pakistan torches Christian homes

Wow that would be rediculous. Muslims sytematically and often kill gays and anyone caught acting remotely un-masculine. recently in the middle east, a ban on skinny jeans was followed up by thousands of executions of teenage boys caught wearing them. meanwhile in America, most Christians feel that a gay's sins are between the gay and God, and the rare murder of a gay for being gay in America, is all over the news when it happens because it's extremely rare. Every time the news talks for months about the murder of a gay for being gay, thousands of people are shot in disagreements over traffic accidents without ever making it past the local news in that city. Why? It's not news because it's something that happens often enough to be a fact of life. "hate crimes against gays" in America's news, are usually "hate crimes of picketing" i.e., people daring to exercise their first Amendment rights by putting their unpopular views (unpopular to Christianity as well as to society in general) on signs in public, or a wedding photographer or a cake designer daring to exercise the Fundamental Right of Capitalism, of reserving the right to refuse service to someone, (and their first amendment right of that refusal being,) based on their religious views.
 
Grant said:
That's quite a violent approach in itself. What religion are you?
Click to expand...

I never said that I would make religion perish, just that I wish it would. I'm tired of people being killed in the name of religion. I don't need a holy book to stop me from harming my fellow man. I manage to recognize the importance of life and cherish it without having to be threatened with eternal punishment.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I never said that I would make them perish, just that I wish they would. I'm tired of people being killed in the name of religion. I don't need a holy book to stop me from harming my fellow man. I manage to recognize the importance of life and cherish it without having to be threatened with eternal punishment.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of how many people who have been killed by those who had no religion?
 
Grant said:
Are you aware of how many people who have been killed by those who had no religion?
Click to expand...

And that justifies the killing of people based on religion? I'm not here to play the "whose religion is better game" because I don't have one, and I don't care. If you want to be a christian, that's great, and you totally should do that. Just keep your religious views out of politics, and stop acting like you're superior because other religions are violent. More people have been killed in the name of christianity than any other religion.

Grant said:
Why do you continue guessing when it's been shown that you're just not very good at it?
Click to expand...

Taking what you (the radical christians) have been saying:
- islam is inherently violent

And using it in a talking point, is not guessing, it's quoting.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Supporting an organization that commits violence in your name, does not make you violent. If that were true, anyone who supports the US Army would be violent. A lot of middle eastern desert folk sadly believe that organizations like hezbollah are fighting on their behalf. You're trying to use different definitions for them vs christians.
Click to expand...

If we were discussing people supporting an organization you would have a point. But what we are discussing is people individually supporting the execution of people for simply changing their religion

RabidAlpaca said:
The middle east is socially about 200-300 years behind us. Just over 200 years ago western society evolved past the point of letting the christians run around and murder people. At which point the christian church turned into the baby hugging organization it is today. Eventually the middle eastern society will evolve to that point as well. Claiming however that their religion is inherently more violent because we stopped letting you ****s kill people 200 years ago while they haven't gotten around to it yet is rather ridiculous.
Click to expand...

1) so there is a particular issue with violence in modern islam?

2) You seem to be promoting the idea that there is some inevitable transformation here, ignoring the fact that it took people acting from within and outside of Christianity, to moderate it

3) again, Islam's origins are tied into a religious leader who was as much war hero and statesman, as he was a prophet. There are even religiously codified systems within Islam on how to declare and conduct war, navel campaigns, rules and limitations of citizenship, etc

Obviously Christianity did get involved with politics later on (and more than it's share of violence), but such was not central to it's origins or the actions of it's founder. So yes, one s definitely more inherently violent than the other, but that does not mean tat all muslims are violent. They are free to reject such notions as many do everyday.

The problem is, many more do not
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I guess we should just agree with you guys and call islam a violent religion propagated by the devil. Christianity is a religion of peace. How do I sign up for the jesus club, pastor? You convinced me.
Click to expand...

why not just stick to arguing with what people actually say, as opposed to building up some lampoonish strawman?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Grant said:
It doesn't excuse the fact, it just contributes to the fact that all of the abrahmahic religions are violent and should perish.
Click to expand...

translation: since my knee-jerk defense of some violent primitives failed, I am going back to equivocating between three very diverse groups, with as much lack of interest in detail and fact as before
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
If we were discussing people supporting an organization you would have a point. But what we are discussing is people individually supporting the execution of people for simply changing their religion
Click to expand...

So what do we make of the 1,000 years where christians did the very same thing?

You can only come to one of two conclusions:
- Christianity evolved to stop killing people
- Society evolved to stop letting christianity kill people


Dr. Chuckles said:
1) so there is a particular issue with violence in modern islam?

2) You seem to be promoting the idea that there is some inevitable transformation here, ignoring the fact that it took people acting from within and outside of Christianity, to moderate it

3) again, Islam's origins are tied into a religious leader who was as much war hero and statesman, as he was a prophet. There are even religiously codified systems within Islam on how to declare and conduct war, navel campaigns, rules and limitations of citizenship, etc

Obviously Christianity did get involved with politics later on (and more than it's share of violence), but such was not central to it's origins or the actions of it's founder. So yes, one s definitely more inherently violent than the other, but that does not mean tat all muslims are violent. They are free to reject such notions as many do everyday.

The problem is, many more do not
Click to expand...
If you think christianity's roots weren't founded on an insane amount of violence, then I don't think you've read the bible.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Is that not what you were trying to prove? That islam is clearly violent and as such is the false religion?
Click to expand...

lol, wouldn't that moniker as a rationalist be better fitting if you tried to act "rationally"? Instead of attacking him and manufacturing strawmen, why not simply address what he says. If nothing else, at least this discussion would go somewhere beyond you and J being butthurt
 
Really, what church has Drones? Oh, you mean our rampantly atheist government.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And that justifies the killing of people based on religion?
Click to expand...

Again you are guessing and again you come up short.
I'm not here to play the "whose religion is better game" because I don't have one, and I don't care
Click to expand...
.

Then don't participate in any such discussion. It's all optional.
If you want to be a christian, that's great, and you totally should do that.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I don't need your permission.

Just keep your religious views out of politics
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't all views be a part of politics? We can't deny people their legitimate points of view just because you may disagree with them. Aren't Muslims inserting their religion into politics? Should Christians not have that same right?

and stop acting like you're superior because other religions are violent.
Click to expand...

But...but...I am superior!

More people have been killed in the name of christianity than any other religion.
Click to expand...

That really doesn't matter, even if it were true. Muslims are murdering Christians now and burning down there homes, and they have been doing that for a number of years. Let's debate the issues that are actually making news today.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So what do we make of the 1,000 years where christians did the very same thing?
Click to expand...

Christians being violent primitives? But again, I, and I am pretty sure no one else, has put forward the idea that Christianity had no violence in it's past. In fact, I have asserted the exact opposite many times in this very thread, and even in exchanges with you.

So I am a little lost on what you are trying to establish

RabidAlpaca said:
You can only come to one of two conclusions:
- Christianity evolved to stop killing people
- Society evolved to stop letting christianity kill people
Click to expand...

A bit of a false false dilemma here, being that the moderation and secularization of the western world was accomplished both within and without the church



RabidAlpaca said:
If you think christianity's roots weren't founded on an insane amount of violence, then I don't think you've read the bible.
Click to expand...

If you mean the old testament, that's more a Jewish thing (which was moderated by the fact that they have spent the last few thousand years living as a permanent minority). Christ, as far as I am aware, led a pretty non-violent existence
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And that justifies the killing of people based on religion? I'm not here to play the "whose religion is better game" because I don't have one, and I don't care. If you want to be a christian, that's great, and you totally should do that. Just keep your religious views out of politics, and stop acting like you're superior because other religions are violent. More people have been killed in the name of christianity than any other religion.
Click to expand...

as a secular citizen of the world, I am actually all for peaceful religious people acting superior over the violent ones. Not sure why anyone wouldn't be
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And that justifies the killing of people based on religion?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we be asking you that? After all, you adopted a defensive position on a thread about muslims randomly attacking people
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Is that not what you were trying to prove? That islam is clearly violent and as such is the false religion?
Click to expand...

That might have been me, though I don't agree it's a false religion, just a very violent one that lacks education, human rights, and dignity. Perhaps they may have their own "Reformation" one day but I can't see that happening in our lifetimes.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Lol, I'm not ashamed of it, nor do I wish to retract it.....I even explained in detail how to go about finding it. :lol:



This response is a failure because you apparently do not understand sarcasm and the humor in the statement just blew past you.


I've already said that I'm not bothered in the least by what I said.....only by your direct misrepresentation of it.

When have I denied what I posted? :thinking:


If there were such a thing.....you'd truly be deserving of the "Teflon Poster of the Year" award. :lol:
Click to expand...

if you say so me and other posters disagree and simply go by the words your wrote.
Nothing was misinterpreted, maybe YOU misstated by we are simply reading your words LOL
again failed insults gets you no where, :shrug: your op is still a failure.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, I fully understand it isn't an argument. But the fact that you are offering it as a rebuttal on a debate site suggests you actually don't



Ahh, more "nu-uh"
Click to expand...


thats what i thought, NOTHING, our points and dost still stands :shrug: lol

also you are wrong again it wasnt a rebuttal it was simply pointing out the failure and facts.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Uhh, I have done so repeatedly


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-33.html#post1061556930

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-33.html#post1061556995

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-33.html#post1061557000

Your response has been to continuously go "nu-uh"
Click to expand...

there is NOTHING in your links where you point out facts that i denied LMAO
WOW, this is easy, maybe you think im not actually reading what you write LMAO
 
Objective-J said:
if you say so me and other posters disagree and simply go by the words your wrote.
Nothing was misinterpreted, maybe YOU misstated by we are simply reading your words LOL
again failed insults gets you no where, :shrug: your op is still a failure.
Click to expand...

A "failure" that has gone on for forty pages and 400 posts in just two days. Evidently it supurred some emotion and therefore, discussion.....even if 50% of it was you repeating your same unsubstantiated denials of truth. :shrug:

"Obvious failure" = not so obvious.
 
Grant said:
How would you have specifically and actually worded it?
Click to expand...

I have no way to word it because i would never make the false claim, what dont you understand?

if i wanted to talk about the article i would have simply posted a link to the article, posted i think its a shame and asked people what they think.

I would never make the nonsensical false statement the OP made so i have no way of rewording it because rewording a illogical statement doesnt change it from being illogical.
 
Objective-J said:
I have no way to word it because i would never make the false claim, what dont you understand?

if i wanted to talk about the article i would have simply posted a link to the article, posted i think its a shame and asked people what they think.

I would never make the nonsensical false statement the OP made so i have no way of rewording it because rewording a illogical statement doesnt change it from being illogical.
Click to expand...

More gobbledygook.
 
FluffyNinja said:
A "failure" that has gone on for forty pages and 400 posts in just two days. Evidently it supurred some emotion and therefore, discussion.....even if 50% of it was you repeating your same unsubstantiated denials of truth. :shrug:

"Obvious failure" = not so obvious.
Click to expand...

so you think many pages is success? LMAO

I could make a post that says something similarly as stupid as your post like all black people are criminals, if it lasted 1000 pages that doesnt make it a success LMAO
 
Objective-J said:
there is NOTHING in your links where you point out facts that i denied LMAO
WOW, this is easy, maybe you think im not actually reading what you write LMAO
Click to expand...

The first link addresses you claiming that your argument never changed by documenting how your argument actually changed

first link http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-33.html#post1061557000

you wrote
Objective-J said:
my argument as factually never changed LOL
Click to expand...

I responded by pointing out this was false and linked to a series of posts showing that your argument did indeed change

see

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115

I know "nu-uh"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom