100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A question of tolerance... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion
people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think peoples beliefs are their personal business, and that beliefs dont need to be tolerated unless they turn into behavior then I think certain actual behaviors exhibited by an individual may or may not be wise to tolerate,,,, Problem is, if the entire reason you aren't tolerating something is based on religion......then you are stepping into their personal business in effect which you really have no place doing. But again what if the core tenants of a faith are to lie, kill, harm, and do mean things to those NOT of your faith? Christians are annoying but they don't have a holy war on everyone else. Can you tolerate a faith out to either force you to their way or kill you? Im not aware of such a universal faith most FAITHS Im aware of have books with many doctrines that can and have been interpreted many ways depending upon who reads them,,,, you then clearly have not read a Quaran then. Read up on conduct pertaining towards infidels. there is similar conduct in my bible the interpretation lies in whether one perceives it as an absolute instruction/commandment or a specific instruction to specific group for a specific circumstance,,, You are aware the bible is in two parts and that the New testimate was the new contract with God (so to speak, and Jesus never said to lie to people, hurt people, or kill people and Jesus NEVER EVER DECLARED HOLY WAR METAPHORICALLY OR OPENLY ON ANYONE! That is something a lot of people who bash Christianity do not get and Christians seem to not understand. There is no "New Testimate" commanding Islam to live in grace with their fellow man. At least in Jesus's two commandments he did ordain us to walk in grace among one another. That is not the case with Islam. The Quaran is pretty clear how to deal with infidels like me. How can people say the Holy War is Metaphorical when the commands are clearly written? that is not true.. the contexts in which verses are written is important, as most christians should realize out of context reference to verses are used against us all the time.... there are those who interpret the verses on violence as a free pass to aggress against non believers just like there are those who interpret Gods decisions as proof of a violent and vindictive God there are verses in isolation which refer to violence against infidels there are also verses which discourage violence against NON AGGRESSORS (believers or not)... Strangely you do illustrate a very valid argument towards the concepts of god as we think we know him (her, it... whatever!) Almost all Christians see god as a loving yet wrathful god. Islam sees god as pissed off and angry with anyone not towing his line but in a far deeper sense than Christianity's angry god. Jews do not see god as good or evil. They were chosen and they do as god says because they know what happens if they piss god off. To Jews god just is. He is good and evil and can and does go both ways. (See what comes with a seriously deep education) People see god as they want to see him but the reality is no one knows and they blindly accept whatever someone else tells them. If god really was a loving god then that god would expect his children (US) to ask many questions! And if god had any honor we would get truthful answers. There are too many examples in all mythos though of the shortcomings of many gods including the one Christians worship. Even the bible discusses the displacement of Ball and more often than not almost ALL Christians have no idea who Baal really was. All they know is God displaced Baal in a very briefly mentioned fight for heaven. And god has two names in the bible, Jehova and Yahweh. Oddly there is contextual argument these are two different entities among some scholars! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. No you would do no harm preaching that. You can preach anything you wish to preach and bring no harm to another. You preaching is only sharing what YOU feel to be the divine truth. It would be the own person(s) choice to follow what you preach or not. That is where the damage could possibly be, in the people's ACTIONS. But you "preaching" brings absolutely no harm, again it is that own person's choice to follow or not, thus resulting in us being accountable for our own actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. That is absolutely not a fact. Violence entices more violence. Love entices more love. You can't fight fire with fire, only makes the fire larger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. That is absolutely not a fact. Violence entices more violence. Love entices more love. You can't fight fire with fire, only makes the fire larger. Really? WWII? We ended the war with japan unleashing a hellacious weapon of MASS destruction upon them to prevent an invasion! BUT WHO STARTED THAT AND HOW WAS IT FORCED TO END? Are we speaking German or Japanese right now? So let us Digress a little to Germany during 1937 when Hitler began his Blitzkrieg of Eastern Europe. The THEN League of Nations tried to appease Hitler as they had done with Kaiser Wilhelm during WWI and that led to two wars attempting Diplomacy. Granted this is a little condensed since many factors were at play but Diplomacy did not end violence. It took Violence to end violence. Grenada 1985 (? I might be wrong on the exact year) Cuba invades Grenada and we bitchhe slapped them back out. Want to talk about lashing out? Now to North Europe about I think it was 1000 AD. A contingent of Christian soldiers lays waste to a village of Norsemen in a holy war to exterminate Pagans from main land Europe. This in turn led to the Catholic Church getting attacked CONSTANTLY from vengeful Norsemen who actually forced England to sue for peace at a tremendous cost to themselves and left England with a bad taste in its mouth for the presence of Catholics. Now if you look at this from the Norse point of view and Historically THEY WERE ATTACKED FIRST AND THEY MADE WAR THAT LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO NEGOTIATE PEACE. That took a lot of wind out of the sails of the Catholic Church's current reign of blood. It wasn't until the end of the 1200s when the reign of the Norseman on the high seas really came to an end. Please don't try to throw over simplified rhetoric at me! History bears me out! PEACE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET INTO A FIGHT IF PROVOKED ENOUGH. So how many bullies have you managed to talk out of beating on you? The only way I ended bullies reigns of terror on myself was to take them out MYSELF! Diplomacy fails too readily unless you can show you can and will beat the ever loving crap out of the opposition unless they come to the table like a smart monkey! A principle of life for Spartans was to show respect to visitors and to hear them out. They KNEW they were physically better than everyone else at the time and far better trained and equipped. If a visitor was foolish enough to talk smack they were forced to back their words. But historically if you were polite to a Spartan they were polite back even though they knew how to kill a man in several hundred ways with just their bare hands. Sparta did not fall to Greece by war. Politics took them out, well, they really were absorbed. Which brings up another act of violence to end violence. Somewhere around 600 BC King Xerces of Persia was invading southern Europe and managed to take most of South East Europe. A hand full of Greeks led by King Leonidis of Sparta held off a much superior invasion force of Persians long enough to allow the Greek fleet to attack Xerces support fleet causing his army to starve out. this followed a push by the rest of the Greek forces to chase the Persian Army from Greece. The famous battle led by Leonidis was the Battle of Thermopylae. It was known as the fight for Democracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. That is absolutely not a fact. Violence entices more violence. Love entices more love. You can't fight fire with fire, only makes the fire larger. Really? WWII? We ended the war with japan unleashing a hellacious weapon of MASS destruction upon them to prevent an invasion! BUT WHO STARTED THAT AND HOW WAS IT FORCED TO END? Are we speaking German or Japanese right now? So let us Digress a little to Germany during 1937 when Hitler began his Blitzkrieg of Eastern Europe. The THEN League of Nations tried to appease Hitler as they had done with Kaiser Wilhelm during WWI and that led to two wars attempting Diplomacy. Granted this is a little condensed since many factors were at play but Diplomacy did not end violence. It took Violence to end violence. Grenada 1985 (? I might be wrong on the exact year) Cuba invades Grenada and we bitchhe slapped them back out. Want to talk about lashing out? Now to North Europe about I think it was 1000 AD. A contingent of Christian soldiers lays waste to a village of Norsemen in a holy war to exterminate Pagans from main land Europe. This in turn led to the Catholic Church getting attacked CONSTANTLY from vengeful Norsemen who actually forced England to sue for peace at a tremendous cost to themselves and left England with a bad taste in its mouth for the presence of Catholics. Now if you look at this from the Norse point of view and Historically THEY WERE ATTACKED FIRST AND THEY MADE WAR THAT LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO NEGOTIATE PEACE. That took a lot of wind out of the sails of the Catholic Church's current reign of blood. It wasn't until the end of the 1200s when the reign of the Norseman on the high seas really came to an end. Please don't try to throw over simplified rhetoric at me! History bears me out! PEACE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET INTO A FIGHT IF PROVOKED ENOUGH. So how many bullies have you managed to talk out of beating on you? The only way I ended bullies reigns of terror on myself was to take them out MYSELF! Diplomacy fails too readily unless you can show you can and will beat the ever loving crap out of the opposition unless they come to the table like a smart monkey! A principle of life for Spartans was to show respect to visitors and to hear them out. They KNEW they were physically better than everyone else at the time and far better trained and equipped. If a visitor was foolish enough to talk smack they were forced to back their words. But historically if you were polite to a Spartan they were polite back even though they knew how to kill a man in several hundred ways with just their bare hands. Sparta did not fall to Greece by war. Politics took them out, well, they really were absorbed. Which brings up another act of violence to end violence. Somewhere around 600 BC King Xerces of Persia was invading southern Europe and managed to take most of South East Europe. A hand full of Greeks led by King Leonidis of Sparta held off a much superior invasion force of Persians long enough to allow the Greek fleet to attack Xerces support fleet causing his army to starve out. this followed a push by the rest of the Greek forces to chase the Persian Army from Greece. The famous battle led by Leonidis was the Battle of Thermopylae. It was known as the fight for Democracy. PEACE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET INTO A FIGHT IF PROVOKED ENOUGH. Incorrect. War only leads to devistation. Nothing at all comes of war. War is nothing superior. Love is superior to all. And destroying someone else is not loving them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. That is absolutely not a fact. Violence entices more violence. Love entices more love. You can't fight fire with fire, only makes the fire larger. Really? WWII? We ended the war with japan unleashing a hellacious weapon of MASS destruction upon them to prevent an invasion! BUT WHO STARTED THAT AND HOW WAS IT FORCED TO END? Are we speaking German or Japanese right now? So let us Digress a little to Germany during 1937 when Hitler began his Blitzkrieg of Eastern Europe. The THEN League of Nations tried to appease Hitler as they had done with Kaiser Wilhelm during WWI and that led to two wars attempting Diplomacy. Granted this is a little condensed since many factors were at play but Diplomacy did not end violence. It took Violence to end violence. Grenada 1985 (? I might be wrong on the exact year) Cuba invades Grenada and we bitchhe slapped them back out. Want to talk about lashing out? Now to North Europe about I think it was 1000 AD. A contingent of Christian soldiers lays waste to a village of Norsemen in a holy war to exterminate Pagans from main land Europe. This in turn led to the Catholic Church getting attacked CONSTANTLY from vengeful Norsemen who actually forced England to sue for peace at a tremendous cost to themselves and left England with a bad taste in its mouth for the presence of Catholics. Now if you look at this from the Norse point of view and Historically THEY WERE ATTACKED FIRST AND THEY MADE WAR THAT LASTED LONG ENOUGH FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO NEGOTIATE PEACE. That took a lot of wind out of the sails of the Catholic Church's current reign of blood. It wasn't until the end of the 1200s when the reign of the Norseman on the high seas really came to an end. Please don't try to throw over simplified rhetoric at me! History bears me out! PEACE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET INTO A FIGHT IF PROVOKED ENOUGH. So how many bullies have you managed to talk out of beating on you? The only way I ended bullies reigns of terror on myself was to take them out MYSELF! Diplomacy fails too readily unless you can show you can and will beat the ever loving crap out of the opposition unless they come to the table like a smart monkey! A principle of life for Spartans was to show respect to visitors and to hear them out. They KNEW they were physically better than everyone else at the time and far better trained and equipped. If a visitor was foolish enough to talk smack they were forced to back their words. But historically if you were polite to a Spartan they were polite back even though they knew how to kill a man in several hundred ways with just their bare hands. Sparta did not fall to Greece by war. Politics took them out, well, they really were absorbed. Which brings up another act of violence to end violence. Somewhere around 600 BC King Xerces of Persia was invading southern Europe and managed to take most of South East Europe. A hand full of Greeks led by King Leonidis of Sparta held off a much superior invasion force of Persians long enough to allow the Greek fleet to attack Xerces support fleet causing his army to starve out. this followed a push by the rest of the Greek forces to chase the Persian Army from Greece. The famous battle led by Leonidis was the Battle of Thermopylae. It was known as the fight for Democracy. PEACE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET INTO A FIGHT IF PROVOKED ENOUGH. Incorrect. War only leads to devistation. Nothing at all comes of war. War is nothing superior. Love is superior to all. And destroying someone else is not loving them. That is a little short sighted. In the Hindu beliefs destruction paves the way for creation. This also is a principle of the Yin and Yang where the good within the evil of an act of destruction is it allows room for new growth. many cultures view death and destruction not as evil but relative to the cycle of renewal. Like others I have debated before in these matters you seem to myopically approach everything from a Christian point of view exclusively. Is it impossible for Christians to see that good and evil are relative top one another? Good intentions can be twisted into evil acts. Another fact you overlook is humans being animals are prone to acts of instinct and violence to survive. I am pretty sure if I tossed you into a pit with a knife and let a vicious wolf loose in the pit you would fight to defend yourself. The threat of violence is sometimes not enough to deter bad people from doing bad things. And look at what good came of WWII. Mankind did grow and rebuild. But we still have yet to learn real love and compassion that transcends any book or faith practice. And likewise we must embrace the fact that the devil is not some fallen angel. Look in the mirror. THAT is the real devil. He is within us all and it is our duty to find balance with that knowledge. I will do bad things to defend myself. I will destroy to protect my own if necessary. I have a philosophy, I come in peace but I am prepared to make war. I will listen and try to understand but if what I hear is a threat I will take that as such. And also, Respect is Given where respect is granted. I can discuss and disagree with Christianity all day long with a Christian like yourself and we can agree to disagree and still be friends and not be out to kill each other over our pretext of god. But I have asked a lot of Islamics about their faith and asked them questions that had them answer "don't you dare question Islam like that." Like one question I have for them is why is it justifiable to lie to an infidel like myself when all I seek is the truth? Why is it acceptable to harm an infidel like myself if I have done no harm to Islam even though I refuse to be one with Islam? The Quaran commands to kill and destroy. Forget the Taliban destroying 3000 year old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Can you not see they preach destruction? or is it just me? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 04/29/12 04:01 PM
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? but oddly, most people if commanded to jump off a cliff wont do it its the persons CHOICE of ACTION that is tolerable of intolerable are these rhetorical questions? IF not, can you be more specific about what 'sides' you are referring to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? but oddly, most people if commanded to jump off a cliff wont do it its the persons CHOICE of ACTION that is tolerable of intolerable are these rhetorical questions? IF not, can you be more specific about what 'sides' you are referring to? Again you are side stepping the issue. Tolerance for intolerant religious values and faith practices! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? but oddly, most people if commanded to jump off a cliff wont do it its the persons CHOICE of ACTION that is tolerable of intolerable are these rhetorical questions? IF not, can you be more specific about what 'sides' you are referring to? Again you are side stepping the issue. Tolerance for intolerant religious values and faith practices! such as?,,,,what makes them specifically 'religious' values or practices? does it matter if it stems from religion or personal observation and choice if its the same value or practice? |
|
|
|
|
