Originally posted by FMFi propose to do nothing. if enough people are convinced through reason, they will bury their own faiths and those left over will slowly fade into obscurity.
How do you propose to "bury" them? What insight into the human condition is it that you have that makes you believe that people around the world will willingly put their religious beliefs into a "mass grave"?
of course, it could go the other way. i'm content in watching from the sidelines and see if humans will choose enlightenment or barbarity.
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritenlightenment??? haha, always palming us off that your stance is reasonable. When
i propose to do nothing. if enough people are convinced through reason, they will bury their own faiths and those left over will slowly fade into obscurity.
of course, it could go the other way. i'm content in watching from the sidelines and see if humans will choose enlightenment or barbarity.
one considers the evidence of the new morality one sees that it makes the meanest
medieval monk look morally astute. Greed and corruption on an unprecedented
scale in the financial sector, depletion of and mismanagement of the earth's natural
resources, mainly due to the use of scientific technologies by greedy exploiters,
unprecedented killing power with many scientists involved in weapons programs,
family breakdown with divorce rates at fifty percent of all marriages in the
enlightened West, 115,000 innocents killed everyday due to abortions in the
name of social convenience, I openly mock your assertion of enlightenment, clearly
you are in a moral morass for you have failed to perceive that the problems we are
facing are spiritual, greed, corruption, exploitation, all moral issues and no amount
of pretence or references to reason can change that.
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo you are serious about setting off a few nuclear bombs in the U.S.A. and Italy
You are cracking jokes on a thread about a 16 year old rape victim committing suicide? What was the funny thing behind your "joke"? What does Indonesia have to do with the OP?
in an attempt to "Ban Christianity Now".
The joke had to do with how one might ban the evil Satanic religion of Islam.
You ask, "What does Indonesia have to do with the OP?"
Indonesia is majority Muslim, who practice the religion of Islam.
In the 2010 Indonesian census, 87.18% of Indonesians identified themselves
as Muslim (including Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis) only about 10% are Christian.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what's the joke about Indonesia?
You ask, "What does Indonesia have to do with the OP?"
Indonesia is majority Muslim, who practice the religion of Islam.
In the 2010 Indonesian census, 87.18% of Indonesians identified themselves
as Muslim (including Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis) only about 10% are Christian.
Originally posted by FMFDon't you live there? I guess it was a bad and inappropriate joke after all.
So what's the joke about Indonesia?
I am sorry you did not see any humor, there. I am truly not in favor of setting
off any bombs there. I hope the leaders of Iran are not serious about setting
off any bombs in Israel either. But they make it very hard to see otherwise.
Perhaps it is all a big joke on the whole world. Who knows?
Originally posted by FMFNo, I was not angry. But I might have gotten annoyed by constant questioning,
Had I made you angry or something? Was that the basis of your "joke"? Which post of mine on this thread up to that point had made you angry?
which I saw no need. So when you came back with your last question, I became
somewhat facetious with my reply.
Originally posted by RJHindsI asked you which countries you wanted to drop nuclear bombs on. This "annoyed" you? Your response to the OP seemed to be to propose some sort of genocidal nuclear war against people of a certain religion and you thought there was "no need" for anyone to ask you about which actual countries you had in mind? What is the matter with you?
No, I was not angry. But I might have gotten annoyed by constant questioning,
which I saw no need. So when you came back with your last question, I became
somewhat facetious with my reply.
Originally posted by FMFThe annoyance flowed over from the same type of questions you are capable of
I asked you which countries you wanted to drop nuclear bombs on. This "annoyed" you? Your response to the OP seemed to be to propose some sort of genocidal nuclear war against people of a certain religion and you thought there was "no need" for anyone to ask you about which actual countries you had in mind? What is the matter with you?
from other threads. I try to answer post that I should have ignored so it is my
fault.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo we have ruled out Indonesia - it was a "joke" - you only mentioned it out of personal animosity and annoyance. So tell us which countries do you propose nuclear bombs be dropped on?
The annoyance flowed over from the same type of questions you are capable of
from other threads. I try to answer post that I should have ignored so it is my
fault.
Originally posted by FMFOn page 1 you asked, "What would 'banning' a worldwide religion entail?"
So we have ruled out Indonesia - it was a "joke" - you only mentioned it out of personal animosity and annoyance. So tell us which countries do you propose nuclear bombs be dropped on?
I responded somewhat facetiously with the following post:
"War. Perhaps a few nuclear bombs going off in the right place might help."
I do not want this to happen; but I think such a war may be predicted in the
Holy Bible. I hope I am wrong and we all learn to live in peace. But at this
time that seems highly unlikely.
Originally posted by RJHindsHow is this is this "funny"?
On page 1 you asked, "What would 'banning' a worldwide religion entail?"
I responded somewhat facetiously with the following post:
"War. Perhaps a few nuclear bombs going off in the right place might help."
Is it intended as a "joke" for Christians to appreciate?