Is

Originally posted by divegeester
The christianity you are refering to is in no way connected (albeit by name) to what myself and i dare say many christian posters on this sight believe. There is only one answer to the depravity and chaos that secularism and greed has brought this world to and it ain't Mr O!

I have no quibble with the brand of Christianity that accepts evolution and the wall of separation between church and state. Even if they doggedly persist in clinging to their shopworn mythology of the death and resurrection. In fact, I think such Christians and secularists should form a common front against the vile scourge of religious fundamentalism.

Originally posted by chappy1
Islamophobic country? Well yeah! What religion were all of those guys who hijacked planes on 9-11? Could someone please refresh my memory? Which religion's clerics and imams daily spew hatred and death to America? Which relgion's imams have nicknamed the U.S.A. the Great Satan?

What religion was the guy who bombed Oklahoma City? He was Roman Catholic. For a while after the bombing, everyone thought it was a Muslim or Arab bombing, until it turned out to be a white racist redneck. But do we judge all Roman Catholics on the actions of the few who attempt to destroy the different people?

Originally posted by rwingett
I most certainly did not blame Christianity for the Nazi holocaust. My point in that thread was that our esteemed robbie carrobie could be considered the moral equivalent of a Nazi because he would not disavow divinely inspired genocide. His religionus beliefs required him to defend genocide (actually, he went to extraordinary lengths to avoid condemning it ...[text shortened]... conditioned by his religious beliefs. The fact is that religious fundamentalism breeds martyrs.

I don't believe "genocide" is acceptable on any grounds by anyone. But neither do I accept that the incidents in the OT were genocide.

I do accept that religious extremeism, not fundamentalism, (although i know it just sounds like semantics - the fundamentals of a thing are not it's extremes) is responsible for some modern day crimes and the 9/11 atrocity.
However it was the secular USA and (probalby and atheist leader - not that it matters particularly, which is my case in point) who struck the only nuclear blow in anger killing more people in one/two hits than any extremeist. Would you say that was genocide? What was the alternative, and would the net result have been less or more loss of life? Does the relative loss of life denote the rightness or wrongness of an act?

Originally posted by rwingett
I have no quibble with the brand of Christianity that accepts evolution and the wall of separation between church and state. Even if they doggedly persist in clinging to their shopworn mythology of the death and resurrection. In fact, I think such Christians and secularists should form a common front against the vile scourge of religious fundamentalism.

I don't accept evolution - and please refrain from abusing me on this - i'm an inteligent person with a decent IQ and yet I still doubt evolution - deal with it, or prove it to me otherwise.

I do agree with the separation of church and state - totally.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't believe "genocide" is acceptable on any grounds by anyone. But neither do I accept that the incidents in the OT were genocide.

I do accept that religious extremeism, not fundamentalism, (although i know it just sounds like semantics - the fundamentals of a thing are not it's extremes) is responsible for some modern day crimes and the 9/11 atro ...[text shortened]... loss of life? Does the relative loss of life denote the rightness or wrongness of an act?

Drowning almost the entire population of the earth in a great flood does not count as genocide in your book? If that doesn't count then nothing does. It seems to me that you want to have a double standard here. If people you don't like do something, then it's genocide. But if your god does something similar (or worse) then it's not genocide.

Harry Truman was a Christian. A Baptist, to be exact. Not that his Christianity caused him to drop the atomic bombs.

Originally posted by rwingett
Drowning almost the entire population of the earth in a great flood does not count as genocide in your book? If that doesn't count then nothing does. It seems to me that you want to have a double standard here. If people you don't like do something, then it's genocide. But if your god does something similar (or worse) then it's not genocide.

Harry Truma ...[text shortened]... Baptist, to be exact. Not that his Christianity caused him to drop the atomic bombs.

oh rwingett dude, peace to you my friend, it was not the entire population, Noah and his family escaped, plus we can be sure that God did not simply arbitrarily destroy those lives, for in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah he pleads with Abraham that if there is some righteous individuals he will not destroy it

consider the following passage.

Then Abraham approached and began to say: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there are fifty righteous men in the midst of the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are inside it? It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?” Then Jehovah said: “If I shall find in Sodom fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.” But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. Suppose the fifty righteous should be lacking five. Will you for the five bring the whole city to ruin?” To this he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin if I find there forty-five.”

But yet again he spoke further to him and said: “Suppose forty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it on account of the forty.” But he continued: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose thirty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it if I find thirty there.” But he continued on: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah: Suppose twenty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the twenty.” Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.” Then Jehovah went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

what do we learn other than that he does not want to arbitrarily destroy anyone, for this is not his will, by bringing the flood he must have been left with no alternative, for the ancient record states that the entire earth was 'filled with violence'. this aspect of his majestic personality is also recorded in 2 peter chapter 3 verse 9 which states, 'Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance'.

Noah was a preacher of righteousness for over forty years, if those individual perished it was because they were beyond reform, no doubt in your eyes there is no justification for this, but God cannot tolerate violence and despoiling indefinitely!

Originally posted by rwingett
Drowning almost the entire population of the earth in a great flood does not count as genocide in your book? If that doesn't count then nothing does. It seems to me that you want to have a double standard here. If people you don't like do something, then it's genocide. But if your god does something similar (or worse) then it's not genocide.

Harry Truma ...[text shortened]... Baptist, to be exact. Not that his Christianity caused him to drop the atomic bombs.

I do see your point of course. Do you think Truman was right to drop the bombs? If so you are condoning genocide. If not please refer to my questions in my previous post??

Edit: noah was saved and anyone else who wanted to get on board the ark. they chose not to. another thread perhaps - please answer the above point if I can be directive. Thx.

Originally posted by divegeester
I do see your point of course. Do you think Truman was right to drop the bombs? If so you are condoning genocide. If not please refer to my questions in my previous post??

Edit: noah was saved and anyone else who wanted to get on board the ark. they chose not to. another thread perhaps - please answer the above point if I can be directive. Thx.

Genocide isn't just killing a lot of people. It's the planned extermination of a particular race. The Nazi Holocaust and god's great flood would count as genocide. Bombing a Japanese city would not. I think it should count as a "war crime", along with the bombing of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, London, or any other civilian target, but I don't think its genocide.

Before WWII, bombing civilian targets was considered a war crime. At the start of the war the RAF went to what we today would call absurd lengths to avoid causing unnecessary German civilian casualties. But as the war went on, both sides indiscriminately bombed civilian targets. After the war what constituted a war crime was redefined to mean 'whatever the Germans did that the Allies did not.'

Originally posted by rwingett
Pete Stark, Jr. of California has been serving in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1973. He is also the only openly atheist member of Congress. He has won re-election 16 times, with his percentage of votes never dropping below 60%. Obviously there are many Christians in California who are considerably less narrow minded than you are.

Ernie Chambe ...[text shortened]... n in that benighted state there are obviously many Christians who are less bigoted than you are.

And your point is...? 😏

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why not?

Because I believe our country should be a Christian nation with Christian leaders.

Originally posted by rwingett
. That wall of separation between church and state is the only thing that keeps Christianity from reverting back into the fanatical and murderous religion that it was in the dark ages. If Christianity appears to be a more civil religion, it's only because we keep it on a much shorter leash.[/b]

The murder and fanaticism never end, rather, only the banner under which they are done change.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think Amerca became more islamophobic at the event of WTC then before.
The WTC terrorist was also all men. Does that tell us that America is man-haters?

Would you say that people who feared that Bush was a Christian were "Christianphobic"? I heard accusation after accusation that the war in the Middle East was being fought because they thought God had told him to do it.

Originally posted by whodey
Would you say that people who feared that Bush was a Christian were "Christianphobic"? I heard accusation after accusation that the war in the Middle East was being fought because they thought God had told him to do it.

I think that islamophobia is an irrational mental state that can be cured with some cognitive psyco therapy.
Same goes for Christianophobia, Arachnophobia, and all other phobias. They are treatable.

The idea that people thinking Bush made wars of religious reasons should be called Christianophobic makes no sense to me. Many christian people has that idea too, as far as I know.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
And your point is...? 😏

If I haven't made it abundantly clear, my point is that you're a friggin' retard. Is that clear now?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Because I believe our country should be a Christian nation with Christian leaders.

Do you believe that they should also be members of your denomination? Or are you merely happy with anyone claiming to be Christian?