Adnan's emotions... A white paper [modified]
-
The second popular would probably be espeir Stand rigid for the next battle Peace means reloading your guns The love for life is all hatred in disguise - Dimmu Borgir
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
The second popular would probably be espeir
Yeah, those two - they make a good pair :-) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
Why is so much of the soapbox conversation so centered around Adnan?
Adnan's probably the most popular guy in the Soapbox. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)The second popular would probably be espeir Stand rigid for the next battle Peace means reloading your guns The love for life is all hatred in disguise - Dimmu Borgir
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
The second popular would probably be espeir
Yeah, those two - they make a good pair :-) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi
-
Nishant various dialogues in various forums(offcourse not CP's soapbox) are being taken places for many years and authorites from christianity islam and judaism are keep in touch and trying to understand each other's faith and also discovering similarties between all abrahamic faith so i have no worries that these 3 mentioned religions are not compatible.I cant say similar about Hinduism because its entirely different than religions based on abrahamic faith and I think hinduism and islam is not a universal issue as such conflicts only exist between India and Pakistan only so i would rather call it a political issue rather a religious one. People like stan,espeir and kagaddy will always be ready to increase gap between two faiths no matter whatever you do.the recent attempt by Jorgen is the perfect example+espeir and kagaddy personally asked my opinion about sucide bombing but as I knew that they were jusing being naughty and they proved in latest posts.Such minorities offcourse harmful for masses but good thing is that masses ignore them as well.There will be hardly 2/3 muslim members who will be active in Soapbox.I only find A.A other than me who posts here otherwise most of the time this group of thugs is damned by people of their own side and many of them would be follower of their book as well.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
A lot of people are now seemingly attacking Islamic terrorism
No this has been happening since ages,its just media is so powerful that you have access to everything very easily via net or tv.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
the recent attempt by Jorgen is the perfect example
I think you have totally misinterpreted me. I'm not seeking to increase gaps between any religions. What I would like to see though, is removing every religion from every authority which have power over individuals. Theocracy is just another form of fascism...
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
That's largely based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then to an outsider, it seems that religion is harmless so long as it's a open to all new ideas, tolerant of everything and everyone, adhering to the "all paths lead to the same mountain" kind of thinking. I hear that a lot: "your belief, Judah, is harmless so long as you're not hurting anyone". Look at it from the other perspective for a moment. If there is a God, then not everyone or everything should be tolerated, assuming good and evil exist. This sounds nasty and evil, but in practice it's logical and required. For one, we can all agree that killing another human for no reason at all is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. If some acts are evil, then not all paths lead to the same mountain. If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable. This is what I am concerned about most. Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please. Sounds good, right? I tried living that way for awhile. But where did it get me? Pornography, insatiable lusting, all lust no love, in the sex department. That's a dark, downward spiral for anybody. Doing whatever's right in your own eyes is flexible; you can have your own personal rules; for instance, be kind to others. But your own rules you're of course free to bend and break anytime you want without consequence. What I'm saying is this: without God (and I don't mean in a religious way, but in a personal relationship way), free living is hardly free; instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with. What I've found out through all this is that the real free living is found by living a Godly life, not by following the whims of your personal wants and desires. The real free life, ironically, is the servant life, living for God and living for other instead of yourself. Nish, I hope that is something you'll find out in your life. Now, you're right about all this painful bashing of other religions. You know what, I can't speak for everybody here, since we all come from different backgrounds. I know for those believing that Jesus is the Messiah, those folks saying all these nasty things about Islam, they're not following Jesus too closely. Jesus said that of all of our Scripture, of everything written in the Jewish Law, the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, a
Judah, Your a better person than I am. I hear what you say and I know in my heart you are right. Some questions?
Judah Himango wrote:
the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, and love other people.
What if the other people do not love you back, and worse, want to kill you?
Judah Himango wrote:
but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred;
I agree, and I pray for this. But when only one party is respectful, and the other ones want to kill you, what then? I hope someday that Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together and respect one another. But it seems a long way off. Only one group is doing 99% of the head chopping, and terrorism. What do we do until then? Good luck to your brother and I hope he stays safe. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi
espeir wrote:
espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi espeir Siddiqi
Repost! :-D Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
That's largely based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then to an outsider, it seems that religion is harmless so long as it's a open to all new ideas, tolerant of everything and everyone, adhering to the "all paths lead to the same mountain" kind of thinking. I hear that a lot: "your belief, Judah, is harmless so long as you're not hurting anyone". Look at it from the other perspective for a moment. If there is a God, then not everyone or everything should be tolerated, assuming good and evil exist. This sounds nasty and evil, but in practice it's logical and required. For one, we can all agree that killing another human for no reason at all is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. If some acts are evil, then not all paths lead to the same mountain. If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable. This is what I am concerned about most. Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please. Sounds good, right? I tried living that way for awhile. But where did it get me? Pornography, insatiable lusting, all lust no love, in the sex department. That's a dark, downward spiral for anybody. Doing whatever's right in your own eyes is flexible; you can have your own personal rules; for instance, be kind to others. But your own rules you're of course free to bend and break anytime you want without consequence. What I'm saying is this: without God (and I don't mean in a religious way, but in a personal relationship way), free living is hardly free; instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with. What I've found out through all this is that the real free living is found by living a Godly life, not by following the whims of your personal wants and desires. The real free life, ironically, is the servant life, living for God and living for other instead of yourself. Nish, I hope that is something you'll find out in your life. Now, you're right about all this painful bashing of other religions. You know what, I can't speak for everybody here, since we all come from different backgrounds. I know for those believing that Jesus is the Messiah, those folks saying all these nasty things about Islam, they're not following Jesus too closely. Jesus said that of all of our Scripture, of everything written in the Jewish Law, the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, a
Judah Himango wrote:
I don't buy the nonsense that everyone's way to God is alright
That's strange to me. So to you, the only way to God is the Jesus way - any other way won't get to God. To Adnan, it's through Mohammed's ways and no other. And to Hindus, through temples and Hindu prayers (though moderate Hindus believe that Christians and Muslims eventually pray to the same single-god-entity as Hindus do). Why cannot there be multiple paths to a god (or gods)? Why go by the "my belief is the only true belief" theory? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
That's largely based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then to an outsider, it seems that religion is harmless so long as it's a open to all new ideas, tolerant of everything and everyone, adhering to the "all paths lead to the same mountain" kind of thinking. I hear that a lot: "your belief, Judah, is harmless so long as you're not hurting anyone". Look at it from the other perspective for a moment. If there is a God, then not everyone or everything should be tolerated, assuming good and evil exist. This sounds nasty and evil, but in practice it's logical and required. For one, we can all agree that killing another human for no reason at all is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. If some acts are evil, then not all paths lead to the same mountain. If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable. This is what I am concerned about most. Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please. Sounds good, right? I tried living that way for awhile. But where did it get me? Pornography, insatiable lusting, all lust no love, in the sex department. That's a dark, downward spiral for anybody. Doing whatever's right in your own eyes is flexible; you can have your own personal rules; for instance, be kind to others. But your own rules you're of course free to bend and break anytime you want without consequence. What I'm saying is this: without God (and I don't mean in a religious way, but in a personal relationship way), free living is hardly free; instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with. What I've found out through all this is that the real free living is found by living a Godly life, not by following the whims of your personal wants and desires. The real free life, ironically, is the servant life, living for God and living for other instead of yourself. Nish, I hope that is something you'll find out in your life. Now, you're right about all this painful bashing of other religions. You know what, I can't speak for everybody here, since we all come from different backgrounds. I know for those believing that Jesus is the Messiah, those folks saying all these nasty things about Islam, they're not following Jesus too closely. Jesus said that of all of our Scripture, of everything written in the Jewish Law, the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, a
Judah Himango wrote:
instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with
It does not require faith in God to resist short term pleasure in favour of long term peace with yourself and for the good of those you love. There's a fair strain of acetism in both the pre christian philosophies of Stoicism and epicurism which influenced Christian theology, as well as in the writings of Atheist enlightenment philosophers like John Stewart Mill. Faith in the supernatural, and certainly faith in the specific models of the supernatural specified by monotheistic religion is not required to live a life free from the reckless indulgence of animal desire. It requires will and good counsel, if your faith aids you with that, so be it. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-- modified at 14:37 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
-
Judah Himango wrote:
I don't buy the nonsense that everyone's way to God is alright
That's strange to me. So to you, the only way to God is the Jesus way - any other way won't get to God. To Adnan, it's through Mohammed's ways and no other. And to Hindus, through temples and Hindu prayers (though moderate Hindus believe that Christians and Muslims eventually pray to the same single-god-entity as Hindus do). Why cannot there be multiple paths to a god (or gods)? Why go by the "my belief is the only true belief" theory? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)I think you don't understand. If you belive something, then that means that contrary beliefs, are to you, wrong. That is what belief means. But, that does not mean we cannot respect each other and allow each other to live our lives as we please.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Why cannot there be multiple paths to a god (or gods)? Why go by the "my belief is the only true belief" theory?
That is just another beief! And you are welcome to it. There are many beliefs, you have to pick one. And your belief, that everyone is right, is just another belief. In other words, you can belive the world is flat or round. You have to pick one. But this does not give the 2 groups the right to kill each other. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
That's largely based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then to an outsider, it seems that religion is harmless so long as it's a open to all new ideas, tolerant of everything and everyone, adhering to the "all paths lead to the same mountain" kind of thinking. I hear that a lot: "your belief, Judah, is harmless so long as you're not hurting anyone". Look at it from the other perspective for a moment. If there is a God, then not everyone or everything should be tolerated, assuming good and evil exist. This sounds nasty and evil, but in practice it's logical and required. For one, we can all agree that killing another human for no reason at all is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. If some acts are evil, then not all paths lead to the same mountain. If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable. This is what I am concerned about most. Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please. Sounds good, right? I tried living that way for awhile. But where did it get me? Pornography, insatiable lusting, all lust no love, in the sex department. That's a dark, downward spiral for anybody. Doing whatever's right in your own eyes is flexible; you can have your own personal rules; for instance, be kind to others. But your own rules you're of course free to bend and break anytime you want without consequence. What I'm saying is this: without God (and I don't mean in a religious way, but in a personal relationship way), free living is hardly free; instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with. What I've found out through all this is that the real free living is found by living a Godly life, not by following the whims of your personal wants and desires. The real free life, ironically, is the servant life, living for God and living for other instead of yourself. Nish, I hope that is something you'll find out in your life. Now, you're right about all this painful bashing of other religions. You know what, I can't speak for everybody here, since we all come from different backgrounds. I know for those believing that Jesus is the Messiah, those folks saying all these nasty things about Islam, they're not following Jesus too closely. Jesus said that of all of our Scripture, of everything written in the Jewish Law, the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, a
Judah Himango wrote:
but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred; we should leave leave those things to the lawless, godless folks.
I am a little shocked by this sentence. I am an atheist - and therefore god-less. I don't think I like being equated with being lawless :~ Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Judah Himango wrote:
instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with
It does not require faith in God to resist short term pleasure in favour of long term peace with yourself and for the good of those you love. There's a fair strain of acetism in both the pre christian philosophies of Stoicism and epicurism which influenced Christian theology, as well as in the writings of Atheist enlightenment philosophers like John Stewart Mill. Faith in the supernatural, and certainly faith in the specific models of the supernatural specified by monotheistic religion is not required to live a life free from the reckless indulgence of animal desire. It requires will and good counsel, if your faith aids you with that, so be it. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-- modified at 14:37 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Faith in the supernatural, and certainly faith in the specific models of the supernatural specified by monotheistic religion is not required to live a life free from the reckless indulgence of animal desire. It requires will and good counsel, if your faith aids you with that, so be it.
Exactly - very true! That's one area where I thoroughly disagree with Judah - he equates godless people with lawless people! That sort of attitude is only one magnitude away from those used by religious extremists against other religions! :sigh: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
I think you don't understand. If you belive something, then that means that contrary beliefs, are to you, wrong. That is what belief means. But, that does not mean we cannot respect each other and allow each other to live our lives as we please.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Why cannot there be multiple paths to a god (or gods)? Why go by the "my belief is the only true belief" theory?
That is just another beief! And you are welcome to it. There are many beliefs, you have to pick one. And your belief, that everyone is right, is just another belief. In other words, you can belive the world is flat or round. You have to pick one. But this does not give the 2 groups the right to kill each other. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
I think you don't understand. If you belive something, then that means that contrary beliefs, are to you, wrong. That is what belief means. But, that does not mean we cannot respect each other and allow each other to live our lives as we please.
I understand the core idea that leads to this - but I think it's not good for society as a whole. I am an atheist - so it doesn't really matter to me what religion someone believes in. But I don't want to be treated with suspicion by someone because he/she feels I am god-less. In a way, I think moderate Hinduism is the mildest of the religions in the world today - since there is no specific way to reach the single-god, moderate hindus are ok with the idea that christians, muslims pray to the same god that they pray to. That allows for social compatibility. The islamic and christian idea of reaching god is slightly more extreme - they aren't compatible with other religions. While this incompatibility is kept peaceful, it's okay - but there are always going to be a bunch of idiots (in all religions) who'd use this as an excuse to attack other religions - this eventually leads to acts of terrorism.
kgaddy wrote:
But this does not give the 2 groups the right to kill each other.
Agreed. Whether you are religious, or agnostic, or atheist, no one has the right to kill another. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
kgaddy wrote:
I think you don't understand. If you belive something, then that means that contrary beliefs, are to you, wrong. That is what belief means. But, that does not mean we cannot respect each other and allow each other to live our lives as we please.
I understand the core idea that leads to this - but I think it's not good for society as a whole. I am an atheist - so it doesn't really matter to me what religion someone believes in. But I don't want to be treated with suspicion by someone because he/she feels I am god-less. In a way, I think moderate Hinduism is the mildest of the religions in the world today - since there is no specific way to reach the single-god, moderate hindus are ok with the idea that christians, muslims pray to the same god that they pray to. That allows for social compatibility. The islamic and christian idea of reaching god is slightly more extreme - they aren't compatible with other religions. While this incompatibility is kept peaceful, it's okay - but there are always going to be a bunch of idiots (in all religions) who'd use this as an excuse to attack other religions - this eventually leads to acts of terrorism.
kgaddy wrote:
But this does not give the 2 groups the right to kill each other.
Agreed. Whether you are religious, or agnostic, or atheist, no one has the right to kill another. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
But I don't want to be treated with suspicion by someone because he/she feels I am god-less.
Sorry, but your own admission, you are Godless. You cannot make people view this the way you want. People are free to interpret this anyway they want. It's called free thought. But no one should try to harm your for your belief. They may not like you, but again, free thought.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
The islamic and christian idea of reaching god is slightly more extreme - they aren't compatible with other religions. While this incompatibility is kept peaceful, it's okay - but there are always going to be a bunch of idiots (in all religions) who'd use this as an excuse to attack other religions - this eventually leads to acts of terrorism.
Umm, where are Christians attacking other religions becasue there is incompatibility? I only know of one religion that does this. Christians get along with Hindus, Jews. We may not agree, but we are not killing each other. On the other hand Islam is currently fighting ALL religions, In all parts of the world. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
But I don't want to be treated with suspicion by someone because he/she feels I am god-less.
Sorry, but your own admission, you are Godless. You cannot make people view this the way you want. People are free to interpret this anyway they want. It's called free thought. But no one should try to harm your for your belief. They may not like you, but again, free thought.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
The islamic and christian idea of reaching god is slightly more extreme - they aren't compatible with other religions. While this incompatibility is kept peaceful, it's okay - but there are always going to be a bunch of idiots (in all religions) who'd use this as an excuse to attack other religions - this eventually leads to acts of terrorism.
Umm, where are Christians attacking other religions becasue there is incompatibility? I only know of one religion that does this. Christians get along with Hindus, Jews. We may not agree, but we are not killing each other. On the other hand Islam is currently fighting ALL religions, In all parts of the world. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Umm, where are Christians attacking other religions becasue there is incompatibility? I only know of one religion that does this. Christians get along with Hindus, Jews. We may not agree, but we are not killing each other. On the other hand Islam is currently fighting ALL religions, In all parts of the world.
Today - it's just Islamic extremists causing terrorism all over the world. Tomorrow, we don't know whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish extremists will follow suite in retaliation. It's bad enough that one religion is doing it. I'd hate to live in a world where every religion uses terrorism to propagate itself. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
the recent attempt by Jorgen is the perfect example
I think you have totally misinterpreted me. I'm not seeking to increase gaps between any religions. What I would like to see though, is removing every religion from every authority which have power over individuals. Theocracy is just another form of fascism...
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
think you have totally misinterpreted me.
He meant that the replies by espier and Stan to your post show they are seeking to increase the gap instead of decrease it. He did not mean that you asking the question was divisive, just some of the responses.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Umm, where are Christians attacking other religions becasue there is incompatibility? I only know of one religion that does this. Christians get along with Hindus, Jews. We may not agree, but we are not killing each other. On the other hand Islam is currently fighting ALL religions, In all parts of the world.
Today - it's just Islamic extremists causing terrorism all over the world. Tomorrow, we don't know whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish extremists will follow suite in retaliation. It's bad enough that one religion is doing it. I'd hate to live in a world where every religion uses terrorism to propagate itself. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Today - it's just Islamic extremists causing terrorism all over the world. Tomorrow, we don't know whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish extremists will follow suite in retaliation.
Or it could be the Atheists. Who knows, Stalin was a pretty nasty Atheist who killed more people than Hitler.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
It's bad enough that one religion is doing it. I'd hate to live in a world where every religion uses terrorism to propagate itself.
But that is not happening, so why are you worried about it? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Judah, Your a better person than I am. I hear what you say and I know in my heart you are right. Some questions?
Judah Himango wrote:
the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, and love other people.
What if the other people do not love you back, and worse, want to kill you?
Judah Himango wrote:
but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred;
I agree, and I pray for this. But when only one party is respectful, and the other ones want to kill you, what then? I hope someday that Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together and respect one another. But it seems a long way off. Only one group is doing 99% of the head chopping, and terrorism. What do we do until then? Good luck to your brother and I hope he stays safe. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Your a better person than I am.
Not at all man, I've done my share of bad things, and plenty of them. I'm not here to put myself on some airy spiritual pedestal. I do appreciate your kind comments though, it encourages me.
kgaddy wrote:
What if the other people do not love you back, and worse, want to kill you?
That's a good question. I've been studying Paul lately; he sure had his share of people that wanted to kill him. He was often on trial (with possible death sentence), he was usually in jail, and he sure had a whole lot of people hating him and conspiring against him, all due to the message about Messiah. One thing that struck me about him is that Paul, AFAIK, never said, "I hate those people" or wished death on them or anything. He was always willing to share the message with those people even if they hated them. He pointed out evil when he saw it, condemned evil when he saw it, but didn't condemn the people. At least, that's what I've taken from his writings. Jesus had a lot of people hating him too (especially religious folks!). He would come down hard on them ("Pharisees, you hypocrites!" etc.) but it is obvious even then he reached out to them to pull them back into the light. One thing different about Jesus, though, is that Jesus actually had the authority to condemn people, not just actions, whereas Paul had no such authority. So it's a little different with Jesus, I think, although he didn't condemn too many people to hell either! On the contrary, it's apparent he opted to forgive and welcome back with open arms, rather than condemn to hell. So, from those things, I'd say you still have to treat Muslims and other non-Christians just as good as another Christian. "Love your neighbor" didn't include any exceptions like "except when they're unbelieving bastards!" ;) It's easier said than done, and you don't want to make a fool of yourself. I had a Jewish girl reply to one of my blogs in a terrible, hateful way, due to my belief in Jesus. I wanted so badly to show her a thing or two, point out her own faults and problems with her ideas, but I held back and tried my best to respond with respect. If we're really serious about believing in God, we should treat other people like God's children, regardless of their own beliefs and backgrounds. It's very easy, from this perspective, to get into the wishy-washy "everyone's way to God is fine" kind of thinking, as well as t
-
Judah, Your a better person than I am. I hear what you say and I know in my heart you are right. Some questions?
Judah Himango wrote:
the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, and love other people.
What if the other people do not love you back, and worse, want to kill you?
Judah Himango wrote:
but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred;
I agree, and I pray for this. But when only one party is respectful, and the other ones want to kill you, what then? I hope someday that Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together and respect one another. But it seems a long way off. Only one group is doing 99% of the head chopping, and terrorism. What do we do until then? Good luck to your brother and I hope he stays safe. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
What if the other people do not love you back, and worse, want to kill you?
Jesus faced this dilemma. He provided guidance in the gospels.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Faith in the supernatural, and certainly faith in the specific models of the supernatural specified by monotheistic religion is not required to live a life free from the reckless indulgence of animal desire. It requires will and good counsel, if your faith aids you with that, so be it.
Exactly - very true! That's one area where I thoroughly disagree with Judah - he equates godless people with lawless people! That sort of attitude is only one magnitude away from those used by religious extremists against other religions! :sigh: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Seems to be quite a common attitude among ecumenical types, our Prince Charles is constantly taking the position that faith, any faith in the supernatural is preferable to being an evil rationalist / atheist. And that those who have faith in the preposterous somehow share a bond that unites them against the godless, even when their beliefs are mutually contradictory. Probably comes from living in a secular country that constantly rips the piss out of his many faith based ideas, like alternative medicine on the NHS and wanting to be "Defender of the Faiths".. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Today - it's just Islamic extremists causing terrorism all over the world. Tomorrow, we don't know whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish extremists will follow suite in retaliation.
Or it could be the Atheists. Who knows, Stalin was a pretty nasty Atheist who killed more people than Hitler.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
It's bad enough that one religion is doing it. I'd hate to live in a world where every religion uses terrorism to propagate itself.
But that is not happening, so why are you worried about it? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Or it could be the Atheists. Who knows, Stalin was a pretty nasty Atheist who killed more people than Hitler.
I don't think that any atheist who wishes to spread atheism is non-religious in nature. By doing that, he's pretty much implementing a religion of sorts (albeit one that's not based on a god). Also atheists shouldn't be equated with the communists of the former USSR era.
kgaddy wrote:
But that is not happening, so why are you worried about it?
I am not particularly worried about it. But I was trying to rationalize why there are Islamic terrorists and why many non-extremist Islamic followers are okay with it. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)