Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Evangelic idiots
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEvangelic idiots

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Badabec View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Evangelic idiots
    Posted: November 21 2005 at 08:39
Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!


I agree 100%!

It's not just terrorism that is a danger for the world, it's either the oil-companies.

It's discusting hearing Mr Bush junior talking about christian-aspirated love and seeing him doing a war for an invented reason!



Edited by Badabec
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 11 2005 at 18:17
Originally posted by Easy Livin Easy Livin wrote:

Just to be clear.

It goes without saying that Tony R. is participating in this thread in a personal capacity.

I'll be keeping an eye on it and "moderating" it if and when required (it's been fine so farWink) to allow him to continue to make his points without feeling he has to hold back. He and all the moderators are subject to the rules like everyone else though.

I don't tend to get too involved in the DNRTM threads, especially the political/religious ones. If I did though, Tony or Bryan would do the same for me. 

(Just seemed like a good time to say that, no specific reasonEmbarrassed).

Always good to know that the moderaters are being moderated.

Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 11 2005 at 15:20

Just to be clear.

It goes without saying that Tony R. is participating in this thread in a personal capacity.

I'll be keeping an eye on it and "moderating" it if and when required (it's been fine so farWink) to allow him to continue to make his points without feeling he has to hold back. He and all the moderators are subject to the rules like everyone else though.

I don't tend to get too involved in the DNRTM threads, especially the political/religious ones. If I did though, Tony or Bryan would do the same for me. 

(Just seemed like a good time to say that, no specific reasonEmbarrassed).

Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20300
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 11 2005 at 09:24

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I thought the forum was being a bit boring lately!!!!!

Nothing like a few political/religious threads to spark up the livelyness!!!!!!!!!!

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 16:29
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The boundaries should be clear:

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.

 

The example of Ireland is a little different because half the population of the province wants to be governed from London. The IRA are terrorists NOT freedom fighters, by my definition, because they dont represent the will of the entire population. Indeed, they are not even representative of the entire Catholic population. Although, in principle I support the idea of an united Ireland...

Just my opinions..

Well your observation about N.Ireland is faulty at best.Prior to the creation of N.Ireland, 3/4 of Ireland's population wanted nothing to do with the UK whatsoever.This is what I mean about time (history) blurring reality.

Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 16:18
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The boundaries should be clear:

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist, but thats down to an individuals perception of the situation. What should ultimately count is what is written in stone; what international law decrees. As far as I'm aware the UN is trying to come up with a 'definition' of a terrorist, and the problem here is exactly what we are discussing. It's a difficult definition to arrive at, especially if one uses the criteria of 'targetting' civillians. That would make us terrorists, for operations in Iraq which we now know struck many civillian targets, for the bombing of Dresden in WWII, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All civillian targets, and all incurring greater civillian loss than any act of terror ever known. I understand the thinking behind the attacks on Japan, but the aims of military opertions are a seperate discussion. Terrorists and 'freedom fighters' have aims which they believe to be equally valid..

The example of Ireland is a little different because half the population of the province wants to be governed from London. The IRA are terrorists NOT freedom fighters, by my definition, because they dont represent the will of the entire population. Indeed, they are not even representative of the entire Catholic population. Although, in principle I support the idea of an united Ireland...

Terror and freedom fighting can not be selective, depending on whether the likes of us and America approve of it, or gain from it. If a clear and fair definition could be achieved the world would be a better place, but my cynicism leads me to think this wont happen because it doesn't fit in with our agenda.

Just my opinions..

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 12:04
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The boundaries should be clear:

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.



Edited by Tony R
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 10:45
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by yargh yargh wrote:

Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!

It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.    

Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

The boundaries should be clear:

A dictator is someone who has put themselves in power, and has not been elected by their people. Is this always a bad thing? Thats another issue. The vast majority of his/her population may approve of him, but he is still technically a dictator. Do we take issue with him/her just because he hasn't signed up to our idea of democracy.

A freedom fighter, to my mind is someone who resists acts of violence or oppression against them, that break international law. Resisting illegal occupation of their land for example. Even if they, themselves break law in that resistance.

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
yargh View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 10:33
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by yargh yargh wrote:

Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!

It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.    

Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

People have tried to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists by killing them for hundreds of years.  Obviously, this method hasn't worked.  The best policy for the U.S. is to respond quickly and accurately to attacks on U.S. soil, but not to engage in the folly of trying to re-make the Middle-Eastern region in its image.  Meanwhile, make the invention/discovery of an alternate energy source a paramount goal.  If the global importance of the middle east is reduced to what it was before the discovery of oil, no more money flows into the region (these nations offer very little that anybody in the world wants, except for oil) and the nations will have to grow their own economies to prevent complete global irrelevance.  At this point, there perhaps will be populist stirrings for governments that embrace the principles of democracy, capitalism and human rights.  Only when enough people want these things, can they happen and last. 

 

Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 10:11
Originally posted by yargh yargh wrote:

Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!

It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.    

Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".



Edited by Tony R
Back to Top
yargh View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 10:04

Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!

It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.    

Back to Top
NutterAlert View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 07 2005
Location: In transition
Status: Offline
Points: 2808
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 06:11

By this we are all sustained: a belief in human nature
and in justice and parity...all we have is the faith to carry on.
        
Imperceptible the change as our votes become mere gestures
and our lords and masters determine to cast us
in the roles of serfs and slaves
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor claims that freedom is his cause
as he buffs up on his common touch as a get-out clause.
        
Unto nations nations speak in the language of the gutter;
trading primetime insults the imperial impulse
extends across the screen.
Truth's been beaten to its knees; the lies embed ad infinitum
till their repetition becomes a dictum
we're traitors to disbelieve.
With what impotence we grieve for the democratic process
as our glorious leaders conspire to feed us
the last dregs of imperious disdain
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor's got his hands up history's skirt
as he poses for posterity over the fresh-dug dirt.
Yes and every bloody emperor with his sickly rictus grin
talks his way out of nearly anything but the lie within
because every bloody emperor thinks his right to rule divine
so he'll go spinning and spinning and spinning into his own decline.
        
Imperceptible the change as one by one our voices falter
and the double standards of propaganda
still all our righteous rage.
        
By this we are all sustained: our belief in human nature.
But our faith diminishes - close to the finish,
we're only serfs and slaves
as the empire decays.

 

(P.H. Every Bloody Emperor)

Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005
Back to Top
erik neuteboom View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 06:04
Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 05:38

This guy from Kansas is ill. He needs help, not mocking.

The rational majority ignores religous psychosis and fundamenatlism at its peril.

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
GoldenSpiral View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2005 at 00:54
Well, yes America has its evangelical idiots, but one has only to look to the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster to know that there is hope. 

Have you been touched by His Noddly Appendage?

http://www.venganza.org/


http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon
Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2005 at 22:28

You see what I mean yargh ... "degenerate Asians", "stupid Americans' ...

IMO, that's not the way to start off a thread ... it's not about being sensitive, I just think a more polite attitude will benefit these (occasionally) intriguing discussions ...

"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
The Wizard View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7341
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2005 at 20:43
I do not have a problem with the theological aspect of Christianity. What I do have a problem is evangelist who take peoples life savings claiming they have the power to heal them, Catholic priest raping kids, and the overall corupption that people seem to have no problem with or are unaware of. This problem is traced all the way back to the U.K. puritans, something I will admit. There are so many problems with religon that the spiritual aspect dosn't even matter. I refuse to go a church that ask money for the church itself more than preaches intelligent messages and has a preacher with the best car in the lot.
Back to Top
An old fart View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 15 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 207
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2005 at 20:27
Hmmm,Yargh, as far as I understand it, in fact we agree. I am talking in an idealistic level in my previous post. If religious beliefs - if one has them - were kept humble (peaceful, self-critical, flexible) and private, there would be no need to "convert the unconverted" nor to use violence towards people who have different views.
"Make tea, not love"
Back to Top
yargh View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2005 at 19:27

Originally posted by An old fart An old fart wrote:

Letting alone how Christianity (or any religion) is and has been abused for an excuse of misuse of power, the problem in the original topic - the denying of evolution - is trying to prove that Bible is also a valid biologic and/or historic book. I would be fine with any religious views, even the ones that fundamentalists have, if religious thinking would not try to dominate other areas of life as well, such as politics (foreign and domestic, including legislation), history, biology. Religious feelings - or the lack of them - should be a humble, private thing and not something that is tried to be pushed down other people's throat.

But that's precisely the problem -- Christianity and Islam are both evangelical religions -- it's part of their purpose to convert the unconverted.  The fundamentalist wings of each religion will inevitably use this evangelical purpose to justify violence towards non-believers. This is why Christians and Islamists are almost always at involved as aggressors in the history of the world's holy wars.  The idea that religion should be private and humble is a post-industrial phenomenon for western nations; the religions themselves were not founded or perpetuated on such beliefs.  Christianity has, for the most part, adapted to this way of thinking in western Europe (to whatever extent Christianity still has a presence in western Europe   .  It has not proven so flexible in the US.  I attribute this partially to the very large size of the US and the ease with which like-minded people have been able to sequester themselves into little corners of the country and live without much ethnic or religous or idealistic diversity.  Europe is too crowded to allow for this.     

Back to Top
An old fart View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 15 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 207
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2005 at 19:17
Letting alone how Christianity (or any religion) is and has been abused for an excuse of misuse of power, the problem in the original topic - the denying of evolution - is trying to prove that Bible is also a valid biologic and/or historic book. I would be fine with any religious views, even the ones that fundamentalists have, if religious thinking would not try to dominate other areas of life as well, such as politics (foreign and domestic, including legislation), history, biology. Religious feelings - or the lack of them - should be a humble, private thing and not something that is tried to be pushed down other people's throat.
"Make tea, not love"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.195 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.