Ah, the USA needs this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
saywhatkid said:
Quite.

I can understand the issues involved with all the different doctrines, but when religious bashing is allowed, it puts me at an uneasy place.
Click to expand...
The history isn't allways nice with personal faith, and that also goes for belifs among non-religious people. Else, I agree with you that this rule against religous discussions on AD is unfair against religious people.
 
flip said:
The history isn't allways nice with personal faith, and that also goes for belifs among non-religious people. Else, I agree with you that this rule against religous discussions on AD is unfair against religious people.
Click to expand...

I was here when there was no rule. The problem lies in the different religious doctrines all posting under one roof. Muslims and Christians and Jewish and Buddhists and Hindu and all the others, all hollering that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Add the fact that spiritual faith carries a great deal of emotion. Put all of these things into a test tube and shake. BOOM!

My concerns begin when someone comes along and posts mocking comments about religious people. Those religious people are not allowed to defend their beliefs. If it were possible, I would love to see a religious discussion area here. Not holding my breath though.
 
darkdog said:
You say melting pot/multicultural as if they're the same thing. They're not- they're opposite concepts. It's an understatement to say that Europe has had issues with tolerance, and certainly at times, religion has played a key role in that, but what about now? The continent's more secular than it has ever been in the past and certainly more so than Christian America, so why the continued trouble with tolerance?
Click to expand...
While melting pot and multicultural perhaps are opposites, they can co-exist, like black and white. Sometimes the US reminds more of a salad bowl, ie a mix of melting pot and multiculturalism, hence the "melting pot/multicultural".

If you look behind the european secularism, there still is a lot of religion and culture in play that have evolved for more than a thousands of years. Secularism is describing how the church have gotten a less prominent role in the public, but often fail to detect spirituality and new forms of religions that perhaps can replace the loss of religion in public. Talking about the intolerant culture of europe, feudalism and terrorital wars perhaps have played a role, but, as I said, IF any religion have wrecked europe, it's christianity, not Islam.
Anything is possible in the future, but if widespread imposition of sharia is low on the list of things I should worry about, then a devolution back to inquisition-style Christianity is way further down that list.


I doubt Christianity really fueled the slave trade. Yes, slave-holders and Southern preachers tried to find justification in the Bible for slavery, but would they have still involved themselves in slavery if they weren't Christian? I think probably so. On the other hand, would the abolition movement have had the success it had were it not for Christianity? I think probably not.


I already listed out the two distortions about Islam I've heard and they are relatively rare. Most people bend over backwards to be accepting and tolerant. Considering we had just suffered the worst attack on our soil in our history in the name of Islam, we have been remarkably restrained in our treatment of Muslims. Retaliatory attacks against Muslims have happened, but they have been rare and we have not been hesitant to punish such crimes.
Click to expand...
I can understand the american reaction to 9/11. That was truly an horrible happening and you have all my condolences. One of the damages assaults like this can do, is to trigger irrational thoughts. It's like someone gets robbed, and develops a fear of strangers. Vague and unclear use of the term "extremists" reminds of this.
However, many have talked about the actions and desires of extreme Muslims. It's actually quite difficult to exaggerate on the horrors of extreme Islam because the truth is so horrifying. I mean, we're talking about people who will riot and murder over a cartoon or a book.
Click to expand...
Funny how some of those insulting cartoons were published in egpyptian newspapers, without anyone rioting. Those stories have much more in them than you are expressing here.
You're talking about the foreign policy doctrine of realism- that it's better to support a dictator who at least keeps things stable than to have him overthrown and replaced by thugs who destabilize the region and threatens other countries including our own. Case in point- Iran. What's preferable? Having the shah or the ayatollahs? Such foreign policy doctrines are debatable, but they have nothing to do with settling religious scores (at least on our end). Besides, more secular Europe doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to supporting dictators.
Click to expand...
This is what dictators want you to think, that they are the best one to run the country after all, and they all point at Iran to scare you.

Europe is corrupt as hell, yeah. We buy food with guns from african dictators, with the help of a dozen of mafias, and get asylum refugees in return, who we exploit, and then accuse of extremism when they find a purpose with their meaningless life in a local mosque. Europe is great, isn't it?
 
saywhatkid said:
I was here when there was no rule. The problem lies in the different religious doctrines all posting under one roof. Muslims and Christians and Jewish and Buddhists and Hindu and all the others, all hollering that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Add the fact that spiritual faith carries a great deal of emotion. Put all of these things into a test tube and shake. BOOM!

My concerns begin when someone comes along and posts mocking comments about religious people. Those religious people are not allowed to defend their beliefs. If it were possible, I would love to see a religious discussion area here. Not holding my breath though.
Click to expand...
Agree totally.

It's a lot of religious discussions on other forums, and people don't die from them, or the BOOMs. Not holding my breath either, but hope the moderators opens up the section.
 
jillio said:
If they can be "reborn" why can't they "re-cease to exist"? Reborn implies that they did not exist prior to conversion. If they can change their philosophy to include Christian doctrine, they can also change it to exclude religious doctrine at any future date.
Click to expand...

The term "Reborn" refers to a spiritual birth. There are various doctrines that Baptize infants. Problem is, they need to give consent to this. A 3 month old baby cannot consent to anything. That is why people call the awakening of the spiritual side the word "Reborn", because it is done during the adult years.

I think it is hard to change one's mindset after being Reborn. I cannot imagine how someone would do it. Once you have begun to walk in the light, you cannot "unlearn" the Word. I mean, people can forget snippets of things, but not entire philosophies that they have adhered to as a lifestyle. Certainly there are exceptions to this, but it is difficult to imagine, from my perspective, how someone would be Reborn, then "unborn".
 
saywhatkid said:
The term "Reborn" refers to a spiritual birth. There are various doctrines that Baptize infants. Problem is, they need to give consent to this. A 3 month old baby cannot consent to anything. That is why people call the awakening of the spiritual side the word "Reborn", because it is done during the adult years.

I think it is hard to change one's mindset after being Reborn. I cannot imagine how someone would do it. Once you have begun to walk in the light, you cannot "unlearn" the Word. I mean, people can forget snippets of things, but not entire philosophies that they have adhered to as a lifestyle. Certainly there are exceptions to this, but it is difficult to imagine, from my perspective, how someone would be Reborn, then "unborn".
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't believe it is possible to be "unborn" Being Reborn is a spiritual birth as you said....but it is a spiritual relationship that is born. Although one may stray or develop doubt that relationship never ends.
 
TXgolfer said:
I agree, I don't believe it is possible to be "unborn" Being Reborn is a spiritual birth as you said....but it is a spiritual relationship that is born. Although one may stray or develop doubt that relationship never ends.
Click to expand...

I was involved in a debate over infant Baptism, and it became quite heated. One side feels that they need to have this done ASAP, as both a family social event and to "protect" the infant; and the other side says that the baby cannot consent, nor does the baby understand, what the Baptism is for. It was a good read.
 
saywhatkid said:
I was involved in a debate over infant Baptism, and it became quite heated. One side feels that they need to have this done ASAP, as both a family social event and to "protect" the infant; and the other side says that the baby cannot consent, nor does the baby understand, what the Baptism is for. It was a good read.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see how that would get heated. Would be an interesting read though.
 
saywhatkid said:
I was involved in a debate over infant Baptism, and it became quite heated. One side feels that they need to have this done ASAP, as both a family social event and to "protect" the infant; and the other side says that the baby cannot consent, nor does the baby understand, what the Baptism is for. It was a good read.
Click to expand...

People always get all worked up over if they are superstitious. It's sad, really.
 
saywhatkid said:
I was involved in a debate over infant Baptism, and it became quite heated. One side feels that they need to have this done ASAP, as both a family social event and to "protect" the infant; and the other side says that the baby cannot consent, nor does the baby understand, what the Baptism is for. It was a good read.
Click to expand...
Wow, they still haven't sorted this out? Interesting. Christians fighted over this 1800 years ago, too. It's belived that the first infants were baptisted because when the man in the family became christian, everyone in the house followed him, the infants, too.
 
jillio said:
True. But which is more beneficial and truly tolerant and accepting? The watering down of all cultures, or preserving the uniqueness of each individual culture. Melting pot is really the most ethnocentric of all....everyone must be the same.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it. The USA doesn't want its culture watered down by other cultures, just as other countries don't want their cultures watered down by others. That's what makes each country unique.
 
Reba said:
That's exactly it. The USA doesn't want its culture watered down by other cultures, just as other countries don't want their cultures watered down by others. That's what makes each country unique.
Click to expand...

How absurd.
 
jillio said:
If they can be "reborn" why can't they "re-cease to exist"? Reborn implies that they did not exist prior to conversion.
Click to expand...
To be reborn in the spirit of Christ is a permanent, eternal event. It can't be undone because as soon as a person is born again, he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can't be removed by anyone.

If they can change their philosophy to include Christian doctrine, they can also change it to exclude religious doctrine at any future date.
Click to expand...
They who? A person who is a born again Christian has a personal relationship with Christ, not a philosophy. Christ doesn't change.
 
Reba said:
What's absurd? That countries want to maintain their national identities and cultures?
Click to expand...

The notion that America is limited to a specific culture.
 
flip said:
I am not "meaning" anything here. If you want to know what "abandoning" means, and how the church in Rome decided who's a heretic and a true beliver, and their view on those who are weak versus those who are strong in their faith, among things, I recommend you to read about the early church, from 70 AD to 400 AD. Sorry I can't give you a better reply, because I am not allowed to make replies on your personal interpretations of the history and faith, as it's not allowed here on AD.
Click to expand...
There are some people who follow a church that is in Rome but I'm talking about born-again Christians world wide. For us, decisions that were or are made in Rome are of no consequence to our faith in Christ.

I did bring this up because sharia/muslims(radical, extreme or something) was mentioned as something dangerous in this thread.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a law that promotes stoning to death adulterers would be acceptable in American jurisprudence? Is a law that blames the victims of rape rather than the rapist acceptable? Should people be killed for blasphemy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top