That's true, I didn't reply.

This thing lied to me, it said the last post was by Neg, which as there is no message between these two, was obviously wrong.

I don't think Muslim is a race, so it is technically not racism. If the question were, "Are you prejudiced against Muslims?" Then yes, yes I am. Much in the same way that I'm prejudiced against all other religious people. The entire concept of religion is foolish and moronic to me, so I generally chalk them all up as fools until they prove to me otherwise. Thus, as I have a predisposed conclusion about them, I am essentially prejudiced.

quoting Neglection:

Do you think that someday we may be barring our children from marrying a muslim?

I gotta say that I already see this happening over here. I know a lot of people that would rather see their kid marrying a swede (or white guy) than a muslim, even my own dad probably.

lol, you crack me up ArmOfAtlas

Yeah, about this whole issue of Christianity being a cult, I have to side with ArmOfAtlas here...

The problem is that the answer is relative to the person you are asking. To many people, and in fact according to the documented definitions of the word, Christianity does clearly fit the description(s):

quoting Websters Dictionary:

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Pretty much by any of those definitions Christianity could fit in quite well - and so could virtually every other religion (which was also said).

The line between "religion" and "cult" is a bit hazy, but I think we (as society) generally like to draw the distinctive line at what is socially acceptable and what is not. But in terms of applications, dogmatism and the operation of such a group, there is very little (if any) of a difference.

quoting Bart Simpson:

Church, cult, cult, church--so we get bored somewhere else every Sunday.

But like I've said... it's really kind of relative to who is being asked. I'd say it's a cult, in the same way that every other religion is a cult (and just read the definitions to see why). Obviously, those who are a part of a religion who are a bit iffy about others saying they are part of a cult would say otherwise.

It's all about the numbers. If your "cult" gets big enough, it becomes accepted as a "religion".

haha. breath in... breath out... lol. it wasn't an attack or even a topic specifically directed at you. I took the post as a general question, not your point of view.

I have no dissagreement about people being egocentric... almost all people. The egocentric americans bit it more of an observation given that "we have the worlds greatest military" and "we are the worlds police" and "we are the posterchild of western civilization." Now these aren't dirrect quotes from any one person, just common phrases I've heard several times.

And the christian deviation bit was more about americanized christianity than anything else. Almost all based (if not loosely) on our protestant ancestors attempting to escape persecution from europe.

I do tend to let my fingers run wild on me and forget to proof read or even specify. Afterall, I'm an egocentric american. Everyone should understand exactly what I mean because everyone believes in what I do... right? ... damn crickets...

quoting ArmOfAtlas:

It's easy for most egocentric americans

Whoa now, easy killer. Egocentric? You call me out (I assume it is me who you are calling out(based on the fact that I created this item)) as if Americans are the only egocentric people in the world. Let me in on a little secret, I've been to over 9 countries, and have conversed with several different types of people of several different nationalities, and from my personal experience, everyone is egocentric deep down. It is in our nature to be self-centered. As the origin of our thoughts is within ourselves, it is only natural to value the creator of these things that drive us, it is ingrained in our instincts, it is what keeps us going. Everyone looks out for their own good, that is where the falicy of altruism comes from, as in there is no true selfless deed. So am I egocentric, yes, I'm egocentric, because I care. If I did not care for the future survival of this race (human kind) I would not have any conjectures at all with people killing "innocents" all day long, hell, I might even encourage it. I care about what is "truly" "right" and "just", and I dont see it as just.

quoting ArmOfAtlas:

to turn to hatred

To clear the record, I'm not hating, I am responding sturnly. One may, believe it or not, act against anothers "best" interests without any form of malcontempt or hatred.

quoting ArmOfAtlas:

Muslims are believers in an original religion. Christians are cultists.

Hahahaha. From my research, I find that Islam is based on ancient teachings of the Jews, specifically, Abraham, and Moses, and to some extent Jesus. I find that Muslims think that the Christians and Jews distorted the revelations from God. Making both Christianity and Islam based on the same ancient principles and texts. I'm not sure of your definition of original, but to me, that seems like the complete oposite. In the sense that Christians are cultists, so too are Muslims.

quoting ArmOfAtlas:

Christianity is a deviation of catholisism, and catholisism is a deviation of judaism. Haha.

Lets take a closer look, shal we? Jesus allegedlly lived around 4BC-33AD, enter Christianity. Catholicism, or the Roman Catholic Church was first started around 313AD by Constantine, the Roman Ceasar. Hmm, to say that Christianity is a deviation of Catholicism is like saying a cow is a deviation of a T-bone, or that the egg is a deviation of the chicken. Cronologically, it came as Christianity, Catholicism, making the Roman Catholic Church a subsidary or late commer to the Christian party, as it were.



Now let it be known, this is not a personal attack against you ArmOfAtlas, merely a correction to the "commonly known truth". I use these words loosely because I can't actually guarantee that anything that I am tought about history actually happened.

Don't blame me man, blame Webster's.

"cult - a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious"

If you really think about it, every religion is a cult... unless we can trace the word "cult" back to it's creation and find out exactly what religion it was talking about. I suppose that would be a sufficient "line in the sand" so-to-speak. Then the only cults would be the original cult, and every religion there-after.

quoting ArmOfAtlas:

Christians are cultists.

oh give me a break.

It's easy for most egocentric americans to turn to hatred, but I don't think the numbers are really there to call it racism. And no way could Muslims be the new Christians. The reason I say this is simple: Muslims are believers in an original religion. Christians are cultists. Granted, it's the largest and most powerful cult in the world; but it is still a cult. But even more, it's a cult of a cult. Christianity is a deviation of catholisism, and catholisism is a deviation of judaism. Haha.

I should stop myself right now before I go on a little rant. I don't think american's are racist, and i don't think muslims are the new christians. there. short and sweet.

"Now before I get the shit hill of responses, I realize that there are probably millions if not billions of peaceful Muslims, but damn it they have to take some fucking responsibility and shut these assholes down."

I dont know for sure what is actually going on over there but how can civilians ban together and fight these guys when the fanatics are the ones that are running around with the weapons and bombs? The logical and peaceful Muslims, I'm sure would want to work things out peacefully too, but how are they suppose to work things out with a group of people that wont even listen? Its like trying to make an argument when the other party is not interested in arguing on the same terms as yourself....words for words....but for them its you and your words, and we with our bombs.

Comparing to what is going on with the Islamic faith and with what my family told me about the war back in Vietnam and having to live with communism it goes like so...

1. They instill fear and terror and beat you into submission until You accept their ideas (faith) or you
die or get torture. They will use what ever means it takes to achieve this.

2. When you have accepted their ideas (even if you disagree with it internally), they will claim victory that now the country has been "united" and is one. Since the country has been untied under their party there is no need for other outlet of news or the other politically party's opinion. They are the ultimate "voice" of the people. So in Islam, it would be their Quran as the ultimate word...

3. You agree with them because you are living in constant fear for yours and your families' lives. I have asked my parents how come there were no rebellions or up rising from those who wanted the south to be freed from the commi and they said that the communist don't talk things out, they have tried to stand up against it but The commi shoot and kill to get their point across ( my dad's words). If they dont like what's going on in the church or temple they shoot everyone and anything in it. So by using fear, everyone will automatically agree with their ideas and practices. The population is living in poverty, people are kept hungry, and everyone is spying on everyone else. When the foundation of a society is that chaotic and deprived of basic needs, banning together to oust the enemy could be difficult, and that was their tactics of keeping things their control. Keep the people hungry, make them worry about where the next meal is coming from, then that would mean they wont have the time to plan a rebellion or even the energy to hold one.

4. Because life is not so wonderful in the motherland, families and anyone who could get out of the country did so. Our vietnamese community in Chicago is decent, but there are pockets of communities scattered all over the world. People are driven away from the place that needs a change, but how can they make an internal change from where they live when a nation of people is scattered all over the globe.

So basically, i agree with you on that point that changes need to be made, as i commented in another thread about how Islam as a faith could use some type of reformation but after hearing my parents' stories about their life before coming to America i can see how it could be hard to rebel against extremists or to even try to talk things out with them.

My mother told me that her father very sternly told her that if a black child walked into her classroom, that she should get up and leave. That is what I mean by "old fashioned racists". Are we going to be those people who disassociate with Muslim children. I'm not saying that I personally have anything against the people, I don't so much mind them, they are just people like me, I do however have a problem with the religion that commands you to slay those who do not convert. Fuck that.

Do not even come at me with any type of "oh their book doesn't say that" shit, do your homework, research it a little bit. I say freedom of faith is just that, you can believe in whatever you want, but I also have a very crude and rudimentary way of dealing with problems, one that was instilled on me by the military. I don't have a problem with the religion, but if it becomes a problem, it is time to step in. The religion in it's very foundation tries to beat and make submit any thing that does not pay homage to Allah. I will not stand for that interfering with the development of other peoples rights. We cannot say certain words in an airport or do things that may harm other people even though they could be thought of as rights. I can own a gun but I cannot discharge it in the city because it may harm someone. Same principle here, they can practice their faith, but in my opinion, as soon as an Islamic suicide bomber takes out "innocents" their freedom is no longer a liberty, it becomes a crime. In my eyes, allowing radical Islamic operate is as bad as throwing grenades yourself into a crowded street.

I give up some goddamn civil liberties and rights so that other people can be safe, it is the "fair" and "ethical" way of our society so goddammit why don't they have to? Am I saying that they cannot worship Allah? No, but I am saying that sometimes the law needs to step in and do it's fucking job when our ethics put us in direct danger.

Is it fucked up to say that they cannot worship what they want? Yes, it is. Does it make the whole damn constitution seem hypocritical? Yes, it does. Does it go against my ethical code? Yes, it does. But damn it, sometimes you have to do what needs to be done in order for "innocent" civilians to be safe. To break it down, I think "The religion of peace (submission)" should be banned, even illegal because a few have fucked it up for the lot. Until it becomes a civil responsibility to keep those around you in check, it is not safe to allow them to practice their religion.

Now before I get the shit hill of responses, I realize that there are probably millions if not billions of peaceful Muslims, but damn it they have to take some fucking responsibility and shut these assholes down.

I believe in people finding their own truth, and I believe that people should be allowed to choose what they want to believe. But when your beliefs threaten my life, those beliefs should be illegal. Christianity should have gone through the same goddamn thing as this, but I wasn't alive back then. I'm not excusing a single religion, nor am I taking sides. I am saying that as long as it threatens the lives of "innocents" it is not a suitable or civil faith.

I feel remorse over having come to this conclusion, as I have become an "old fashioned racist". But you cannot deny my logic, however different your opinion.

No, I don't think it's the new Christianity. I think it's an old religion that's getting a lot of new attention because of current affairs.

I don't think I'd 'barr' my children from marrying a Muslim. You can't put limitations on love be it gender, race, religion, etc.. I'd tell them to think about it though, and if they choose Christianity as a religion to pray about it and how it may affect their life.

"old fashion racist"? i didnt get that question.

I think he is saying that like, are the "we" (future generations of people) going to look back on the "we" (now) and see the past us (being us now) as racist or intolerant, in the same way that we (now) look back at our predecessors (before us now) with disdain for their intolerant ways.

Maybe I made that more confusing. I think he just means are we becoming intolerant in the ways of the intolerant people before us were and are we just too blind to see it now, and will we see it (if it is so) in the future as we look back on who the people then (being our now) were.

Do i think that Islam is the new Christianity? Well kinda, at any given point in history some doctrine of faith is just gonna rub some people the wrong way and going either way, too liberal or too conservative. Honestly I dont know much about Islam's written works so i can't really judged it.

Do we think that someday we might tell our children not to marry a Muslim? naw, hell my mother cant even curb me. Who am i to tell what my future child/ren who they can marry. And by saying that to the future generation, who they should not to associate with, is just going to perpetuate discrimination and prejudices base on differences of faith.

"old fashion racist"? i didnt get that question.

I think this is probably already happening amongst some conservatives on some degree. I have no doubt that there are many families in parts of the western world who are forbidding their children to marry a Muslim.

I don't agree with this, as I haven't ever agreed with any measure of religion forming a divider between people, especially in terms of love.

However, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made from the people who believe in the religion and the theology itself. I believe it is healthy and beneficial to society to take a firm stance against a corrupt or intolerant dogma, if you can manage to maintain a distinction between the dogma itself and it's practitioners.

What I mean is, I am fully aware that because of my outspoken nature towards Islam, many people have likely branded me a racist. I resent that because I have no problem with the people; it's the belief system I oppose and reject.

I'd have no problem marrying a Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew for that matter) barring that their philosophy and social code was not in conflict with that of my own.

But above all else, I think that it is very important that we are able to be fully critical of the religion in all aspects, by striving to retain a position that the people who believe in Islam are not Islam themselves.

I certainly hope not. I really couldn't care less whether or not someone is Muslim. If it is what they choose to believe, so be it.