Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Islamic & Christian Fundamentalism--What's the difference?
- Thread starter wistfall1
- Start date
So, what's the difference between preachers who advocate death to homosexuals for how they feel and atheist GB posters who advocate death to preachers for how they feel?
Edit out the subjectivity and what you're objectively left with is: killing one group is intolerable, killing another group is tolerable.
And thus the two-faced, GB moderator subjectively rules her site, allowing those she agrees with to continue posting about killing others.
It's the killing, stupid.
Edit out the subjectivity and what you're objectively left with is: killing one group is intolerable, killing another group is tolerable.
And thus the two-faced, GB moderator subjectively rules her site, allowing those she agrees with to continue posting about killing others.
It's the killing, stupid.
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 94,048
The USSA most certainly should completely cease all its murderous drone attacks, except as they're used when war has been constitutionally declared against a specific enemy.
Do you even grasp how many, many more totally innocent people have been murdered by drones than targets have?
Fuck you and your enabling support of crimes against humanity.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 94,048
Killing is killing.
You hide behind your laws and constitution while murdering god's creatures.
You are a two faced phony fuck.
Ok:
But...
No, it's because you're a lying, two-faced moderator who enforces your own rules subjectively, unequally.
You mean like this post by one of your other progressive pals:
I look forward to the day I cut your fucking throat (including your Adam's apple) and shit down your neck.
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=78236092&postcount=142
Of course, most reasonable GB posters now fully realize how some of your fellow progressive pals continue to get away with directly violating your subjectively-enforced rules, when the two-faced monitor loves brown noses up her butt so much:
You pay rent for this site on the internet - that rents you absolutely no authority whatsoever to speak for anyone else, let alone "everyone else".
You allow progressive posters to continue to directly state how they'd kill other posters - without any warnings at all, let alone banning them for what you claim out of one side of your mouth is intolerable.
You allow a progressive poster to continue to post here who didn't threaten, but directly told another poster what he'd criminally do to one of that poster's family members, and even that that poster's family member would like it - all the while claiming out of one side of your mouth that's intolerable.
Fact is, there're plently of GB posters who fully recognize the totally biased game you run here - as they, themselves, point out - and almost every single one of your most buttsucking supporters are fully aware of it, too. In fact, they desire you to become even more progressively tyrannical than you already are.
Go blow your usual wannabe smoke up their asses.
That I am according to your worldview from so far up Laurel's ass is supposed to mean exactly what?
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 94,048
What does Laurel have to do with this?
You condone killing when your constitution and laws say it is alright to do so. God does not play that way. It is black and white. You are either for me or against me.
You are an dirty two faced whore. Your soul is tainted and jesus thinks you're a jerk.
B
Bookishleigh
Guest
Completely off topic, kind of, but it does relate to pie!
http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/26mom1.jpg?b96444
Her ass is your world - ask it the next time it gives you the chance to breathe.
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 94,048
M
miles
Guest
Falwell is hating gays in hell.
I asked: What's the difference between Christian and Islamic Fundamentalism?
So, what is the difference, or rather, the answer to the unasked question: What is the solution to what is happening such as the recent Orlando shooting? Did I have a solution?
Certainly it is not killing some on "their side", nor any kind of killing. Well, maybe sort of.
It's Enlightenment!
Both sides have a coomon denorminator, namely, the god of Abraham. Both sides claim him, but was he real?
There definitely is an Abraham: many of them, of a certainty, but the one as experssed in the bible? No.
If not, then both sides (actually three sides since it idd start with the Jews), are all false.
The question is: Is this, that the Old Testament, is false, correct?
This got under one person's nerves. Not to single that person out, especially since he didn't say so specifically (but through his tone). Frankly, I understand how it probably was with him. How could I understand? I used to be a full-fledged Christian, and was always swift to take umbrange at any who expressed contrary-wise.
Over the years I slowly became disenchanted: too many questions left unanswered, too much fear of asking those touchy questions, especially after being taken to severe task by an old preacher from the pulpit.
It's always been difficult to challenge in any manner, what we have been taught, and we have been taught Christianity for millenia so much so that it's as if it is a gene within us telling us that it is true. The bible is gos's word, and our heavenly father (altered to be so by the New Testament) is merciful and kind, as well as loving.
Researchers, textual as well as historical, not to mention archeologists, have proven that this is false--in fact, there is no historical veracity to the bible.
The Catholic church has quietly agreed to some of this: I have a Cathtolic bible that admits to the individual books as being by "Unknown authors", the while they explain that whoever the real authors were (but Old and New Testament, save Paul in some cases), that they were "inspired".
That's been a huge admission, though not shouted from the roof tops.
Martin Luther is reputed often as hating "Reason", and saying that all that is requierd of anyone is to believe what they are told.
After his successful break from the Catholic church, several others became brave enough to do the same, and started their own brands of Chirstianity.
The problem with them all is that whichever land you were in, you had to openly accept their version of things. Burning at the stake was an alternative otherwise. Any differences in opinion were considered heretical.
So it was down through the centuries. We lived in fear of even asking any questuins, and it remained that way until printing and reading became more popular, rather exploding, though somewhat muted, in the 1800s.
Like the Industrial Revolution, the age of real innovation took over, and reading became more and more popular, yet the old, static, ways and words of religion stayed the same until...
Our recent day when there came to be too many quesitions, and ideas spread like wildfire.
And then there was Orlando, and inspite of Proposition 8, and court rulings, there are still the many who say that their true, static, and unprovable, relligion is true, and we must toe the line or else.
This error and how it was tried to be made fact, in the wake of Orlando, was given voice by a...would you believe...a Catholic bishop?
Here are some of his words as p;osted by Mark Joseph Stern on June 15, 2016, 4:13 PM:
* * * *
It is critically important to note two things about the ongoing protests against Gay Days and Disney. First, the organizations behind the boycott——which today sound like batty loons on the fringe of conservatism——were completely mainstream in their day. There was, at the time, simply less societal pressure, as there is today, to dress up their anti-gay animus in neutral-sounding pabulum about ““traditional marriage.”” Second, many parents took these protests and boycotts seriously. Growing up in Florida, I knew of families that avoided Disney movies and theme parks specifically because of Gay Days. These parents’’ actions sent a clear message to their children, some of whom turned out to be LGBTQ: Queer identity is so vile, so morally repulsive, that even supporting a gay-tolerant corporation is sinful.
Until very recently, the Christian right’’s primary mode of attack on the LGBTQ community did not center around pleas for ““traditional marriage.”” It centered around cruel, ferocious attacks on our families and our identities, depicting us as debauched perverts and disgusting lechers. And once a year, the entire weight of this animus came crashing down on Orlando——just because a bunch of gay families wanted to take their kids to Disney World at the same time. Conservative Christian activists may not be directly to blame for the massacre at Pulse. But they are responsible for relentlessly vilifying the LGBTQ community in terms that often spilled over into outright hatred.
* * * *
The bishop who wrote these words is the bishop of St. Petersburh, Fl. They're late, but nonetheless true and welcomed.
What he says, and what I say is the solution, is learning the truth (though he doesn't express it quite the way I do).
Love is great. Love is marvelous. Love is wonderful. And yes, there should be much more of it. But trust me, the old status quo will return as if nothing had ever happened...unless...
Like the Industrial Revolution, and the revolution that is going on in our day, culture must change, and in this case, the culture that must change is to take our collective heads out of the sand, and look at the truth of religion as we know it today, and learn, learn, learn.
Yes, it'll put a lot of loud and not so loud preachers out of a job, but it may end things like happened in Orlando from recurring. And maybe--just maybe, our counterparts in the Middle East and environs, may follow suit.
That's a big maybe, and it may or may not be realistic, but will we keep on espousing killing from both sides, even though both are basically wrong Fundamentally?
Fundamenatally. Hmm, that's the problem now, isn't it?
Please think about it.
Peace
w
So, what is the difference, or rather, the answer to the unasked question: What is the solution to what is happening such as the recent Orlando shooting? Did I have a solution?
Certainly it is not killing some on "their side", nor any kind of killing. Well, maybe sort of.
It's Enlightenment!
Both sides have a coomon denorminator, namely, the god of Abraham. Both sides claim him, but was he real?
There definitely is an Abraham: many of them, of a certainty, but the one as experssed in the bible? No.
If not, then both sides (actually three sides since it idd start with the Jews), are all false.
The question is: Is this, that the Old Testament, is false, correct?
This got under one person's nerves. Not to single that person out, especially since he didn't say so specifically (but through his tone). Frankly, I understand how it probably was with him. How could I understand? I used to be a full-fledged Christian, and was always swift to take umbrange at any who expressed contrary-wise.
Over the years I slowly became disenchanted: too many questions left unanswered, too much fear of asking those touchy questions, especially after being taken to severe task by an old preacher from the pulpit.
It's always been difficult to challenge in any manner, what we have been taught, and we have been taught Christianity for millenia so much so that it's as if it is a gene within us telling us that it is true. The bible is gos's word, and our heavenly father (altered to be so by the New Testament) is merciful and kind, as well as loving.
Researchers, textual as well as historical, not to mention archeologists, have proven that this is false--in fact, there is no historical veracity to the bible.
The Catholic church has quietly agreed to some of this: I have a Cathtolic bible that admits to the individual books as being by "Unknown authors", the while they explain that whoever the real authors were (but Old and New Testament, save Paul in some cases), that they were "inspired".
That's been a huge admission, though not shouted from the roof tops.
Martin Luther is reputed often as hating "Reason", and saying that all that is requierd of anyone is to believe what they are told.
After his successful break from the Catholic church, several others became brave enough to do the same, and started their own brands of Chirstianity.
The problem with them all is that whichever land you were in, you had to openly accept their version of things. Burning at the stake was an alternative otherwise. Any differences in opinion were considered heretical.
So it was down through the centuries. We lived in fear of even asking any questuins, and it remained that way until printing and reading became more popular, rather exploding, though somewhat muted, in the 1800s.
Like the Industrial Revolution, the age of real innovation took over, and reading became more and more popular, yet the old, static, ways and words of religion stayed the same until...
Our recent day when there came to be too many quesitions, and ideas spread like wildfire.
And then there was Orlando, and inspite of Proposition 8, and court rulings, there are still the many who say that their true, static, and unprovable, relligion is true, and we must toe the line or else.
This error and how it was tried to be made fact, in the wake of Orlando, was given voice by a...would you believe...a Catholic bishop?
Here are some of his words as p;osted by Mark Joseph Stern on June 15, 2016, 4:13 PM:
* * * *
It is critically important to note two things about the ongoing protests against Gay Days and Disney. First, the organizations behind the boycott——which today sound like batty loons on the fringe of conservatism——were completely mainstream in their day. There was, at the time, simply less societal pressure, as there is today, to dress up their anti-gay animus in neutral-sounding pabulum about ““traditional marriage.”” Second, many parents took these protests and boycotts seriously. Growing up in Florida, I knew of families that avoided Disney movies and theme parks specifically because of Gay Days. These parents’’ actions sent a clear message to their children, some of whom turned out to be LGBTQ: Queer identity is so vile, so morally repulsive, that even supporting a gay-tolerant corporation is sinful.
Until very recently, the Christian right’’s primary mode of attack on the LGBTQ community did not center around pleas for ““traditional marriage.”” It centered around cruel, ferocious attacks on our families and our identities, depicting us as debauched perverts and disgusting lechers. And once a year, the entire weight of this animus came crashing down on Orlando——just because a bunch of gay families wanted to take their kids to Disney World at the same time. Conservative Christian activists may not be directly to blame for the massacre at Pulse. But they are responsible for relentlessly vilifying the LGBTQ community in terms that often spilled over into outright hatred.
* * * *
The bishop who wrote these words is the bishop of St. Petersburh, Fl. They're late, but nonetheless true and welcomed.
What he says, and what I say is the solution, is learning the truth (though he doesn't express it quite the way I do).
Love is great. Love is marvelous. Love is wonderful. And yes, there should be much more of it. But trust me, the old status quo will return as if nothing had ever happened...unless...
Like the Industrial Revolution, and the revolution that is going on in our day, culture must change, and in this case, the culture that must change is to take our collective heads out of the sand, and look at the truth of religion as we know it today, and learn, learn, learn.
Yes, it'll put a lot of loud and not so loud preachers out of a job, but it may end things like happened in Orlando from recurring. And maybe--just maybe, our counterparts in the Middle East and environs, may follow suit.
That's a big maybe, and it may or may not be realistic, but will we keep on espousing killing from both sides, even though both are basically wrong Fundamentally?
Fundamenatally. Hmm, that's the problem now, isn't it?
Please think about it.
Peace
w
Knot Again
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Posts
- 1,024
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
I don't think you even understand the Abrahamic tree of religion.
Abraham was the father he had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was the eldest and therefore according to the Muslims is do the birthright. They feel that the sons of Isaac usurped that right.
Isaac had a son Jacob who had a son named Judah from whom we get Jews.
Christianity maintains that with the birth of the only begotten son of the father in the flesh all things in the preparatory Abrahamic religions were done away with. So Christians do not believe in the Mosaic law.
Which is why all Old Testament quotes being attributed to Christianity are idiotic.
Last edited:
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Christian_theology_and_the_Old_Testament
The name "Old Testament" reflects Christianity's understanding of itself as the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy of a New Covenant (which is similar to "testament" and often conflated) to replace the existing covenant between God and Israel (Jeremiah 31:31).[1] The emphasis, however, has shifted from Judaism's understanding of the covenant as a racially or tribally-based contract between God and Jews to one between God and any person of faith who is "in Christ".
*Judaism predicates a messiah yet say he has not come. Christianity says Jesus was the messiah. Islam expects a messiah but says he has not come and that Mohammed is God's last prophet. They are the same religion just different sects. Just like Protestants and Catholics are sects of Christianity. The Orthodox Catholic says the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as f it was three separate things. Roman Catholics and Protestants say the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost as it was one thing.
They are all Abrahamic religions. Just varying interpretations. All have printed holy books which are dogmatic and unchangeable. That is why the three are at odds so much and yet virtually ignore eastern mysticism, Sikh monotheism and pre-cursor religions they have wiped out. Throw in regional political issues and voila...
The Assyrian Church was the first breakaway Christian sect.
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
The New Testement is Christianity's dogma. "In Christ ALL things are done away eith. It is not Hayzeus School of reform judaism. Hence, none of the Mosaic law prohibitions found, for exwmple in both kosher and Halal culinary practices.
The point of Christianity is inclusion of the Old Testament is merely to provide provenance and context to where it is that Jesus came as the predicted Messiah. The Jews are still waiting for that predicted Messiah.
Actually, what I think is doctrine or not isn't what this is all about. It's what the Fundamentalist think, and those that are Christian Fundamentalists do think that the Old Testament matters, and it matters much more than most care to think. However, those Christian Fundamentalists only hang their hat, so to speak, on some of the Mosaic law (and all Christians hang their hats on the Ten Commandments)
As to all Old Testament quotes being attributed to Christianity being "idiotic", that is not so. The resurrection is from the book of Daniel. Jesus himself, is often said to quote Daniel (read it in the Gospels--I have. Also, Jesus was a Jew, and said he was, and also quoted Moses. You can read that in the gospels too. I have.
Now the thoiughts that you express as being what Christians exclusively, it seems, are from Paul.
Not to get into a discussion of what Christians (or their many sects or divisions, or whatever way you wish to say their denominations) follow, the question for this thread, again, is what do the Fundamentalists believe, Christian or Islamic, and what is the difference. The reason is that they both believe in Moses and the Old Testament (whether all literally by Islam or not), and it is being expressed openly in it's harshest way by Islamists, and very verbally by many Christians, especially those of the Fundamentalist varieties. Thus we had Orlando.
The gist of it all, and the intent of the thread is to awaken this Fundamentalist way of thinking and believing, and how it has come to affect us all, expecially since the advent of Proposition 8, and resulting, again, in a horrid manifestation in Orlando.
49 dead, and 53 wounded, and an endless tragedy for surviving family, which are many.
Please, try to keep true to the intent of the thread and forego what "Christians" really believe insofar as doctine not in line with what Fundamentalists are doing and saying.
Thank you.
Peace.
w
Knot Again
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Posts
- 1,024
Knot Again
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Posts
- 1,024
Ole Sen SOAR gives SAFE SPACES for some and not all
All ANIMALS are equal
Some are MORE EQUAL then others
Why?
WE KNOW WHY!
All ANIMALS are equal
Some are MORE EQUAL then others
Why?
WE KNOW WHY!
If there is actually any such thing as christian fundamentalism, it obviously was born in roughly 3 B.C. and existed as such until 312 A.D.
Now, please teach the Board why native christian fundamentalism doesn't fit into your death agenda in the least, no matter how much you need to pimp otherwise.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
He did until she started charging her rent. Now he lives in his son's basement.
Blow your cya, intentional disingenuousness back up where it issued forth from.
You can handle that if you like, girlsmiley.
No, as usual, it is you who is "incorrect".
I just think you're not only a totally partisan piece of shit, but that you're also an intentionally disingenuous, two-faced, lying twat, projecting your blatant subjectivity of enforcing rules here onto to me simply because you don't possess the nads to honestly admit your blatant subjectivity.
You've banned me numerous times for what you rule is threatening material, yet I have never threatened anyone here as you contrive to portray. Just like you had to pull out of your disingenuous ass that I was accusing you of underage association simply because your insatiably power-hungry ego longed to ban me again.
In fact, the first time you banned me for so-called threatening material you didn't issue a warning at all, you simply deleted the thread and banned me. The post itself didn't threaten anyone at all - you banned me simply because one of your baby killer pals reported it and you champion the intentional and torturous murder of totally innocent and completely defenseless human life, too.
Say Hi! to that anti-"Free Speech" 4x6 wedged from up your lying butt.
Yet, you do not even warn (let alone ban) posters who continue to post, "When I kill [insert poster's name]", "I will behead [insert poster's name]", and you will not ban a poster who directly, maliciously told another poster the exact, criminally despicable act he'd do to that poster's daughter.
Keep slurping on that, two-face.
I'd like to create a poll thread which quotes verbatim that first-time post you banned me for posting threatening material, without any warning at all, just so everyone can read what a partisanly subjective moderator you are, and that you lie out of your teeth when you disingenuously suggest you always warn posters first before banning them.
Just that one will do. I don't care about all the other times you've butthurt banned me because I simply and directly quoted other posters' posts that you didn't warn or ban them for, just substituting your name in place of the actual posters they posted they'd "kill" and "behead".
So, tell us again out of one side of your mouth why you allow some posters to joke around about killing and beheading other posters because you state you know they're just joking around, while - at the very same time - you spew out of the other side, "I understand she was just messing around, but it still broke the rules".
Why do you so easily admit your treat posters differently for the very same offenses, yet also need to so pseudo-righteously insist that you don't?
We know why.
And please let me know if I have your permission to repost the non-threatening post you instantly banned me for without any warning whatsoever to give your blatant subjectively more prospective for all to read.
'Cause you know, "snowflake", I'm all about your blatantly subjective rules enforcement.
Thanx so much.
