That's pretty biased.Originally Posted by Burton13
As a citizen of this democratic nation, I reserve the right to vote for any candidate that closely represents my views.
That's pretty biased.
As a citizen of this democratic nation, I reserve the right to vote for any candidate that closely represents my views.
but your religious views should not dictate the country's moral agenda, is what burton is trying to say.
you guys twist his words and attack him vigorously
and gotch likes to go on bout the quran, but if everything in the quran is to be taken literally, then everything in the bible, including the old testament, should be taken literally, i. e. first child into slavery etc...
"you guys twist his words and attack him vigorously:
Responding is not an attack. Questioning the validity and meaning of statements is not twisting.
"and gotch likes to go on bout the quran, but if everything in the quran is to be taken literally, then everything in the bible, including the old testament, should be taken literally, i. e. first child into slavery etc..."
Absolute hogwash. No two text should ever be bunched together due to someones personal and uninformed views that they are somehow the same.
Each stand alone, are in no way mystically connected.
We must view them for what they are and for what they say. What may be misunderstood here is that I am not completely comfortable with the violence of the Old Testament.
In fact my personal views are that of a completely "New Law". That only the New Testament is of of real importance to me personally. But this debate should not be about personal views. Although you and 13 can't seem to avoid injecting personal prejudices into it.
However, a reading of it does confirm it (the Old Testament) to be a narrative history (as I have said umpteen times) while a reading of the Quran confirms it to be an ongoing directive.
I don't believe it takes an extremely high intelligence level to understand the difference and how the difference could have an effect on the actions of those reading and adhering to the teaching of the text.
If one tells you of past events, no matter how violent, that is not likely to encourage even the most fervent believer to go out an commit like violence.
On the other hand, a religious text such as the Quran which does not read as a historical narrative, but instead issues direct commands for the taking of violent actions by those reading and taking to heart the text can reasonably be assumed to influence a degree of violent behavior.
Again, the difference is exactly the same as a father telling his sons about his service in war and his having killed enemy combatants and that same father instructing his sons to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. Which do you think would have a higher probability to result in violent acts by his sons?
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
....have we determined who's pissed the furthest yet?
Apparently it's not about who, but instead about why and how much
One advantage (if you will) that I've always felt that I had in these type of exchanges is that nothing I've ever seen on a message board has ever actually made me angry.
I debated a fairly well know atheist from Canada almost daily for about 5 years. Yes....I just said FIVE years. We exchanged on a variety of theist subjects. At first he tried a lot of name calling and personal attacks. After a few months he found that they actually harmed his argument and that I was not going to respond in kind so he stopped.
I noticed that although I changed very few of his ideas I did change his approach to others. To this day he uses a much "kindlier, gentler" method of getting his point across.
We also became good friends.
BTW, on the subject of the Quran being a directive and the Old Testament being a narrative history he would be in agreement with me. Why, because he is familiar with both text.
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Gotch won....
he went the furthest lol
Not sure where you got your numbers, they look like the Eurobarometer numbers except you inverted two very important ones in your favor, naughty boy....
Those numbers were copied and pasted from the same wikipedia you got them from, wasn't altered in any way. If you scrolled down and looked, it said that the atheist rates were 46% to 85%.
Also pulled this from a religious site...
"Sweden relinquished its claim of Lutheranism as its State religion in 2000 and now boasts one of the lowest percentage rates of belief in God in the western world. Sweden can safely lay claim to being one of Europe's "least Christian" nations. A poll from 2006 conducted by Dagens Industri revealed Swedes have far more trust in major Swedish businesses, public television, Swedish universities, and the central bank than in the Swedish Church. As the older generation of Swedes passes away, the percentage of reproducing believers decreases. Only five percent of the population regularly attends church."
countries/sweden
But again I still ask, what did the UN survey have to do with it?
----"Because they have been "officially" announced by the communist gov, big difference."
Exactly, thank you
Not sure if you understand, but that's just the announcement by those communist gov..and I don't think a communist gov really "represents its people". But I never mentioned one communist country, I mentioned real ones that weren't communist.
I wasn't twisting his words nor was I attacking him. Just bringing up a point.
And maybe someone's moral views shouldn't dictate but still, it's their right to vote based on their moral views.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks