Hindus Strike Again

[Morcova]

You protect Israel from the United States? Hypocrite.

How does that make him a hypocrite?

 

[anatolian]

Christians killed more people than any religious group on the earth.

 

[Secundulus]

How does that make him a hypocrite?

He talks a big show about how killing of Christians is justified while his sorry *** sits safe in the USA.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Christians killed more people than any religious group on the earth.

Second to the islamic empires... Seljuk, Ottoman, etc...

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Arunma, your PM box seems to be full.

 

[Luzeiro]

Interesting. We are to forget the nearly two hundred years of oppression, subjugation, and deprivation of our fundamental freedoms and human rights under the hands of the Christian British. We are to forget the continuous violence and intimidation by Christian terrorist groups in the North East. We are to forget the murder of people like Swami Shanti Kali and Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.

Yes, the Hindus in Orissa responsible for these terrible and inexcusable acts are to blamed for causing the majority of the violence. Yes, their acts should be condemned and faulted by every reasonable and sensible human being. But, I have to wonder where anyone can find the temerity to exploit this terrible situation and use it as a propaganda tool to somehow shame the other one billion Hindus into conversion, when all you need is a cursory glance at the modern history of India to understand what Christian imperialism, violence, and persecution of indigenous populations mean. I've said this earlier and I think it's significant enough to say it again, the worst consequence of this appalling situation would be for the two sides to descend into slinging blame upon and deriding each other. We've had enough of that to last us for centuries. This is a time to look towards forgiveness and ahimsa, the fundamental principles of Hinduism, and to constructively consider ways to resolve and defuse this situation, so that these innocent people, Hindus and Christians, can get on with their lives.

Why would you call the British Christians? I see no Christ in what some Brits did to India.

 

[Luzeiro]

Second to the islamic empires... Seljuk, Ottoman, etc...

Well, that's just not true. They like to call these killers Christian; it keeps them from having to think.

 

[Luzeiro]

Christians killed more people than any religious group on the earth.

Wrongo! You need proof that the people who killed people were Christians.

 

[Luzeiro]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi quote

Given current events, I have to laugh at such a statement from a Hindu.

Ghandi liked Christ, but did not become a follower; I don't think he meant it; certainly he did not understand Christ nor the burdens of HIS followers.

 

[Rasta]

There is an important point of logic to be made here. I feel it is important to note that the so-called "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't really a logical fallacy. As you may know, it was invented by former atheist Anthony Flew, and for the purpose of religious arguments. It may sometimes be used to refer to arguments that are flawed for other reasons, but for you to disagree with my argument on the basis of the No True Scotsman fallacy in the same way that you might cite, say "argument by ridicule," is simply an error in logic.

This can be shown by the fact that by treating this as a valid fallacy, one could very well argue that all people are Christians. Are most Americans, who have been baptized at birth and who have attended a church a few times in their lives Christians? Is my agnostic friend who calls himself a Christian because he is a "good person" a Christian? In citing the No True Scotsman fallacy you strip Christianity of its defining traits. Christians are defined by adherance to a believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and various creeds and confessions that summarize the Bible. If you suggest that someone is a Christian merely because he says so, then all you've managed to do is make the term "Christian" far less useful.

Though there are many reasons why I might discount the vast majority of the Anglican Chuch as genuine Christians on the basis of their actions, the reasons I gave earlier are specifically related to the beliefs of the Anglican Church in general (I say "in general" because there are local Anglican churches in existence which adhere to Biblical Christianity). A large number of Anglican bishops and churches deny the inerrency of the Scriptures and believe that non-Christians can be saved. These are heretical beliefs which ultimately deny Christ and cut people off from the communion of the church. This may mean very little to you, because you do not believe in any supernatural communion of all Christians. To us though, it defines Christians from the rest of the world. Therefore this is probably an issue of language. What do you mean when you talk about "Christians?" Are you and I even talking about the same thing? If you defie a Christian as someone who professes to be a Christian, then I take no issue with the claim that Christians are responsible for all manners of sin. In fact I don't really care, since I don't assume any responsibility for such individuals.

Thanks for demonstrating to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about. It's helpfull.

Jesus says that all people who don't believe in him will burn in hell for all eternity (see Mark 16:16 and John 3:18).

Oh, goodie, the essence of Christianity strikes again. Poor sap. Is hell all you think about?

While I do not believe that I have told any lie in the course of this discussion, I wish to point out that it's grossly hypocritical of you to admonish Christians to obey the teachings of Christ while disobeying the same, because you will be judged with the same standard that you use to judge others. You might as well be leading a blind person while wearing a blindfold.

It's not hypocritical of me to point out that you are not following the commandments of your lord. Was I wrong? Lying is good? Or what what your refrence of blind refering to?

 

[Rasta]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi quote

Given current events, I have to laugh at such a statement from a Hindu.

You are willfully ignorant. You repeat this line of "logic" all the time. You get corrected all the time. Then you repeat this line of "logic" again. Then you are corrected again. Then you repeat this line of "logic" again. Then you are corrected again. Then you repeat this line of "logic" again. Then you are corrected again. Oh, isn't this new and interesting? Wow. Then you repeat this line of "logic" again. Then you are corrected again. Then you repeat this line of "logic" again. Then you are corrected again.

So you are Fred Phels right? Or is your "logic" of yours a load of horse manuer?



This is called intellectual dishonesty. Thanks for the help seculundus. An argument for Christianity from you is better at displaying how religion is bad, more than the most eloquent logic displayed by athiests.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Rasta]

Why would you call the British Christians? I see no Christ in what some Brits did to India.

Easy answer. Cuz they wuz Christians. They were just egotistical maniacs not unlike Seculundus, Bushmaster, and Arunma on these boards.

So if Seculundus, Bushmaster, and Arunma are Christians, so were the Brits.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You have to have the knowledge of history and theology in order to determine who is a Christian and why, since you don't possess that, you go by identity. Produce some discussion worthy of people's time. We might be "egoistical maniacs" but at least we don't put our feet in our mouths as you demonstrate in whole a lot of threads. You have no face to talk about "intellectual dishonesty" when you can't attempt to correct Secundulus. Babbling some illogical nonsense such as "all Brits are Christians" is not a valid correction. Do your homework.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Thanks for demonstrating to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about. It's helpfull.

Do you expect him to respond to this? He basically ridiculed you in your false usage of the Scotsman term, he taught you a lesson, he essentially owned you, and since you can't answer his position, you end up talking about "demonstrating to the (world)" and nonsense. If only you had half of the education and training of arunma, you could have spelled better!

 

[Rasta]

You have to have the knowledge of history and theology in order to determine who is a Christian and why, since you don't possess that, you go by identity. Produce some discussion worthy of people's time.

I do. You have a biased view of history and theology, so you'll just use some biased catch phrase like you always do in order to dismiss other opinions without thinking about them. You act like this is the first time we've talked to eachother. I've been on these boards a long time and I am very familiar with your "logic" with your "tactics of debate" and your willingness to consider dissenting opinions. You pretending to want to listen to others is simply a farse.

We might be "egoistical maniacs" but at least we don't put our feet in our mouths as you demonstrate in whole a lot of threads. You have no face to talk about "intellectual dishonesty" when you can't attempt to correct Secundulus. Babbling some illogical nonsense such as "all Brits are Christians" is not a valid correction. Do your homework.

I didn't say ALL Brits are Christians. Let me break this down Mr. Potatoe Head style for you since you are having trouble, yet again. I said "the Brits" (implying a general estimation of the peoples living in the British Isles) were Christians if Bushmaster, Seculundus, and Arunma are Christians.

Learn to freaking comprehend sentances man. Seriously. This is not a joke. You seriously have some comrehension or denial issues that you should probably seek professional help with.

Do you expect him to respond to this?

I know he will. Just like you. You guys are like terds that never flush.

He basically ridiculed you in your false usage of the Scotsman term, he taught you a lesson, he essentially owned you, and since you can't answer his position, you end up talking about "demonstrating to the (world)" and nonsense. If only you had half of the education and training of arunma, you could have spelled better!

His "logic" just said, "Uh . . . . you can't say that at me, because that argument was designed to refute a claim that I like to spew forth all of the time."

That was it. Simpleton.

 

[arunma]

Arunma, your PM box seems to be full.

Sorry about that, I've cleared it out.

 

[Secundulus]

Do you expect him to respond to this? He basically ridiculed you in your false usage of the Scotsman term, he taught you a lesson, he essentially owned you, and since you can't answer his position, you end up talking about "demonstrating to the (world)" and nonsense. If only you had half of the education and training of arunma, you could have spelled better!

This forum has become a complete waste of time.

 

[arunma]

I am commanded in the Torah to protect Israel at any cost and if that means war then so be it. Comparing me protecting the laws of G-d is in no way similar to what Hitler was "protecting" which was nothing but his own mind.

I think that my earlier comparison of your philosophy to that of Hitler was quite apt. And I sincerely hope that this offends you enough that you will reconsider your stance on this issue.

Consider this: Hitler believed that Jewish culture was contrary to the heritage of Europe. Now I will fully grant that his issue was not religious (at various times he honored Roman Catholicism, Norse paganism, and various other philosophies), but rather cultural. Nonetheless he was of the opinion that the presence of Jews was not consistent with the values of European society, and so he killed them. Likewise, Hindu idol-worshipers in Orissa believe that Christians, whose ancestors were also Hindu idolaters, ought to return to the evil of Hinduism simply because they are Indians. So they engage in the abominable practice of forced conversion. This is far worse than death because it destroys the souls of the Christians in question. Both Hitler and the Hindu idolaters act on the premise that certain people threaten their cultural identity. You, who claim to protect the laws of your god, operate along the same line of reasoning as Hitler. Except that it's OK when the people being oppressed aren't Jews.

I find your animosity towards Indian Christians to be somewhat perplexing. It is fairly obvious that Jewish hatred of the church of Jesus Christ is based on an association of Europeans with Christianity. No such association can be made in the case of Indian Christians. In fact India is one of the few nations that has not persecuted Jews. I must wonder why you are so eager to condemn Indian Christians to hell by leading them to blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ.

Easy answer. Cuz they wuz Christians. They were just egotistical maniacs not unlike Seculundus, Bushmaster, and Arunma on these boards.

So if Seculundus, Bushmaster, and Arunma are Christians, so were the Brits.

I'm actually quite honored to be categorized in the "Christians who take their faith seriously" list. It so happens that Seculundus and Bushmaster are both Christians who do not bow to liberal doctrines merely for the purpose of sounding politically correct. I find that "crazy" and "maniacal" are usually used by atheists as euphemisms for Christians whose faith extends beyond Sunday morning.

Thanks for demonstrating to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about. It's helpfull.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but my time is valuable enough that I don't wish to engage in childish exchanges of insulting comments with angry atheists. In case you are ever interested in intelligent discourse, I'll certainly not ignore your future posts outright. But I am writing this so that you will know why I don't have any further responses that I care to offer to your comments.

 

[Rasta]

This forum has become a complete waste of time.

Does this mean you will go away?

 

[Rasta]

I'm actually quite honored to be categorized in the "Christians who take their faith seriously" list. It so happens that Seculundus and Bushmaster are both Christians who do not bow to liberal doctrines merely for the purpose of sounding politically correct. I find that "crazy" and "maniacal" are usually used by atheists as euphemisms for Christians whose faith extends beyond Sunday morning.

You would have fit in perfectly in the times of the inquisition. THAT was a time when people put their money where their mouth was, and slaughtered millions.

It can't be wrong to kill heathens and heretics who will end up in hell anyways right? What is a small thing like being stabbed to death compared to what us heathens will endure for eternity right? Why not do everything you can do to ensure the "Truth" is not tainted by heretics and heathens?

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but my time is valuable enough that I don't wish to engage in childish exchanges of insulting comments with angry atheists. In case you are ever interested in intelligent discourse, I'll certainly not ignore your future posts outright. But I am writing this so that you will know why I don't have any further responses that I care to offer to your comments.

Well I'm sick of you guys spouting your bigotry and passing it off as "truth". It disgusts me to be perfectly honest. NCR used to be so much better before the Christians here went on their anti-Islam spree. We used to have actual discussions. Not peeing contests about whose dick is the biggest.

It sucks having someone debate the way I was huh? It sucks big time.