I heard the other day that all the whinging and wining and complaining about the West was just people exercising their democratic rights.

But when is it just dissent or something worse?

Many people dissent from government policy, etc...  but in doing so they don't feel hatred or animosity to their fellow countrymen or the country they live in or the civilisation in general that they are a part of.

They don't burn, spit or piss on their country's flag or burn ephigies of  politicians here or abroad.  They certainly don't celebrate tragedies like 9/11.  Or the Bali bombings.

Quote:

But when is it just dissent or something worse?

If you're a socialist, anarchist, anti-globalist or an anglo, it's dissent. If you're an immigrant or a Muslim, it's something worse.


Quote:

They don't burn, spit or piss on their country's flag or burn ephigies of  politicians here or abroad.  They certainly don't celebrate tragedies like 9/11.  Or the Bali bombings.

Have people in Australia been doing those things?

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 5:58am:

I heard the other day that all the whinging and wining and complaining about the West was just people exercising their democratic rights. But when is it just dissent or something worse? Many people dissent from government policy, etc...  but in doing so they don't feel hatred or animosity to their fellow countrymen or the country they live in or the civilisation in general that they are a part of. They don't burn, spit or piss on their country's flag or burn ephigies of  politicians here or abroad.  They certainly don't celebrate tragedies like 9/11.  Or the Bali bombings.

I think the difference between dissent and sedition is when it goes from

1) critiquing society in a constructive way and working within the system to bring about change

to

2) trying to incite others to do acts that are harmful to society and others, or to engender hostility towards particular groups of people/institutions etc with the intention of his hostility manifesting itself in destructive action

that's my very basic understanding anyway.

as abu_rashid said- there are double standards.

one can merely look at alan jones' comments around the cronulla riots to see this.

he said all of his filth on air and then gets the prime minister coming out saying he's an 'outstanding broadcaster'. but if alan jones was a muslim reading stuff out about bashing up 'kuffar' etc- you can bet he wouldn't have john howard defending him, and would have been much more harshly prosecuted (probably under the sedition laws, as opposed to under the broadcasting regulations)

Ah as a matter of fact YES aboo...  where ya been?

Most people who disagree with a government usually just don't vote for them.  No personal hatred of everything Western or whatever.

Actually Jones didn't say a lot of FILTH at all.
He made a few rash statements that i though were over the mark but that's all.

The far worse part of Cronulla was the people there having to put up with bad behaviour for 10 years and the O/night cowardly and violent reaction perpetrated on the larger community.

[quote author=grendel link=1224359891/0#3 date=1224387254]
Actually Jones didn't say a lot of FILTH at all.
He made a few rash statements that i though were over the mark but that's all.

quote]

well that's your opinion

I respectfully disagree

Quote:

Ah as a matter of fact YES aboo...  where ya been?

Care to share some examples?

care to do your own research...  of corse not one must remain ignorant or in denial or lie about such things done by Muslims.

Last one reported in the press ...  kid who defiled the RSL flag after the Cronulla riots and the night after the protest.

Is sedition aimed at bringing down the society as it is ?

dissent means one disagrees ??

Quote:

Last one reported in the press ...  kid who defiled the RSL flag after the Cronulla riots and the night after the protest.

Well that's just plain disrespectful. And I don't think you'd find too many Muslims supporting that.

However, I don't think it's against the law is it? Still disrespectful anyway, and shouldn't be done. Muslim citizens of this country have to respect the country and it's institutions and should not deface them. Was it a Muslim who did it?

"Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel."

I don't think flag burning is part of it.

Quote:

sedition Noun speech, writing, or behaviour intended to encourage rebellion or resistance against the government [Latin seditio discord]

That's what opposition parties do.

OR may be


Quote:

Noun      1.      sedition - an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government

illegal is a key word here.

Of course he and his mates were muslim..

Protests during the gulf wars and burning of the Australian flag.

Ephigies of Bush and Howard... burnt.

Celebrating in the streets re 9/11.  (I have friends that live in Bankstown)

The list goes on aboo...  

Quote:

Protests during the gulf wars and burning of the Australian flag.

I don't think protests against war are seditious are they?

Nor burning of the flag, but burning of the flag again is disrespectful, and any Muslim who's agreed to take Australian citizenship has also agreed to be part of this country and swear his allegiance to it. Therefore burning the flag is just downright wrong and deplorable.

Quote:

January 27, 2006 - 9:52AM Burning the Australian flag was offensive but should not be made a criminal offence, Prime Minister John Howard said today. ... "I don't think it represents mainstream Aboriginal opinion." But he said it should not be made a criminal offence because it was an expression of political opinion.

I agree with ex Prime Minister John Howard.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the SEDITION word...  IT WASNT EVEN USED IN THE OPENING ARGUMENT...   but then I forgot who I was expecting to answer.

There are plenty of colours of hatred between dissent and sedition...

LOL

Burning the flag...  is a symbolic destruction of the country and everyone in it.

people who do it know that.

people who don't are idiots.

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

I wouldn't get too hung up on the SEDITION word...  IT WASNT EVEN USED IN THE OPENING ARGUMENT...   but then I forgot who I was expecting to answer. There are plenty of colours of hatred between dissent and sedition...

If people wouldn't hung up on flags nobody would burn them after all they cost money to buy and only fools burn say $50 notes for kicks.

Now, inciting or supporting terrorism is entirely different story and individuals found guilty on terrorist charges should hang, IMHO.

Not true at all...

Do you own a flag?

I don't.

But it is a Muslim habit to burn flags and ephigies and their purpose and message is clearly understood.

I agree...  they are fools.

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:08pm:

Of course he and his mates were muslim.. Protests during the gulf wars and burning of the Australian flag. Ephigies of Bush and Howard... burnt. Celebrating in the streets re 9/11.  (I have friends that live in Bankstown) The list goes on aboo...

yes what the kid did was very stupid and disrespectful as he said himself after:

"It was a stupid thing to do, not something that me as a person would normally do. If I just thought about it for a couple of minutes I probably wouldn't have done it. I would just like to apologise to the whole Australian community for doing the ungrateful act that I did,"

he also apologised to the RSL and went on a tour to gallipoli and walked the kokoda trail.

if I can find the article where he talks about it I'll post it

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

I wouldn't get too hung up on the SEDITION word...  IT WASNT EVEN USED IN THE OPENING ARGUMENT...   but then I forgot who I was expecting to answer. There are plenty of colours of hatred between dissent and sedition...

take it easy grendel. you can't control how people respond to something. this is not a trend with muslims or their 'sycophants and apologists'- it's the way human beings are. we have freedom of thought and interpretation.

look at any argument- they go off in tangents all the time. take it easy.

you were talking about 'dissent' and then when dissent crosses a line. in my mind when dissent crosses a line, it becomes sedition, hence why I used the word.

talking about acts such as celebrating 9/11- I don't see that as either dissent or sedition - I see it simply as disgusting. anyone who celebrates mass killings has a serious issue. I know some people see 9/11 as a great political stand against the oppressor, but I could never support a 'political stand' that involves the killing of civilians. no way.

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

LOL Burning the flag...  is a symbolic destruction of the country and everyone in it. people who do it know that. people who don't are idiots.

not so- burning a flag can be a symbolic destruction of what that country is seen to support at any particular time.

it can be a protest against a particular action the country has just taken

I think you'll find that some people who protest and burn the flags of their own countries are doing so because they hate what they see happening in their country- that they think their country is going down a bad path. it's possibly not the best way to express it- but I don't think you can apply only your reading to it.

of course there are those who will burn the flag as a sign of hatred as you mentioned- but I would imagine those incidences are more likely to take place overseas than in the flag's country of origin

as to the kid burning the flag at the rsl- whilst I don't approve of it- I can see why he did it. the flag was used at cronulla as a symbol of racism and as a symbol of exclusion, of racial purity. which is just as much a desecration of the flag as burning it is.

being subjected to violence and hatred under a particular symbol can leave an obvious dislike of that symbol- I think in burning it he was saying 'up yours' to the people at cronulla who used the flag as a part of violence and hatred- as opposed to 'up yours' to australia

regardless however- I don't suport flag burning. I don't think it should be illegal as such- but it's something I wouldn't do and wouldn't support others doing

my grandad fought under the flag and gave a lot for this country - so I couldn't ever bring myself to destroy it (the flag) no matter how much I disagreed with something

yawn

A flag is symbolic of a Nation and it's people not political party legislation...  everyone knows that.

You want to get political or personal you burn ephigys.

nice try...  too bad.

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 11:15am:

yawn A flag is symbolic of a Nation and it's people not political party legislation...  everyone knows that. You want to get political or personal you burn ephigys. nice try...  too bad.

lol- everyone knows that who lives in your head perhaps.

it's down to interpretation and intent. if you say you can read the minds of those who burn the flag then I applaud your telepathic abilities

I thought you saw the burning of ephigys as something more sinister than dissent?

anyway - with the kid at the rsl his action was spur of the moment, dummying up a likeness of john howard wouldn't have fit in with that would it....oh wait, his problem wasn't with john howard, it was with the rioters at cronulla as I previously mentioned.

I guess the ephigy burning doesn't quite fit into that

burning a flag can be saying "this is not the country we want, this is not what we want our country to be" as much as it can say "i want this country destroyed".

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

LOL Burning the flag...  is a symbolic destruction of the country and everyone in it. people who do it know that. people who don't are idiots.

People who don't burn flags are not idiots. They probably have better things to do with their money.  :)

tallowood tallowood tallowood...  
know being the operative word dear...  

dont muddy the waters how often do I have to ask you?  ::)

face it gaybriel... youre just an apologist.
One deep in denial BTW.

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

face it gaybriel... youre just an apologist. One deep in denial BTW.

who am I apologising for?

yes who?
Don't you know?

::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

yes who? Don't you know? ::) ::) ::)

I don't think I'm apologising for anyone. hence the question.

lol
there are none so blind gaybriel.

back on topic..

Anyone remember the burning of the danish Embassy?  Dissent?

Fatwah anyone?

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 1:21pm:

lol there are none so blind gaybriel. back on topic.. Anyone remember the burning of the danish Embassy?  Dissent? Fatwah anyone?

whatever you reckon mate.

as to your question- not dissent. straight out criminal act.

Look, I have been where Gaybriel is, in feeling that attacking muslims is just exacerbating an already bad situation, and face it grendel, you rarely tiptoe around a subject, even when you may be right, you have a way of making others feel it may be wrong, because it seems too over the top.

I have changed to be more openly condemning of Islam, because I think that certain distortions of fact that they promote should be challenged, and I dislike all religions, and see them as forces of evil in the world, and Islam is streets ahead in that department at the present time.

I don't think it has to be that way.
I think people of faith can stop expecting others to accept and respect their beliefs, and content themselves with the freedom to worship as they please, so long as they also follow societal norms, and stop trying to save us, by threatening to, or actually, blowing people up.

mod: personal attack, swearing and abuse.

this is a warning- please keep your comments constructive.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:

Look, I have been where Gaybriel is, in feeling that attacking muslims is just exacerbating an already bad situation, and face it grendel, you rarely tiptoe around a subject, even when you may be right, you have a way of making others feel it may be wrong, because it seems too over the top. I have changed to be more openly condemning of Islam, because I think that certain distortions of fact that they promote should be challenged, and I dislike all religions, and see them as forces of evil in the world, and Islam is streets ahead in that department at the present time. I don't think it has to be that way. I think people of faith can stop expecting others to accept and respect their beliefs, and content themselves with the freedom to worship as they please, so long as they also follow societal norms, and stop trying to save us, by threatening to, or actually, blowing people up.

I appreciate you trying to sympathise with what you think is my situation. but it is not the case.

I have no problem with openly condemning the actions of muslims when appropriate. I have no problem with criticising muslims when appropriate.

I DO have a problem when massive generalisations are made and then used to support hatred or dislike of a entire group of people. or even to monotholise muslims as if they were all one entity.

I DO have a problem when the sentiment behind such comments is one of hatred and disdain.

I DO have a problem when people twist everything to suit their point of view.

I have been critical of actions by muslims and certain islamic beliefs on this forum and elsewhere.

I dislike when others try to push their beliefs onto other people. I dislike it when people use religion as justification to start a war and to hurt others.

I especially hate it when people cherry pick from their religion what they do and don't want to follow. like when people chant 'an eye for an eye' and forget 'to do unto their neighbours as they would do unto themselves' and to 'turn the other cheek'

but all of these things will not cause me to write an entire group of people off- particularly when I know people of certain faiths (muslim and christian) through whom I can see the true message of their religions.

and yes- the vehemence with which people just make these mass generalisations, along with the generalisations themselves, seems incredibly wrong to me.

so if people want to take my comments that are pro islam or even neutral as some sort of proof me being an apologist, and ignore my critical statements- then so be it.

just because I don't echo the sentiments of others on here doesn't mean the critical function in my brain does not work when it comes to muslims

Well unfortunately, the mass generalisations of people, is not without some arguments to support it.

The mass that makes the muslim world, is necessary for these jihadists to gain support and credibility, if they, The Mass, choose to withdraw that support, then the terrorists would still be dangerous, but no more relevant, or lasting than say the, "Red Brigade" were back in the '70's.

The broader community of a religion does contribute to the "power" that the religion exerts, and that must be used wisely, if it is not, it is worthy of condemnation.

Now of course that doesn't mean go in the streets and look for muslims to abuse, but it does mean that they must all bear some of the responsibility for the direction their religion takes.

I respectfully disagree.

Particularly with the second part of your last sentence

Then how do religions take certain directions, without the acquiescence of the followers?

I am sorry that I am struggling to express the position to make it easily understandable, as a fact of life, not just an arbitrary opinion.

One of the principles of the group dynamic which comes into play where we see people of a faith inspired to things like mass suicides, or suicide bombings, is their sense of obligation to the group.

My point is that the muslim ummah, promotes this collective consciousness, which empowers the radical imams to convince young people to commit atrocities in the name of allah, and for the furtherance of the goals of the muslim ummah.

If muslims en masse, said, no you do not represent me, what you are doing goes against the teachings of allah and islam, then these radical imams lose much of their power to demand acts for the good of islam.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 3:06pm:

Then how do religions take certain directions, without the acquiescence of the followers? I am sorry that I am struggling to express the position to make it easily understandable, as a fact of life, not just an arbitrary opinion. One of the principles of the group dynamic which comes into play where we see people of a faith inspired to things like mass suicides, or suicide bombings, is their sense of obligation to the group. My point is that the muslim ummah, promotes this collective consciousness, which empowers the radical imams to convince young people to commit atrocities in the name of allah, and for the furtherance of the goals of the muslim ummah. If muslims en masse, said, no you do not represent me, what you are doing goes against the teachings of allah and islam, then these radical imams lose much of their power to demand acts for the good of islam.

sure- I see what you're saying. and the whole thing about people overseas becoming politically engaged with global issues because they feel it is part of them being in the ummah.

but at the same time- it is these people who attract the most attention (for obvious reasons).

from my experience there are many muslims who say they are not represented by these people, that their actions go against islam- but they do not receive the same attention.

I mean you can say something as much as you want- but if noone is listening it makes little difference.

a couple of things gaybriel...

AN EYE FOR AN EYE is NOT a Christian teaching or belief.

I have Muslim friends.
I live next to them and work with them.
I have friends of various ethnic backgrounds too and races.

there is no hate in anything I say or do.

I have ISLAMIC HEROES...  one or 2 are even real.

ROTFLMAO

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:

a couple of things gaybriel... AN EYE FOR AN EYE is NOT a Christian teaching or belief.

no but some christians use it in order to support certain beliefs- like the death penalty etc


Quote:

I have Muslim friends. I live next to them and work with them. I have friends of various ethnic backgrounds too and races. there is no hate in anything I say or do.

I'm glad

Quote:

no but some christians use it in order to support certain beliefs- like the death penalty etc

Let us not also forget the invasion of Afghanistan and the murder of many more civilians there than in the 9/11 attacks. Eye for an eye in Christianity is ok as long as you're angry enough, but after the revenge has been exacted (no doubt in much larger measures) and the people calm down, then they go back to claiming to be all about peace and  forgiving and loving your enemy... This is called the clear and open hypocrisy of Christianity, that sees people out all weekend committing the most disgusting sins, but in church on Sunday morning confessing them, having them forgiven.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Quote: no but some christians use it in order to support certain beliefs- like the death penalty etc Let us not also forget the invasion of Afghanistan and the murder of many more civilians there than in the 9/11 attacks. Eye for an eye in Christianity is ok as long as you're angry enough, but after the revenge has been exacted (no doubt in much larger measures) and the people calm down, then they go back to claiming to be all about peace and  forgiving and loving your enemy... This is called the clear and open hypocrisy of Christianity, that sees people out all weekend committing the most disgusting sins, but in church on Sunday morning confessing them, having them forgiven.

When discussing foreign policy and govt policy- I think it's easy to see how leaders of all faiths use religion in order to advance their cause- including muslim countries.

it's a powerful tool to get people to fall in line and lots of people sadly use it incorrectly in order to achieve this.

as to the people sinning and then confessing- I think you'll find true christians are not like this. a friend of mine is christian and she does not act in that way at all.

I have discussed tis attitude with her- I asked her about someone I heard saying "I can do whatever I want cause I'm christian and just need to ask for forgiveness the next day"- she said the person was very misguided. repentance is not a free pass- someone who truly repents is someone who will not commit that sin again, or will do their best not to.

some people may 'token repent' but that is not true repentance and of course, you can't fool god.

I also asked her if repenting was enough and she said christians were also judged upon their 'deeds'- it is not just about belief in christ and saying you repent for your sins.

true repentance is hard to do.

in terms of confession- in modern day terms you have confused catholicism with christianity- christians do not confess and receive the amount of prayers they must do. that's only catholics.

and I don't think that it is a hypocrisy of christianity as much as it is the kind of hypocrisy you see in human beings regardless of faith.

people who take part of their holy text (or even personal beliefs) to damn something but then turn around and do that same thing

if you see a hypocrisy in christianity I am surprised- as muslims also believe that jesus was a prophet. so I assume you meant the hypocrisy of some christians. not all- and certainly not christianity itself.

Quote:

I think it's easy to see how leaders of all faiths use religion in order to advance their cause- including muslim countries.

Nope, "Muslim Countries" never do that. We keep hoping for them to show some signs of religiosity, but they're masters don't permit it :(

Did you have a specific instance in mind, or just trying to be fair and even handed, so thought you might have to mention Muslims as well? :)


Quote:

I think you'll find true christians are not like this.

Well we can't judge the individual actions of all adherents by the doctrine. But I personally think the Christian doctrine leads to hypocrisy. If we just examine the issue of war, as mentioned above. The Islamic texts for instance have clear rules of war listed in the Qur'an, as our creator knows it's a human behaviour that is going to occur. It's part of the human condition, and so it is legislated for, in the Islamic texts. Now many criticise Islam for this, but it's just a recongition of the human condition, and a responsible legislating for it. Christianity on the other hand doesn't have any texts relating to war, so when we see Christians eventually going to war, we see nothing but barbaric atrocities, because they simply don't know how to behave themselves in war, no instructions... Plain and simple. We saw this in the crusades and numerous other wars between Muslims and Christians down through the ages. In some cases, Christians actually ate the conquered Muslims... How barbaric and primitive is that?

And we still see it today, in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on. Christians committing the most barbaric and atrocious actions against others in the theatre of war. And then all of a sudden they're all peace loving and forgiving...


Quote:

repentance is not a free pass- someone who truly repents is someone who will not commit that sin again, or will do their best not to.

According to official church doctrine, you can. As long as you accept Jesus (pbuh) as your saviour, you can do as you please, and you're still saved.


Quote:

in terms of confession- in modern day terms you have confused catholicism with christianity

Since the vast majority of Christians are Catholics, it's quite a fair 'confusion'.


Quote:

I am surprised- as muslims also believe that jesus was a prophet. so I assume you meant the hypocrisy of some christians. not all- and certainly not christianity itself.

We don't believe Christians to be actually following the message of Jesus (pbuh).

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

Nope, "Muslim Countries" never do that. We keep hoping for them to show some signs of religiosity, but they're masters don't permit it :( Did you have a specific instance in mind, or just trying to be fair and even handed, so thought you might have to mention Muslims as well? :)

lol no- I should have said muslim leaders as opposed to countries. thinking specifically about the taliban, the.....omg I cannot remember his name....khohmeini?

oh and moving away from islam- even leaders like hitler used religion. sure hitler got rid of religion, but he set up his own.

and when I say these people use religion I do not mean they are being true to the religion itself- but manipulating it to further their own cause.


Quote:

Well we can't judge the individual actions of all adherents by the doctrine. But I personally think the Christian doctrine leads to hypocrisy. If we just examine the issue of war, as mentioned above. The Islamic texts for instance have clear rules of war listed in the Qur'an, as our creator knows it's a human behaviour that is going to occur. It's part of the human condition, and so it is legislated for, in the Islamic texts. Now many criticise Islam for this, but it's just a recongition of the human condition, and a responsible legislating for it. Christianity on the other hand doesn't have any texts relating to war, so when we see Christians eventually going to war, we see nothing but barbaric atrocities, because they simply don't know how to behave themselves in war, no instructions... Plain and simple. We saw this in the crusades and numerous other wars between Muslims and Christians down through the ages. In some cases, Christians actually ate the conquered Muslims... How barbaric and primitive is that? And we still see it today, in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on. Christians committing the most barbaric and atrocious actions against others in the theatre of war. And then all of a sudden they're all peace loving and forgiving...

again- isn't calling christianity flawed calling god flawed? as it was his word through jesus? or are you criticising how it has evolved?


Quote:

According to official church doctrine, you can. As long as you accept Jesus (pbuh) as your saviour, you can do as you please, and you're still saved.

which church?


Quote:

Since the vast majority of Christians are Catholics, it's quite a fair 'confusion'.

yes but in modern day christians and catholics define themselves quite differently - so to put the beliefs in the same basket doesn't really work. there are some in common, but they also differ greatly in many areas.


Quote:

We don't believe Christians to be actually following the message of Jesus (pbuh).

aha

Quote:

lol no- I should have said muslim leaders as opposed to countries. thinking specifically about the taliban, the.....omg I cannot remember his name....khohmeini?

Perhaps, but most "Muslim countries" would not be caught dead mentioning anything about religion.


Quote:

again- isn't calling christianity flawed calling god flawed? as it was his word through jesus? or are you criticising how it has evolved?

Exactly. We believe 'Christianity' is an evolved form of the original religion brought by Jesus (pbuh).


Quote:

which church?

As far as I remember, it's in the Nicene creed, so all of the mainstream churches, ie. about 99% of Christians.


Quote:

yes but in modern day christians and catholics define themselves quite differently

I don't know who you think "Christians" are, but they are Catholics. The others are just a few break away sects. You consider Catholics to not be Christians? Ex-communicated the master Ex-communicators?

Who are "Christians" then pray tell? Protestants? Orthodox? Evangelicals? Messianic Jews? All of the above, except Catholics?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:13pm:

Perhaps, but most "Muslim countries" would not be caught dead mentioning anything about religion.

yes- I withdraw my comments to being about muslim leaders


Quote:

Exactly. We believe 'Christianity' is an evolved form of the original religion brought by Jesus (pbuh). As far as I remember, it's in the Nicene creed, so all of the mainstream churches, ie. about 99% of Christians.

interesting- I'll check it out


Quote:

I don't know who you think "Christians" are, but they are Catholics. The others are just a few break away sects. You consider Catholics to not be Christians? Ex-communicated the master Ex-communicators? Who are "Christians" then pray tell? Protestants? Orthodox? Evangelicals? Messianic Jews? All of the above, except Catholics?

I am going from my personal experience as a baptised catholic who has grown up with christian friends and in an anglican school. there are massive differences.

yes of course catholics are christians- but they are of a different sect from christians such as anglicans. and you will even get some christians (who aren't catholic) sayng that catholics have strayed from the religion and go against the teachings of the bible

I should have been more specific in my use of 'christians'

I also know of people who would define themselves as 'christians' but see catholics as different in essence to 'christians'- whether they are anglican or protestant etc I don't know

yes gaybriel I too have told aboo not to confuse Catholicism with Christianity.

This is called the clear and open hypocrisy of Christianity, that sees people out all weekend committing the most disgusting sins, but in church on Sunday morning confessing them, having them forgiven.

Isn't a Christian belief, it is a Catholic practice.  I don't believe in it.  Most churches don't practice it.

It's pretty hard getting him to see the "light" so to speak.

Islam believes itself to be the one true religion.
The Koran the unadulterated word of God.
All must submit to Islam eventually.
Whether by free will or by the sword.

lol

Why do you think there are texts regarding war in the Koran and NOT in the New Testament?

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:36pm:

Islam believes itself to be the one true religion. The Koran the unadulterated word of God. All must submit to Islam eventually. Whether by free will or by the sword. lol Why do you think there are texts regarding war in the Koran and NOT in the New Testament?

perhaps we could make this a new thread

feel free...
don't expect straight answers though

Quote:

I am going from my personal experience as a baptised catholic who has grown up with christian friends and in an anglican school. there are massive differences.

Yes but there's also massive differences between all the different sects, not between "Catholics" and "Christians". Catholics are Christians, as are Orthodox and Protestants, as are Mormons and JW's. Now I would contend that the differences between Orthodox and Catholics for instance is much less than between either of those two and Protestants.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches are by far the two largest Christian congregations. The Protestants and other new sects, even combined, are a tiny minority in comparison.

Yet it seems you come from a position that protestants (most probably) are "Christians" and Catholics are somewhat different than "normal Protestant Christians", you're the minority, not them.


Quote:

yes of course catholics are christians- but they are of a different sect from christians such as anglicans. and you will even get some christians (who aren't catholic) sayng that catholics have strayed from the religion and go against the teachings of the bible

Well most of the evidence would suggest they are the original Christian Church, the word Protestant actually means the people who protested against the original Chuirch and established a new church...

Either way, they are the bulk of Christians, and it's a lot more rational to look at the mainstream and bulk of Christianity, than to look at tiny minority sects. Add to this the fact Catholics and Orthodox (who make up the huge bulk of Christians) are much closer to one another than to any other sect.


Quote:

whether they are anglican or protestant etc I don't know

Anglican OR Protestant? Oh dear... I think you better learn a little bit about Christianity before discussing this. Anglicans ARE Protestants :)

Dum dum dum dum....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Dont let someone who doesn't know the difference between Catholicism and Christianity try to snow you gaybriel.

dont know how accurate this is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions

What about the dissent within Islam itself Abu?

Sunni's not keen on Shi'ites, and sub-sects of each going pretty hard against the rest, and ALL, claiming to be THE ones following the book as it was intended.

You think you have found the ONE TRUTH, and you identify with the muslim ummah, which encompasses all these sub-sets.

If you believe in this essence of brotherhood, amongst muslims, and if you believe the koran is divinely inspired, then how do so many, get it so wrong?
Many actually kill members of opposing sects, that is pretty extreme, yet they are all part of the ummah, so how does the ummah plan to unite these factions, which have been going at it since Islam began, even under the caliphate?

mozzaok,


Quote:

What about the dissent within Islam itself Abu?

What about it?


Quote:

Sunni's not keen on Shi'ites, and sub-sects of each going pretty hard against the rest, and ALL, claiming to be THE ones following the book as it was intended.

Of course each considers themselves the most correct, or they wouldn't adopt it, would they? However, the situation we're discussing here, is akin to someone claiming there's "Sunnis and there's Islam", I don't think anyone could make any such claim, even Shi'a... Get with the program, instead of just making everything an islam-bash fest.

I haven't made any value judgement about Christianity and it's sects, I've merely pointed out that actually Catholics are the mainstream of Christianity... am I wrong?


Quote:

You think you have found the ONE TRUTH, and you identify with the muslim ummah, which encompasses all these sub-sets.

Ok that's nice mozzaok, and perhaps true, but what's it got to do with the price of kebabs in lakemba?

Quote:

If you believe in this essence of brotherhood, amongst muslims, and if you believe the koran is divinely inspired, then how do so many, get it so wrong? Many actually kill members of opposing sects, that is pretty extreme, yet they are all part of the ummah, so how does the ummah plan to unite these factions, which have been going at it since Islam began, even under the caliphate?

This is the bit that I was hoping you may attempt to answer, the one truth bit was merely stating that if you reckon your book has the true answers, then why has their always been such violent division over that single truth, and why have no muslims ever been able to sort out the divisions within Islam?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 7:15am:

Quote: I am going from my personal experience as a baptised catholic who has grown up with christian friends and in an anglican school. there are massive differences. Yes but there's also massive differences between all the different sects, not between "Catholics" and "Christians". Catholics are Christians, as are Orthodox and Protestants, as are Mormons and JW's. Now I would contend that the differences between Orthodox and Catholics for instance is much less than between either of those two and Protestants. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are by far the two largest Christian congregations. The Protestants and other new sects, even combined, are a tiny minority in comparison. Yet it seems you come from a position that protestants (most probably) are "Christians" and Catholics are somewhat different than "normal Protestant Christians", you're the minority, not them. [quote]yes of course catholics are christians- but they are of a different sect from christians such as anglicans. and you will even get some christians (who aren't catholic) sayng that catholics have strayed from the religion and go against the teachings of the bible

Well most of the evidence would suggest they are the original Christian Church, the word Protestant actually means the people who protested against the original Chuirch and established a new church...

Either way, they are the bulk of Christians, and it's a lot more rational to look at the mainstream and bulk of Christianity, than to look at tiny minority sects. Add to this the fact Catholics and Orthodox (who make up the huge bulk of Christians) are much closer to one another than to any other sect.


Quote:

whether they are anglican or protestant etc I don't know

Anglican OR Protestant? Oh dear... I think you better learn a little bit about Christianity before discussing this. Anglicans ARE Protestants :)[/quote]

are they- guuuuh. I suck. lol!

like I said I'm going more from life experience than book experience. whilst the distinction between catholic and christian may be more complex in theory- my reference is more to the lived mentality of the christians (and catholics) I know. and yeah- I make the distinction in that way because the christians I know call themselves simply christians but make the distinction between themselves and catholics :P

Whilst I appreciate you're basing your assumptions on life experience Gaybriel, that's not really an excuse for discussing the issue if you don't know much about it. I too once only had life experience about this issue to draw on, but I wouldn't have discussed it at that time, not until I actually did some research. I am originally from an Anglican background, so I can appreciate how the situation is viewed 'on the ground', but that still doesn't change the facts.


Quote:

like I said I'm going more from life experience than book experience. whilst the distinction between catholic and christian may be more complex in theory

The fact that you still use this kind of comparison tells me you still don't really get it. Would it make sense to talk about "the distinction between Anglicans and Christians"?

Let me put it in simpler terms.

Christians = {Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Other}

Catholics = about 60% of all Christians.

Orthodox = about 20% of all Christians.

Protestant = about 20% of all Christians.

Other = about 0.01% of all Christians.

hmm, my maths is bad, something doesn't quite add up there. anyway hopefully you get the point. Now Catholics and Orthodox had a schism about 1000 yeara ago, but their teachings remain quite similar, and in fact some Orthodox actually rejoined the Catholics (so called Eastern rites) about the same time (roughly 500 years ago) that the Protestants also had their schism and broke away from the mainstream Catholics. In protest they altered their beliefs and practises dramatically, so as to become quite different in both from the mainstream (Catholic, and also Orthodox) Christians. So really if we could consider anyone to be straying from the main body of Christianity, it would be the Protestants and the Other, who are mostly groups that further broke away from Protestantism, in the USA.


Quote:

my reference is more to the lived mentality of the christians (and catholics) I know and yeah- I make the distinction in that way

The distinction is wrong.


Quote:

because the christians I know call themselves simply christians

As do Catholics. In fact the word Catholic just mean Universal, so Catholic Church is the Universal Church. And in fact the Nicene creed, which all Catholics, Orthodox, and all Protestants adopt clearly states that they believe themselves to be Catholics:

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."

The Lutherans are the only Protestants I know of who actually altered this 1700 year old creed of all Christians, and removed the word Catholic.


Quote:

but make the distinction between themselves and catholics

They probably also make the distinction between themselves and the Orthodox, and between themselves and half the other Protestants also... That's irrelevant.

Ignoring me aint gonna help you Aboo...  I'll still be here pointing out your ignorance etc, etc, etc...

Yes Mozz a fair point one I pointed out a few days ago and he tried to fob off in his usual arrogant "you know nothing" pedant style.

Catholicism departs quite fundamentally from other churches in its practices and that it believes in the Trinity, creates Saints, has a Pope(and all that entails), prays to/through idols etc,  and believes in confession etc, etc, etc...

Quote:

I'll still be here pointing out your ignorance

Perhaps you'd be best off addressing your own ignorance first?

Like this for instance:

"Catholicism departs quite fundamentally from other churches in its practices and that it believes in the Trinity"

You don't even know that other churches believe in the trinity? Would be kind of sad if you were a protestant yourself and you didn't even know your own belief involved the trinity...  ;D

Some Christian groups do not believe in the trinity, from memory (and I could be wrong, I'd need to check) these include Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several smaller groups that I can't remember the names of.

rotflmao

keep proving me right oh ignorant one.

yes aboo some churches don't believe in the trinity.

In fact there are also differing ideas about it in those that do.

;D ;D ;D

That's correct Jordan, but they don't amount to more than about 0.01% of Christians combined.

99.99% of Christians believe in the trinity...

Also 99.99% believe in saints...

Also about 80% believe in a Pope of some kind...

Also about 99.99% believe in confession, however Protestants don't confess openly to priests.
80% actually believe in confession to a priest or other individual...

You're ignorant, plain and simple, even about your own religion.

keep the proof coming aboo  you make me laugh in what you believe and don't know.

Proof or no proof it's irrelevant to you, you still just spit out the same response. Discussing anything with you is purely a waste of time. The lights are on but nobody's home.

I post proof all the time and every time you get shot down in dumbass flames...

a quick look back will prove that to anyone not in your cheersquad...

I will when I get time do the same here no doubt.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 12:09pm:

Whilst I appreciate you're basing your assumptions on life experience Gaybriel, that's not really an excuse for discussing the issue if you don't know much about it. I too once only had life experience about this issue to draw on, but I wouldn't have discussed it at that time, not until I actually did some research. I am originally from an Anglican background, so I can appreciate how the situation is viewed 'on the ground', but that still doesn't change the facts. Quote: like I said I'm going more from life experience than book experience. whilst the distinction between catholic and christian may be more complex in theory The fact that you still use this kind of comparison tells me you still don't really get it. Would it make sense to talk about "the distinction between Anglicans and Christians"? Let me put it in simpler terms. Christians = {Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Other} Catholics = about 60% of all Christians. Orthodox = about 20% of all Christians. Protestant = about 20% of all Christians. Other = about 0.01% of all Christians. hmm, my maths is bad, something doesn't quite add up there. anyway hopefully you get the point. Now Catholics and Orthodox had a schism about 1000 yeara ago, but their teachings remain quite similar, and in fact some Orthodox actually rejoined the Catholics (so called Eastern rites) about the same time (roughly 500 years ago) that the Protestants also had their schism and broke away from the mainstream Catholics. In protest they altered their beliefs and practises dramatically, so as to become quite different in both from the mainstream (Catholic, and also Orthodox) Christians. So really if we could consider anyone to be straying from the main body of Christianity, it would be the Protestants and the Other, who are mostly groups that further broke away from Protestantism, in the USA. [quote]my reference is more to the lived mentality of the christians (and catholics) I know and yeah- I make the distinction in that way

The distinction is wrong.


Quote:

because the christians I know call themselves simply christians

As do Catholics. In fact the word Catholic just mean Universal, so Catholic Church is the Universal Church. And in fact the Nicene creed, which all Catholics, Orthodox, and all Protestants adopt clearly states that they believe themselves to be Catholics:

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."

The Lutherans are the only Protestants I know of who actually altered this 1700 year old creed of all Christians, and removed the word Catholic.


Quote:

but make the distinction between themselves and catholics

They probably also make the distinction between themselves and the Orthodox, and between themselves and half the other Protestants also... That's irrelevant.[/quote]

take it easy man- I said where I was coming from. you've pointed out where I was wrong and I accept that. no need to keep on going.

I could respond to some things you said but I'm just going to leave it alone as we're approaching it from different perspectives and even though I've qualified from where my comments are coming you are responding to them from your own.

my comments were merely to further explain where I was coming from, not to argue a particular point.

None of this of course is particularly relevant to the topic or the opening discussion.

Nothing unusual in the site Muslims turning discussion away from the topic.  Always a good thing when life gets a bit difficult...  deflect and evade.

But let me make a comment on the "guess" from aboo about Christianity, Catholicism and the Trinity...

Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainstream denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be non-trinitarian.

In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (unlike some more dogmatic religions) to the greater truth they are intended to address, i.e. God.

It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy.

My church never taught the Trinity.

From my readings neither the Old or New Testaments support the Trinity view.  Early Christians didn't.  Jesus never taught it and unless I'm mistaken his teachings are what Christianity is based on.

Nontrinitarians note that Jesus referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God", and that he said "the Father is the only true God." Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "The most important one (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."  Far be it from me to disagree.

Siding with nontrinitarians, many scholars investigating the historical Jesus often assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity

As an aside...  a comment from noted commentator and writer H.G. Wells: "We shall see presently how later on all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the Trinity at any rate from him."

It is well know that Catholicism adopted many pagan practices, festivals and rituals into itself in the furthering of its dominion and influence.

Now what was it I originally said...  oh yes...


Quote:

Catholicism departs quite fundamentally from other churches in its practices and that it believes in the Trinity, creates Saints, has a Pope(and all that entails), prays to/through idols etc,  and believes in confession etc, etc, etc...

Having proven that and had aboo begrudgingly agree yet try to wriggle out of it with some creative statistics, I suppose I will now have to move onto the other points re saints etc...

Hmmm.

Ok aboo
what Christian churches create saints and pray to them?
Let me give you a help there... Not Presbyterians,, in fact i cant think of any Protestant church that does.
Even the Eastern Orthodox churches differ from the Catholic pravtice and belief in this.  Hmmm  can't remember the Lutherans creating any saints.

All your aboo I await enlightenment and expect the usual..  ;D

The Pope or Holy father is the head of the Catholic church and is recognized by them as the successor to Saint Peter.  The Catholic's claim the Pope has spiritual authority on Earth and it proclaims the dogma of papal infallibility.

The Petrine Doctrine is still controversial as an issue of doctrine that continues to divide the eastern and western churches as well as separating Protestants from Rome.

How many other current heads of Christian churches is held to be the word of God on Earth?

NEED I GO ON ::) ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity

ALL Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Churches adopt the trinity as accepted doctrine and creed. What individuals themselves adopt, with or without the consent of the church is beyond the scope of this debate, as it simply can't be accurately quantified.

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant make up 99.99% of all Christians.


Quote:

It is well know that Catholicism adopted many pagan practices, festivals and rituals into itself in the furthering of its dominion and influence.

Don't get me wrong Grendel, if you reject the trinity, I commend you, as it is indeed a load of pagan inspired nonsense. But the fact is that it was adopted about 1700 years ago by ALL Christians except the Arians, and the Arians mostly became Muslims (agreeing with our purely monotheistic message) or were exterminated by the Trinitarians.


Quote:

what Christian churches create saints and pray to them?

You never said 'and pray to them' in your original claim, leave the strawmen out of it.

Go and check the name of your local Anglican parish or school... Hint: The "St" at the start of the name doesn't mean street :)


Quote:

Even the Eastern Orthodox churches differ from the Catholic pravtice and belief in this.

Nope, Eastern Orthodox believe in saints, they disagreed over icons, not saints, and even then they later accepted them anyway.


Quote:

Hmmm  can't remember the Lutherans creating any saints.

Lutherans are generally the exception, as they protested quite strongly against Rome. However most other Protestants do accept saints. I think they at least consider the early church fathers, St Paul, St Peter etc. to be saints.

So even if we discount the Protestants (which most believe in saints anyway), Catholic and Orthodox both accept saints, so at least 80% of Christians believe in saints. No small minority...


Quote:

The Pope or Holy father is the head of the Catholic church

The Orthodox churches all have popes as well.

So again, 80% of Christians believe in a pope.

Quote:

as it is indeed a load of pagan inspired nonsense.

Just so we're clear, you find it acceptable to talk this way about someone elses belief system, but others cannot do the same to yours?

rotflmao

here we go aboo...  I'll post the Pope stuff for you again.
Just so you can see how foolish your strawman was again.

The Pope or Holy father is the head of the Catholic church and is recognized by them as the successor to Saint Peter.  The Catholic's claim the Pope has spiritual authority on Earth and it proclaims the dogma of papal infallibility.

The Petrine Doctrine is still controversial as an issue of doctrine that continues to divide the eastern and western churches as well as separating Protestants from Rome.

How many other current heads of Christian churches is held to be the word of God on Earth?

rotflmao

I already mentioned the idolatry bit in my original post aboo  so no I wont leave off the "and pray to them but at all"

No strawman on your part is gonna work.
No false claims and pedantry is gonna work.
I'm not letting someone like you get away with anything.

If you wish to leave it off go right ahead.

I already proved my point.
(even without that)

Here let me post it again for you oh ignorant one.
Stop living in deluded denial.  Or admit you are wrong and are clueless.

Ok aboo
what Christian churches create saints and pray to them?
Let me give you a help there... Not Presbyterians,, in fact i cant think of any Protestant church that does.
Even the Eastern Orthodox churches differ from the Catholic practice and belief in this.  Hmmm  can't remember the Lutherans creating any saints.

All your aboo I await enlightenment and expect the usual..  

oh and Aboo calling a church after a Saint aint creating a Saint.   ::) ::) ::)

oh and ... Even the Eastern Orthodox churches differ from the Catholic practice and belief in this.  IS A FACT....  sorry if your English or knowledge is so poor you don't understand this.

oh and aboo...

your oft repeated statistic..  


Quote:

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant make up 99.99% of all Christians.

is totally incorrect.

Without looking up the most recent accurate stats (and using your parameters) it would be more like 82% and if you also take into account that not all Protestants adhere to trinitarian doctrine (and they don't) if you take just 1/3 of them you can add another 7% which drops your figure down to 75%...

Also if you look at the differing understandings of the trinity between those who believe in it you are still left with only Catholics believing what Catholics believe and Catholics only make up just over half of the world's Christians.

YAWN...  ::)

Now can we get back on topic? hmmm.
Or don't you want to discuss Muslim bad behaviour and sedition within the communities they inhabit in the West?

Quote:

oh and Aboo calling a church after a Saint aint creating a Saint

It means they obviously believe in saints. Can't believe in something that hasn't been created (actually beatified is the correct term).


Quote:

Without looking up the most recent accurate stats (and using your parameters) it would be more like 82%

You think 18% of Christians are neither Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant? Got some actual references to back that up?? Which large minorities make up this 18% in your estimation?


Quote:

which drops your figure down to 75%..

3/4 is still an overwhelming majority. Anyway, the Protestant Churches adopt the Nicene Creed, unless you can show statistics to prove that large amounts of Protestants don't believe in it, we'll just go with the established facts shall we?


Quote:

Also if you look at the differing understandings of the trinity between those who believe in it you are still left with only Catholics believing what Catholics believe and Catholics only make up just over half of the world's Christians.

This was your original (and incorrect) claim, that Cathlics only adopt the Trinity. It's quite obviously false, and you even admit above, it's perhaps only those not of the major 3 denominations, and you speculate there might be large numbers of Protestants that don't. Even if your speculation were reliable evidence, Orthodox quite clearly believe in the trinity...


Quote:

YAWN...

If you're tired, or don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. You'll find I'm a little more respectful of others and myself, and won't run around from thread to thread boasting I beat you, as others might...


Quote:

Or don't you want to discuss Muslim bad behaviour and sedition within the communities they inhabit in the West?

Not particularly. Since I don't behave badly, nor seditiously, It doesn't affect me.

Because Christians beave badly and/or seditiously, should you answer for them? why must individual Muslims answer for all other Muslims? Are we a monolithic entity or something?

Quote:

It means they obviously believe in saints. Can't believe in something that hasn't been created (actually beatified is the correct term).

rotflmao

You are sooooo ignorant.
Do you understand that Saints are just considered "Holy" men by many Christians...  that you don't pray to them or carry idols of them around etc. etc, etc...  they are part of history.  

I guess you don't.

Nor do you have the guts to admit you were wrong...  as I clearly showed.

Catholics pray to saints, and keep pictures, medals, statues, etc.

I always thought of them a bit like four leaf clovers, sort of good luck charms.

I never thought of god as the super jealous type though.

I mean, who would expect the supreme being to have self esteem, and insecurity issues?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 8:19pm:

Catholics pray to saints, and keep pictures, medals, statues, etc. I always thought of them a bit like four leaf clovers, sort of good luck charms. I never thought of god as the super jealous type though. I mean, who would expect the supreme being to have self esteem, and insecurity issues?

I know you're kinda joking but I'll answer seriously anyway!

isn't it more about god saying that there is no other god but him so worshipping any other would be worshipping a false god?

Grendel,

Here's your original statement, no mention of praying to the Saints, just that they 'create' them.

Quote:

Catholicism departs quite fundamentally from other churches in its practices and that it believes in the Trinity, creates Saints, has a Pope(and all that entails), prays to/through idols etc,  and believes in confession etc, etc, etc...

Afterwards you modified it AFTER I already answered it and showed you to be wrong. You want to move the goal posts after the goal's been kicked, bit late sonny jim, it just shows you're incapable of actually engaging in a dignified discussion.

All your claims have been addressed and you've been proven to be wrong in all but 1 of them. Please go and read about the Nicene creed, about the Orthodox Popes and about all the other stuff you've debated yet have no idea whatsoever about.

Have some self respect and just admit you spoke without thinking or checking the facts. You really do yourself a disservice by going on like this, and completely avoiding the facts already presented to you.

Or... you could just fill another post with 'rotflmao' and other childish little acronyms that you often use to disguise the fact you have no post-worthy reply.

I didn't modify it at all... aboo...

you haven't shown me to be wrong about anything in fact it is you whom keeps creating strawmen and showing an ignorance of the subject.

I did my study of Catholicism a couple of decades ago goober...  nothing much I cant remember about them.

As to your 2nd non-point  statistics... yes my stats are far more accurate than yours a quick google with show that to be true.

as for...  
Quote:

3/4 is still an overwhelming majority. Anyway, the Protestant Churches adopt the Nicene Creed, unless you can show statistics to prove that large amounts of Protestants don't believe in it, we'll just go with the established facts shall we?

Mine was probably an under-estimate.  So just where did you get your statistics from.  oh that's right an uninformed guess.  Did you read anything I wrote?  Well if you did, get your brain in gear and try to process the information.

This is all pretty moot re this topic and eventually I will get back on it with a vengeance but for now I'm happy to make you look stupid.

25% is a lot bigger that .1% isn't it.  In fact it is 250 times bigger give or take.

My point re the creation of saints and other Christian religions still hold btw and I did explain and expand on it just for you.  seems though i'm just wasting my time educating you.

ok guys lets move it over here

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224674475

hello aboo... trinity time again.

yes I commented on the Trinity.
yet you still fail to get it.
One...  not all Christians believe in the trinity.
Two...  Not all those that do share the same definition/belief in the trinity.

Oh dear...  so therefore as has been my argument from the very start...  Not all Christians have the same belief as Catholics

yet you measure Christians as Catholics...  how stupid is that.

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:28pm:

hello aboo... trinity time again. yes I commented on the Trinity. yet you still fail to get it. One...  not all Christians believe in the trinity. Two...  Not all those that do share the same definition/belief in the trinity. Oh dear...  so therefore as has been my argument from the very start...  Not all Christians have the same belief as Catholics yet you measure Christians as Catholics...  how stupid is that.

grendel-please move this discussion to the other thread posted above.

this has gotten too off topic

That's what they do gaybriel...  I didn't start going off topic...  

But in order to avoid a topic...  they go off topic.

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:51pm:

That's what they do gaybriel...  I didn't start going off topic...   But in order to avoid a topic...  they go off topic.

actually I think I got this off topic.

a lot of convos go off topic- I don't have a prob with that, just when they do let's put them in another thread....which I now have :P