bottom line...you knew it was faith based...it's a statement of fact to the author, and of extreme signficance to him i'm sure. he shouldn't apologize for writing it...i won't apologize for saying it, just as i don't ask those who make other statements of faith here to apologize...and you don't have to like it. no one is forcing anything on you...this is a marketplace of ideas...gootan threw out his ideas...if you don't like them, you don't have to subscribe to them. i'm offended when people tell me that killing a fetus in a woman's uterus is her choice...them's the breaks.
As a muslim, I have always been taught to follow the path of the Prophets of God. From Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad All have worshipped the same one God. All have preached essentially the same message and very similar living guidelines. X marks the spot that all of these religions point towards and we simply take different paths to get to these points. Yet its easier to conquer in the name of religion than anything else. What is better opium than the thought of everlasting life and paradise. The words of these apostles of God are so beautiful, yet the actions on their behalf make me think the world may have been a better place if man hadn't been able to manipulate the message of God.
All right Max....I've tried diligently not to let myself get baited ever since I blew up at your buddy, Refman. Seeing as you won't let up, I'll appease you: you're being a prick! F.D. Khan just now, did not offend me. And I'm not being a hypocrite. You're being a moron. He prefaced his whole statement with "As a muslim, I have always been taught...." That's the difference. That's why he doesn't come across as someone speaking in absolutes. His message didn't communicate that his way is the only way. I would think that someone who graduated from law school would be able to see the difference.
And what really irks me was that I had already bowed out of discussing this anymore with my previous remark.
one of your orignal posts reads as follows: "He's not bashing the religion. If he's bashing anything, it's the practice of using a public venue to issue a statement of faith disguised as a statement of fact" fact: you knew gootan was a christian...virtually everyone here does...and the statement he made was not meant to confuse anyone...it was clearly a statement of faith. and you bashed him for it. then rm95 said that if a muslim did the same thing, he'd get bashed for it in here. fd khan comes on here and posts this: "All have worshipped the same one God. All have preached essentially the same message and very similar living guidelines." and this is less offensive? why? because he wrote, "as a muslim" at the beginning? that would be a halfway valid argument if you didn't already know that gootan was a christian...or if rocketmantex didn't...but the fact is, he's been quite vocal about his faith in here. he's argued based from his faith. you and everyone else here knew EXACTLY that his statement was written with an implied, "as a christian..." at the beginning. outside of that....Jesus Christ himself, according to the Bible, can be interpreted as saying that he was the only way...."the way, the truth and the life." He then calls on his followers to make "disciples of all nations." Jesus himself shouted people down...he was about truth, and that offended the hell out of a lot of people...and that ultimately got him killed. i'm much more offended at someone rolling eyes at a proclamation of faith than i am with someone else's meaningful assertion of faith. i'm not offended in the slightest with what khan posted, even if i tend to disagree with it. we all have different ideas on subjects, including the very meaning of our own existence and our own creator. sharing ideas in a marketplace of ideas is not offensive, as you've asserted....or maybe you think gootan is some scheming mastermind....but if you are thinking that he was posting this as a means of trickery, but asserting it as fact rather than his own faith, it is you who is the moron. your use of the word prick was particularly meaningful to the conversation...you defend rolling eyes at a proclamation of faith, and i'm the prick. keep trying, pole.
Two things: 1) God doesn't exist you stoners... "wheeeeee". 2) I agree with Pole. And MadMax. Pole b/c of sentimentality/awareness and MadMax b/c of common sense. I have recently tried to refrain from my '#1' attitude b/c there are people that see the beauty in faith (my grandpa), or just need God (alcoholics like my father; unfortunately my dad is an atheist, lol). At the same time, conversation sometimes becomes impotent if we are adding a billion qualifiers "imo", etc. etc. 'tis a shame a perfectly good "why can't we all get along thread" eroded so quickly. ROTFLMAO
I have looked and looked on the web, and I can't find out what a "missionary baptist" is. Anyone got a lead for me? Btw, if anyone wants to host a website but they don't know what to write, make a site that concisely summarizes the beliefs of all the denominations in the country. Apparently, that niche has not yet been filled.
THIS IS WHY I HATE RELIGION! As much as its suppose to make people more civilized, understanding and humble, it more than often gives them a reason to be arrogant, intolerant, and overly-sensitive morons. It's completely sickening and disgustingly hypocritical. Sorry if I offended anyone in advance. ***SRF storms out of the hangout***
Actually, to set the record straight, I was not "offended" per se. I just do not like when adherents of any religion, my own included, spout statements of faith as if they were fact. A person's religion is between two people: The person and whomever or whatever the person worships. That's it. You should never force your beliefs on someone else, whether on this BBS or in life itself. OK, that's enough. Someone either kill this thread or mix me a martini. (PS: This smilie is a laugh, not a rolleyes. I hope it doesn't offend anyone!)
Catholicism v.s. Protestantism What are the fundamental doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Protestant and Catholics are very often confused because of the many similarities. The prominence of Jesus to each religion starts the list of differences. Confused people believe that the beliefs of Protestants and Catholics contain no significant variances. However, it is the parallelisms that are few not the differences. It is true that both Protestants and Catholics believe that Jesus' life is reality, but they focus on different aspects of his life. The death on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus is the very basis of Protestantism. On the other hand, Catholicism emphasizes baby Jesus and the birth mother of Jesus. Mary is worshiped as a mediator between God and man. Protestants glorify Jesus for his flawless life and willingness to always obey God's will. Another controversial point is what determines the acceptance to heaven or righteousness. The Catholics believe good works or sacrements may allow them to spend less time in purgatory paying for their sins before entering heaven. Protestants, on the other hand, a re assured that Jesus paid the penalty for all sin. Accepting this gift through faith, not works, guarentees entrance into heaven. Faith with good works is one aspect of Protestantism that is confused with the Catholic life of good works. It is necessary for a Protestant to accept Jesus as their Lord, acknowledge his death and resurrection, and admit sins. Catholics are baptised as babies into Christianity, and as a cultural tradition, have a "first communion" ceremony when they are about 10 years old. Sins are confessed to a priest. For Catholics, religion is works, church sacraments, and traditional repetious prayer. Prayer in the dynamic daily life of a Protestant includes conversation, praise, and repentance. It is valid for Protestants to simply ask God for spiritual and physical needs. Catholics, however, believe they need to perform acts of devotion and pentence to somehow earn the attention of Mary and gain God's favor. Although there is much similarity between these two religions, the basic beliefs are contradictory. One is based on relationship founded on the truth of the Bible, the other is based on religion as interpreted by traditions of Catholic clergy. They are actually worlds apart in doctrine and faith. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/dbq/essay/dedoctrinelo.htm
while you are certainly entitled to this belief, it runs almost directly contrary to the plain language of the new testament. you don't have to believe in the bible...and no one is actually forcing this down your throat. you have the ability to turn the channel, walk away, or stop reading. for 2000 years, people have dismissed it...you're not in the minority.
I've just got a question, but please don't take it as an attack, because it's not intended to be: Are you bothered by such statements, regardless of the religion involved or the statement made? Here's why I ask: the following statement seems to fit into the same category, although no one seems to have been bothered by it. Isn't this a statement of faith presented as fact? I'm not trying to pick on you, F. D. Khan; you're statement just happened to be the one I saw. I agree with Achebe (even though he thinks I'm a dork and a moron ), placing qualifier after qualifier on what we say is needless. I'm pretty sure most people understand when we're stating our convictions. In fact, I don't believe it's possible for us to do anything more than that. Even when what we say happens to be fact, we're still just stating our personal convictions on the matter, just the same as when an obviously disputed matter is under consideration. Pole made some assertions of his own that fall into the same category. Concerning mr_gootan's statement, Pole responded with, "Not exactly an answer to the question." Shouldn't that be, "I don't believe it's an answer to the question"? Some of us are convinced that it has something to do with the problems in the religious world today. Does one group need to qualify every comment while others get an exemption? If so, why? As for the differences among religious groups, I've got two things to say: First, there has no doubt been way too much needless division and hostility. As the saying goes, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Some people don't seem to recognize that, and no religious group (or non-religious group, for that matter) seems to be immune. It's not a religious problem (only); it's a human problem. Second, isn't it possible for people to have legitimate differences---differences over significant points of doctrine, etc. I'll be honest with you, there are religious people with whom I have what I believe are significant differences. That doesn't mean that I believe they're dishonest or hypocrites (although some may be), and neither does it mean that I get to decide their eternal destiny. I'm confident that many of you would think my differences are very minor, and probably insignificant. Here's the thing: My belief that they're siginificant doesn't make them significant; other people's belief that their insignificant doesn't make them insignificant. They just are or they are not. That's why we talk about them. There is value in the free exchange of ideas--even the ones we don't agree with. Again, some people can't seem to do that without making it personal. Their "opponent" automatically becomes their enemy. That's unfortunate.
Traj, I meant to go back to that thread and apologize... if not blatantly modify my post before you read it. I was in a bad mood that day ($$ issues have me nervous lately... I have an insane bill-rate. I hate programming. I have an insane bill-rate. Why am I going back to school and running out of money? Oh yeah, I hate programming). Anyway, I apologize for being a dork in that thread. It was completely inappropriate. I should have apologized previously. I'm sorry. I'm dumb. Please forgive me.
