Why are there so many demoninations?
-
double ouchOriginally posted by Chin Eng:actually it is not so bad if anyone is anti-Christian and admits to it... at least one is honest to oneself and to others.
unlike some gutless individual who relentless condemns Christians for our beliefs yet continues to be an evangelist of his so-called science and truth.
-
You're invited to visit my Church of SatanOriginally posted by Chin Eng:actually it is not so bad if anyone is anti-Christian and admits to it... at least one is honest to oneself and to others.
unlike some gutless individual who relentless condemns Christians for our beliefs yet continues to be an evangelist of his so-called science and truth. -
haha...the gates of hell will never prevail against us....Originally posted by F Takumi:You're invited to visit my Church of Satan 
-
I am ok with that.... at least you can openly and honestly proclaim yourself to be a worshipper of Satan.... what's the address?Originally posted by F Takumi:You're invited to visit my Church of Satan -
Sin Po Po nightclub at 69 Tanjong Katong Road. hahahaOriginally posted by Chin Eng:I am ok with that.... at least you can openly and honestly proclaim yourself to be a worshipper of Satan.... what's the address?
Just joking. I suppose the Satan Club or church thingy is also a joke.
-
Satanism is in itself a denomination of Judaism, just that Satanists believe that Satan is the messiah.
-
I'm just jokingOriginally posted by Chin Eng:I am ok with that.... at least you can openly and honestly proclaim yourself to be a worshipper of Satan.... what's the address? It's actually meant as a parody of some "brightness of a lost nation"
http://fcos.sgforums.com -
I know lah...Originally posted by F Takumi:I'm just joking It's actually meant as a parody of some "brightness of a lost nation"
http://fcos.sgforums.com -
Though it may be a christian website(by the way I took that into account). It has neutral third-party material like the:
I can only see that for the whole time, you are the only one taking one-sided info the anti-Christian info. You condemn and find fault with anything or anybody that is Christian or pro-Christian. This is pretty obvious despite the many times you try to hide your shit by insisting that you're clear-minded, fair and reasonable
as said before, it is a christian website and it will only mention the article and portion where it will make them look good. To be convincing, use a third party information. The website where i present my information is wikepedia, a thrid party website tat is not against christianity not catholic. If u really read it then u will realise tat it is likea history book tat just reports the fact. If u want a one sided information, I can show u the one from those who r against catholic below
If we look at history, the Inquisition began shortly after the Crusades were coming to an end. The Vatican needed to keep its grip on power and decided to carry on Crusade-like activities closer to home.
It wasnÂ’t until the 1830s that the Spanish Inquisition was officially ended. More than half a millennium was spent by the Roman Catholic Church on torturing and killing those who did not agree, as well as devout followers who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, in the 21st century, Vatican officials are downplaying the longest reign of terror in history.
And, donÂ’t forget about previous Vatican "scholars," the predecessors of those who are denying history today in the recent reports. They were the ones who said the Earth was flat. They were the ones who said the Earth was about 6,000 years old. They were the ones who jailed scientists for having the audacity to state that the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Today, the same denial of reality is implemented by modern Vatican scholars. Nothing has changed.
http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/inquisition-not-bad.html
In NEWS1675, we revealed that priests threatened their female penitents in the confessional that, unless they would have sex with them, they would turn them into the Inquisition! So effective was this threat that one dying priest revealed in 1710, "by these diabolical persuasions they were at our command, without fear of revealing the secret." [Page 36, "MASTER-KEY TO POPERY", Father Givens]
Since so few people today have been taught even the rudiments of history, most do not know what the Inquisition was REALLY and TRULY like. Most people today have no idea of the rampant barbarism and torture wreaked upon the unfortunate inhabitants of Europe for 1,200 years! Most people have no idea how the entire population was consumed by fear, for a knock on one's door in the middle of the night meant immediate beginning of a torturous death at the hands of the Inquisitors.
Accusation equaled Guilty.
Therefore, if a priest threatened a woman that he would lie about her to the officers of the "Holy" Inquisition, she knew the type of torture and death that awaited her. The priest would probably report the woman to the Inquisitors as a witch. As you shall see in a few moments, the Inquisitors treated alleged witches with special relish, glee, and attention.
In this treatise, we have attempted to walk a fine line between Christian modesty and a fervent desire that you should know the fullness of truth regarding the Inquisition. Since many of the victims were stripped nude and tortured publicly, or stripped nude and raped privately, we have had to weed out numerous drawings that depicted such nudity; however, we have included a couple of pictures which, even though they depict the nudity of the victim, do so in such a way as to not depict sexual body parts. We hope your sensibilities are not offended. If you think they might be, you may stop reading now.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfmLet me give you an analogy to illustrate: even in a gracious secular society teaches that it is wrong to lie, but people still do it. Now, question is does a liarÂ’s behaviour reflect what the society stands for?
In a similar way, the Catholics do wrong things. But does that represent what the Church teaches?
American historian William T. Walsh on Brother Fray Tomas de Torquemada,:Somehow this came to my mind...
If u ask me, if they r a lot of liers in tat society, then lying indeed reflects wat the society really stand for. If even the leaders of an organisation, then it truly reflects tat organisation is really having problems. Lets take the example of singapore and lee hsien long. Lee hsien long represents singapore and all the actions he did reflect singapore. He went to taiwan and china blast him for doing tat. Similarly, Rice and George Bush represent their america and everything they said reflects america stand and view. If one day george bush or rice goes mad and ran around naked, it not only embarrass himself but also america. Osama also represents the Al Qaeda group. The things he said really become the people perspective of al qaeda and it do become the future goal of its group. As such, can't u see tat the pope represent catholic and if the things he did represent the catholic stand at tat time ? As said before, the pope, the high ranking monk, the catholic countries, the catholic agents in tat country represents catholic. If it is a nobody then the actions refelct little of catholic. But for a high ranking monk and pope, then it reflects the whole religion
Singapore doesn't have a state religion. So does it represent atheists??Is that not what the people opposing the crusaders did as well?
I am not suporting the actions of the other group eitherYou have changed the meaning of what I stated. I was referring to the perception that if IÂ’m a Christian of course, IÂ’ll say the other side was crueler. If IÂ’m not a Christian I will say that the Christian were the cruel ones.
Why will a non-christian says tat christian were the cruel ones when they r fighting against muslims ? Shouldn't it be muslim being the ones tat says christian r the cruel ones while non-christian and non-muslim take the neutral stand here ? If u look carefully, the examples u given r 600 while the inquisition starts at 1200. Why is these 2 events related ? If u want me to say tat muslims tat time r cruel and babaric, I agree with u wholeheartedly. But in the years 1200, it appears catholic r the one dealing the killing blows to the people first.
By the way the people opposing the crusaders were not saints either, they didnÂ’t just banish their defeated adversaries. Here are some of their past misdeeds.Now if we want to compare who was crueler, we could go on forever. Tell me in war which side is ever fully justified? But as I said you attributing all the atrocities to the Christians is not fair, did I ever say that the crusaders never committed any atrocities?
u have possible denied things like who started the crusaders, the reasons to start the crusades, link inquisition to the gov and try to push all blames from catholic, a lot of people get freed from torture when a lot of people do died from them and so on
If you want, I can give you examples of Crusader atrocities.
So, now how did we distort history?actually it is not so bad if anyone is anti-Christian and admits to it... at least one is honest to oneself and to others.
have i denied being an evangelist for science and truth ?
unlike some gutless individual who relentless condemns Christians for our beliefs yet continues to be an evangelist of his so-called science and truth. -
have i denied being an evangelist for science and truth ?
have you admitted that you are anti-Christian??? or that you have become what you have always declared that you've hated: a person who goes into an opposing topic to preach your views? Isn't this what you've always maintained, that you hated Christians who go into other topics to preach the gospel???
Let me put it to you that you have become exactly that!. See, by stating that you are an evangelist to your so-called science and truth, the threads no longer remain discussive in spirit!
Doesn't this make you a hypocrite?
Not accusing you of anything so don't take it the wrong way. -
Splendid, so you do not consider the above to be third party material.I never knew BBC was pro-catholic...
ABSTRACT: The 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition"
Again, bravo but now answer this question, your parents teach not to lie but you still do it, so that means your parents are liars?
If u ask me, if they r a lot of liers in tat society, then lying indeed reflects wat the society really stand for. If even the leaders of an organisation, then it truly reflects tat organisation is really having problems. Lets take the example of singapore and lee hsien long. Lee hsien long represents singapore and all the actions he did reflect singapore. He went to taiwan and china blast him for doing tat. Similarly, Rice and George Bush represent their america and everything they said reflects america stand and view. If one day george bush or rice goes mad and ran around naked, it not only embarrass himself but also america. Osama also represents the Al Qaeda group. The things he said really become the people perspective of al qaeda and it do become the future goal of its group. As such, can't u see tat the pope represent catholic and if the things he did represent the catholic stand at tat time ? As said before, the pope, the high ranking monk, the catholic countries, the catholic agents in tat country represents catholic. If it is a nobody then the actions refelct little of catholic. But for a high ranking monk and pope, then it reflects the whole religion
When I meant non-christians, I was refering to muslims as well. As for non-christians and non-muslims being neutral...
Why will a non-christian says tat christian were the cruel ones when they r fighting against muslims ? Shouldn't it be muslim being the ones tat says christian r the cruel ones while non-christian and non-muslim take the neutral stand here ? If u look carefully, the examples u given r 600 while the inquisition starts at 1200. Why is these 2 events related ? If u want me to say tat muslims tat time r cruel and babaric, I agree with u wholeheartedly. But in the years 1200, it appears catholic r the one dealing the killing blows to the people first.
Don't mix Inquistion with the crusades.
The examples I have though they are in 600 are important for 3 reasons:
1. It means muslim aggresion occured before the 1st crusade
2.It means the 1st crusades onwards was a reaction to agression
3.The crusaders would hold these past transgression in thier hearts as they went offf into the crusades.
No, I have not.
u have possible denied things like who started the crusaders, the reasons to start the crusades, link inquisition to the gov and try to push all blames from catholic, a lot of people get freed from torture when a lot of people do died from them and so on
As I mentioned before the 1st Crusade onwards was in response to aggresion from the other party.
This source states how the Spanish Inquistion started:
The Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12,000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, King Ferdinand V and Queen Isabella established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christians, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks -
This is from your source to show that the 1st crusade was in response to aggression.
The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.
Secondly, you state that your source is netural, than why is it there is not a single mention of atrocities comitted by the people opposing the crusaders? -
Originally posted by plo30360:
Erm, I think more Jews of the Holy Land died in the hands of the Crusaders than those belonging to Muslims.
This is from your source to show that the 1st crusade was in response to aggression.
Secondly, [b]you state that your source is netural, than why is it there is not a single mention of atrocities comitted by the people opposing the crusaders?[/b] -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
To be fair to stupidissmart, being an atheist implicitly implies that he is anti-religion, including Christianity. If he belongs to another religion and is anti-Christ then it's a different matter altogether.
have you admitted that you are anti-Christian??? or that you have become what you have always declared that you've hated: a person who goes into an opposing topic to preach your views? Isn't this what you've always maintained, that you hated Christians who go into other topics to preach the gospel???
[b]Let me put it to you that you have become exactly that!. See, by stating that you are an evangelist to your so-called science and truth, the threads no longer remain discussive in spirit!
Doesn't this make you a hypocrite? Not accusing you of anything so don't take it the wrong way.[/b]
And anti-Christ is different from anti-Christian, I myself personally detest loud-mouthed evangelists who relentlessly condemn other religions, although I have nothing against Christianity.
Of course I also can't stand people who claimed that they can perform magick but that's out of topic -
Takumi
I will pm you shortly 'cos I don't want this thread to go out of whack.... -
Is anybody denying that crusaders performed carnage on the Jews?Originally posted by iveco:Erm, I think more Jews of the Holy Land died in the hands of the Crusaders than those belonging to Muslims.
What we are trying to state is that the people opposing the crusaders(combatants) had thier fair share of bloodlust. -
have you admitted that you are anti-Christian??? or that you have become what you have always declared that you've hated: a person who goes into an opposing topic to preach your views? Isn't this what you've always maintained, that you hated Christians who go into other topics to preach the gospel???
The truth is, I am anti religion. I do go into debates with muslims and taoist as well. I hated christian who go into other topic to preach the gospel, but then this thread is already started as a religious thread. U mean u only want christian to reply to tis thread and free thinkers etc to butt out ?See, by stating that you are an evangelist to your so-called science and truth, the threads no longer remain discussive in spirit!
and why is tat so ? U mean only a christian can discuss with a christian ?Doesn't this make you a hypocrite? Not accusing you of anything so don't take it the wrong way.
the first part of tat statement has a total different meaning to the second part.Splendid, so you do not consider the above to be third party material.I never knew BBC was pro-catholic...
U r totally off point. I am saying a christian website WILL use THIRD PARTY MATERIAL tat LOOK good on them. I didn't say tat they never use third party material. Look at the website u have given ? Isn't the word christainity and bible prominent in the website u have given ? "http://biblia.com/christianity/index.html" ? I am telling u in order to be convincing, u should use material tat is not one-sided.Again, bravo but now answer this question, your parents teach not to lie but you still do it, so that means your parents are liars?
Wat has tat got to with my parents ? I have given u the examples of lee hsien long and george bush. u got anything to say for tat ? Do u acknowledge they represent singapore and america ? Do u think tat the things and actions osama do will be linked to al qaeda ? Why don't u answer tis part first ? BTW, parents r different from organisation. There is a reason why the leader of an organisation have to be picked wisely.The examples I have though they are in 600 are important for 3 reasons:
tat is very strange... wat has tat got to do with catholic ? I thought it was the persians that were attacked then ? Is the history u r reading same as mine ?
1. It means muslim aggresion occured before the 1st crusade
2.It means the 1st crusades onwards was a reaction to agression
3.The crusaders would hold these past transgression in thier hearts as they went offf into the crusades.
also it was not the trigger point for the crusaders. It was Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. Tat is in 1095, 400 years after your muslim agression. Why should they have agression in their heart as they went off into crusades ? U mean the crusaders r persians or egytians ?
BTW when muslim win the war,
Muslim conquerors habitually gave the people they defeated three alternatives: converting to Islam, retaining their religion with freedom of worship in return for the payment of the poll tax, or war. They were not killed.
when crusaders win, they celebrated by herding all the Jews into a synagogue and burning them alive. Non-Christians were subsequently barred from the city. -
I'd like to benefit from your wisdom if you can point out to me where your other posts are. All you need to do is to provide some links and I will continue to be enlightened by your writing. The thread is "Why are there so many denominations", as far as I can tell, only people who study history can give a credible explanation as to why denominations exist. Do you disagree that each time YOU (specially only you) enter a topic, it inevitably turns to a flaming war?The truth is, I am anti religion. I do go into debates with muslims and taoist as well. I hated christian who go into other topic to preach the gospel, but then this thread is already started as a religious thread. U mean u only want christian to reply to tis thread and free thinkers etc to butt out ?
No, haven't you realised that any questions asked by non-Christians are usually answered. It still hinges on the issue of your tone and your confrontation approach. I know you don't care if others dislike the way you write, still if you can be more approachable and gentle, perhaps your preaching of your truth may be easier to swallow.
and why is tat so ? U mean only a christian can discuss with a christian ?
[/b]
It does not, the first part is a question as denoted by the question mark. The second part is a clarification that it is a question and there is no accusation. If I had written: You are a hypocrite! I am not accusing you to be a hypocrite even though I'd said it, it would be correct that the second part contradicts the first.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this make you a hypocrite? Not accusing you of anything so don't take it the wrong way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the first part of tat statement has a total different meaning to the second part.
[/b]
Let me post a challenge to you: will you be able to moderate your tone to be less confrontational, in the event where no suitable is found, agree to disagree and get on with life? You have previously maintained that this is you and that's that. So here's a homo-sapien that is so stubborn that he is not willing to change, you'd expect organisations that started thousands of years ago will care what you think?
Religion cannot always explain science, science cannot fully explain religion.
Religion will always have the demons of the past, science will always have the spirit of the unknown. Each may not have all the answers, perhaps those who embrace both will satisfy their soul totally. -
hmm.....
-
My, dear friend, you still do not get it do you? I asked you take a look at the whole BBC documentary not just bits and pieces. I'm no longer even refering to the website.
U r totally off point. I am saying a christian website WILL use THIRD PARTY MATERIAL tat LOOK good on them. I didn't say tat they never use third party material. Look at the website u have given ? Isn't the word christainity and bible prominent in the website u have given ? "http://biblia.com/christianity/index.html" ? I am telling u in order to be convincing, u should use material tat is not one-sided.
You confuse a follower actions with the teachings. The Church teachs that we must love. Now, if I choose not to love, though I may be a Christian, I do not represent the Church's teachings.
Wat has tat got to with my parents ? I have given u the examples of lee hsien long and george bush. u got anything to say for tat ? Do u acknowledge they represent singapore and america ? Do u think tat the things and actions osama do will be linked to al qaeda ? Why don't u answer tis part first ? BTW, parents r different from organisation. There is a reason why the leader of an organisation have to be picked wisely.
In 639, Muslim armies invaded Jerusalem, burned churches, destroyed monasteries, profaned crosses, and, in the words of the Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, “horribly blasphemed against Christ and the church.” Thousands died as a result of famine and plague consequent to the destruction and pillage.
tat is very strange... wat has tat got to do with catholic ? I thought it was the persians that were attacked then ? Is the history u r reading same as mine ?
In 640, Muslim campaigns in the area around Syria lead to the sacking of monasteries and the execution of monks. Four-thousand peasants in Gaza and Ceasarea were massacred. The entire population of Elam was put to the sword
I believe churchs being burned and monks being executed are relevant.
Furthermore, this source is to show you that its not always christians being the aggresive ones. And th source was quoted from Ibn Warraq(Islamic).
Note, in your very own source it states that the crusade was in reponse to aggression.
It was Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine empire.
[/quote] -
But it was the Muslim rulers who offered sanctuary to the Jews when they were expelled from Europe. Who is worse?
-
I'd like to benefit from your wisdom if you can point out to me where your other posts are. All you need to do is to provide some links and I will continue to be enlightened by your writing.
u can ask iveco for he posts with parn knight. He seems to remember it quite vividlyThe thread is "Why are there so many denominations", as far as I can tell, only people who study history can give a credible explanation as to why denominations exist. Do you disagree that each time YOU (specially only you) enter a topic, it inevitably turns to a flaming war?
And wat do I do ? Is it becoming a flaming war solely due to my fault ? The rest of the people r innocent ?No, haven't you realised that any questions asked by non-Christians are usually answered. It still hinges on the issue of your tone and your confrontation approach. I know you don't care if others dislike the way you write, still if you can be more approachable and gentle, perhaps your preaching of your truth may be easier to swallow.
I be frank to u the tone of the christian or catholic r not good to me either. DO u agree or disagree with tis ?Let me post a challenge to you: will you be able to moderate your tone to be less confrontational, in the event where no suitable is found, agree to disagree and get on with life? You have previously maintained that this is you and that's that. So here's a homo-sapien that is so stubborn that he is not willing to change, you'd expect organisations that started thousands of years ago will care what you think?
If there r less confrontational tone to me, I will too be less confrontational. U can't expect me to get all the bashings isn't it ? And on your part of agree to disagree anbd get on with life, different people have different level of wat should "agree to disagree". U feel tat it should be stopped then, but I feel it can be carried more isn't it ? So I must stop ?My, dear friend, you still do not get it do you? I asked you take a look at the whole BBC documentary not just bits and pieces. I'm no longer even refering to the website.
I don't have the source of it ! I don't know wat is the content of it ! I don't even know who did the production ! U got anything where it is online where it is easily available ? -
You confuse a follower actions with the teachings. The Church teachs that we must love. Now, if I choose not to love, though I may be a Christian, I do not represent the Church's teachings.
u forgot tat catholic is an organisation. THe leaders of the organisation interprete the teachings and teach people how to interact with the world. The pope is the leader of the organisation. He represent catholic. His stand and watsoever is the stand of catholic etc. Why don't u say if there is anything wrong with tis statement ? Does the pope represent the catholic stand ? If u say he does not represent catholic, then u can just forget about going to church or going to hear his teachings or stop abortion etc since he is nothing.
And about teaching people how to love, I ask... wat is an example of god loving the people ? I can state many example of god askign men to go to wars with each other. It does justify the pope stand at tat time to start a holy war
Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.
Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)
Joshua:
Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.
Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."
Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.
Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.
Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.
1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
David:
2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.
2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.
2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.
1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.
2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.
2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.
2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans
TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible. The battle of 2_Chron_13 is so much larger than all the others that we probably should doubt it.In 639, Muslim armies invaded Jerusalem, burned churches, destroyed monasteries, profaned crosses, and, in the words of the Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, “horribly blasphemed against Christ and the church.” Thousands died as a result of famine and plague consequent to the destruction and pillage.
in 639, he attacked persians tat occupied jerusalem then. He did not kill of the people of other faith, in fact he even sought the help of jews in fighting the persians. If u say thousands died, certainly it had nothing to do with catholic because it is not a catholic city ? If u say it attacked the churches and burn them, why don't u show me a site where such incidents occurred ? Because frankly I did a search online and they only mentioned the important events then, which is maninly the attack and not about chuches being burnt etc. Can u show me an online version where it is easily assessible ? Anyway is the guy writing tis anti-muslim ? if it is then we better find more credible sourcesIn 640, Muslim campaigns in the area around Syria lead to the sacking of monasteries and the execution of monks. Four-thousand peasants in Gaza and Ceasarea were massacred. The entire population of Elam was put to the sword
Tat time syria is under Byzantine rule. Monophysitism, a Christian heresy with political overtones, gained many adherents in Syria then. Even if it killed people, it did not kill catholic as well. So why atack them ? And the 4 thouands casualties seemed to be pretty less than the other crusaders wars.Note, in your very own source it states that the crusade was in reponse to aggression
However the pope do nto intend to just defend the Byzantine Empire but intended to invade till jerusalem. It is a power struggle. -
I ask a simple question for direction to where your posts on taoism are and that is the best you can say???u can ask iveco for he posts with parn knight. He seems to remember it quite vividly
I refuse to believe that you, who can quote tons of stuff is not able to tell me where you have posted.
I did not say that it is solely your fault, but your tone has always be instrumental in flaming it beyond what a thread should take. Others may accidentally hit a sore spot but most of them know when to stop.And wat do I do ? Is it becoming a flaming war solely due to my fault ? The rest of the people r innocent ?
Have you not read the comments by various individuals even in topics like Chit Chat that once SIS comes in it will be a flaming war? Still the issue is with having personal responsibility and control over how you deliver your message. So are you now saying that because others do it, you must do it too? That others misbehave, therefore you must misbehave too. I am sure you are more mature than that, and the reason that others do it too is extremely juvenile and naive for someone with so much knowledge as yourself.
Of course I agree with you. I have always agreed with you with regards to behaviour of some over-zealous Christian. Haven't I always spoken out AGAINST Christian folks who go into the other topics and preach. Still, like yourself, people will behave irrationally when provoked. Do you disagree that your writing has always the "shoot-from-the-hip" style? I seem to recall from an exchange that we had not long ago, that you say that this is your style, you do this to anyone. Therefore, is it abnormal to respond to you with equal fire power?I be frank to u the tone of the christian or catholic r not good to me either. DO u agree or disagree with tis ?
You know, for starters, you should stop using emotional phrases like "that is stupid" or "they do distort history like the inquisition and crusaders." (the second quote is from page 1 of this very same thread). The reason is simple: when you make a statement like this, you have already pronounced judgement on a group of people. If you had phrased it like, "I think history was distorted by the inquisitors and crusaders" you are now removing the emphasis on the "inquisitors and crusaders" and place the emphasis that it is just your opinion. Note that people respond to opinions more easily than a predetermined judgement.If there r less confrontational tone to me, I will too be less confrontational. U can't expect me to get all the bashings isn't it ? And on your part of agree to disagree anbd get on with life, different people have different level of wat should "agree to disagree". U feel tat it should be stopped then, but I feel it can be carried more isn't it ? So I must stop ?
I am not only trying to ask you to be less confrontational, I am also trying to make EH a better place to come to. There is really no purpose in reading highly charged accusations in a place like Eternal Hope.
Just to let you know, I enjoy PMs with non-Christians as well as people from other religion and there is NO enemosity between us. Ideas were exchange on the rule that no one is trying to convert each other. We sometimes disagree, but OK fine, I accept that such disagreement is mainly opinion and perception based, we do not usually pursue relentlessly just so that we feel we won an argument. Winning an argument is NOT the objective. It is about the final phrase of "Thank you, so and so, for your opinion. I see your point even though I may not agree with you fully, hope to chat soon"
Do you have the grace to say that? and don't reply me by saying that others don't do this to you, or others are not nice to you. I am talking about you! Can peace start today from YOU? -
I ask a simple question for direction to where your posts on taoism are and that is the best you can say??? I refuse to believe that you, who can quote tons of stuff is not able to tell me where you have posted.
u know why ? because I believe it is in chit chat and the threads get outdated substantially. However there is one from me and seed on muslim issues.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=103584&page=2I did not say that it is solely your fault, but your tone has always be instrumental in flaming it beyond what a thread should take. Others may accidentally hit a sore spot but most of them know when to stop.
Okie, I will try to be more nicer in future.
Have you not read the comments by various individuals even in topics like Chit Chat that once SIS comes in it will be a flaming war? Still the issue is with having personal responsibility and control over how you deliver your message. So are you now saying that because others do it, you must do it too? That others misbehave, therefore you must misbehave too. I am sure you are more mature than that, and the reason that others do it too is extremely juvenile and naive for someone with so much knowledge as yourself.