Why do people think Christianity is better than Islam?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Why do people think Christianity is better than Islam?"

Christianity is better than Islam because Christianity is NOT a religion, while Islam IS a religion.

I don't care to hear from the academically gifted aethiest who use science and reasoning to disprove God and such. They are only confused and need a little guidance.
 
Well basically in a nutshell, the church isn't against gay people themselves, but them getting married.

God basically said "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman" way deep somewhere in the Bible. Most christians believe that changing it to "man and man" or "woman and woman" or "man and beast" is just going against what God had in mind.

At least that's what I gathered... I'm pretty sure that's the only reason.
 
you are the highest power, and you need to learn to deal with that. maybe you're too afraid to grow up and realize that you're capable of fixing everything, or maybe you're simply blind to it, but that doesn't make it untrue. if you're so interested in faith, have faith in yourself and one another enough to solve as many of the world's ills as you can.
adding to what Mr Goodbar said, christianity actually preaches this (or is supposed to)

Jesus supposedly gave his followers the mission to change the world for the better. God and Jesus just give them the tools to do so.

which is why, had things developed properly, I think christians as a whole wouldn't be so strongly related to conservativism (cannot really speak for other religions as I am pretty ignorant concerning those). But as usual the "higher powers" failed (...or maybe the exact opposite and they had this in mind).

just dropping my two cents
 
Intolerance is probably not the best word to describe such positions, or at least you're taking it out of context. In your sense we should also tolerate murder and rape.
Murder and rape have severe consequences to the victim.

Being "intolerant" of murder and rape is not intolerance, it's being reasonable.

If two random guys want to get married, does that even affect you?

Invalid comparison.
 
"Why do people think Christianity is better than Islam?"

Christianity is better than Islam because Christianity is NOT a religion, while Islam IS a religion.
Good way to tell that someone is a Christian Fundamentalist: they claim Christianity is not a religion.

I don't care to hear from the academically gifted aethiest who use science and reasoning to disprove God and such.
No "academically gifted atheist" tries to disprove God because it is impossible to prove a negative. Instead they say that not being able to disprove something is meaningless because you can't prove that Zeus or Thor isn't God, or that there isn't a celestial teapot in orbit around the Sun.

They are only confused and need a little guidance.
lol
 
Murder and rape have severe consequences to the victim.

Being "intolerant" of murder and rape is not intolerance, it's being reasonable.

If two random guys want to get married, does that even affect you?

Invalid comparison.
The point is that they are both concerned with moral principals. Maybe the church feels the consequence of allowing gays to get married is that sexual desires will predominate over real love in marriages. Again they're not being intolerant of gays, they just don't believe gay marriage is morally acceptable. So how can you say it's intolerance without believing intolerance of rape and murder is intolerance? And gay marriage is the weakest you can pick, are you going to tell me that the church is intolerant of women because they are against abortion?
 
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)

n.
    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
  1. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
  2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I think it's pretty obvious christianity is a religion.

can we shut the fuck up about abortion now please.
 
The point is that they are both concerned with moral principals. Maybe the church feels the consequence of allowing gays to get married is that sexual desires will predominate over real love in marriages.
Sexual desire and "real love" are not mutually exclusive you know.

I would bet a lot of money that far more heterosexual marriages happen for reasons other than "real love" than homosexual marriages. Honestly that's the worst argument against same-sex marriage that I've ever heard.

Again they're not being intolerant of gays, they just don't believe gay marriage is morally acceptable.
I don't accept "because a book told me so" as a valid logical argument.

So how can you say it's intolerance without believing intolerance of rape and murder is intolerance?
Once again, because rape and murder have severe consequences for the victim. Same sex marriage is a PERSONAL CHOICE that doesn't hurt anyone.
 
but how am I supposed to believe in the sanctity of Britney and K-Fed if I know two fruitcakes are kissing on the other side of the world

The analogy I have made still holds when taking into context the social contexts of the Old Testament. I mean, how long did it take for people to stop treating their wives as property? A pretty long, long time.

The point is that the Old Testament laws are in a different social context than ours - so their rules do not and should not be representative of what Christianity "believes" in or not. I have already covered this.
a) I acknowledged that in the part of my post you didn't quote.
b) That's not what i was arguing about. I just think that, in the social context of the Old Testament or not, it's pretty gross to compare rape and theft. It trivializes the damage rape does.

Also, why exactly do you think it took so long for people to stop treating wives as property? It's precisely because that belief was perpetuated and encouraged in religious texts like the Old Testament for millennia. Stuff as influential as the Bible is obviously produced in a social context, but it goes on to define and create its own social context, and in the case of this quote, the social context it created was oppressive to women. Don't really see why it's off-limits to call it out on this.
 
I think Akuchi needs to go to church more often. Being filled with God's Holy Spirit is a powerful thing that can really change you and your mind. You need to ask yourself, am I truly happy with condemning Christianity and religion in general? Trying to feel high and mighty and superior to Christianity is not the way to be. You should be reaching for it not turning your back on it. Even though I may sound like a complete nut-case, I hope you can understand my point of view.
 
ahahahahhhahahhh

yes, I am completely happy to laugh at religion.
read glen's post for further details.

I was a happy clappy religious nutjob once, for about a month if memory serves me. The euphoria of 'being filled with the holy spirit' is nothing more than the same crowd psychology that got people cheering over Hitler.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
There's your goddamn argument. Whether you think it's right or wrong, I hope you see that the church is not intolerant of gays themselves, they are simply against homosexual acts. Also ever heard of not treating fire with fire? It's not like the church isn't against not well thought out marriages.

Also, why exactly do you think it took so long for people to stop treating wives as property? It's precisely because that belief was perpetuated and encouraged in religious texts like the Old Testament for millennia. Stuff as influential as the Bible is obviously produced in a social context, but it goes on to define and create its own social context, and in the case of this quote, the social context it created was oppressive to women. Don't really see why it's off-limits to call it out on this.
The Old Testament didn't bring the idea of the woman's lower status into Jewish culture. Early Jews just didn't understand, and early Jews are the ones who wrote the Old Testament. Again I don't see why Christians have to be bashed for stuff that's well in our past, we're obviously not about oppressing women (and homosexuals).
b) That's not what i was arguing about. I just think that, in the social context of the Old Testament or not, it's pretty gross to compare rape and theft. It trivializes the damage rape does.
Christianity is largely about forgiveness, and this passage at least serves to offer forgiveness for those that have done wrong. No one is too terrible to be forgiven. While I do see some of the disrespect it appears to have for women, and while there are many questionable passages within the Old Testament, there seems to be a lot of truth within it too. The basis of Christianity is the New Testament, in which Jesus tried to "fufill", or in better words possibly reinterpret, the Old Testament. Mainly because people were doing shit like stoning adulterers and looking down on women, etc.
 
Disordered, meaning its contrary to the procreative nature marriage was intended to have, not "gays have a disease". I disagree with their argument but I think it has valid reasoning that certainly isn't intolerant of people who are homosexual (unless of course you want to keep taking phrases out of context). I'm going to have to stop arguing here, because I think it's clear that all Christians are gay hating misogynists =/
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
akuchi, I think you're overlooking the most important part:

"...constitutes for most of them a trial."

You know, a trial, so that they can face the gayness inside them and... fix it.
 
I don't know, if I was a catholic gay I'd find it a bit of a trial, to be honest. guilt and repression and fear and denial and.. oh, shit me, I wouldn't like it at all.
 
I'm for gay marriage and I'm arguing against it ?_?. Hmm let's look at it this way - to be intolerant of something, don't you have to sort of react to it or act upon it? The Catholic church has only taken a position on the issue (backed up with an argument), but it has in no way tried to politically take action based on what it thinks is best. The church isn't the reason gays can't get married, you can blame the states. Hmm the church doesn't ban gays either now does it? Now just in case you try and twist the situation again, I'm going to do it for you. "So I can hate black people and be tolerant?" Yes you can, if you treat a black person the same way any person would treat another person, then you are being tolerant. You're a racists ass fuck, but you're being tolerant of them. In other words disagreeing with something isn't being intolerant, shoving your disagreement in other people's faces or forcing others to accept and live by your beliefs is intolerance.
And now I'm really going to stop arguing. The reason I'm arguing is to try to get people to see that Christians aren't gay hating misogynists, but I doubt at this point it's possible. Gay marriage is such a trivial issue, in church it is never preached (I go every sunday usually), and it has next to nothing to do with being a Christian (imo absolutely nothing). The old social status of women has been long mended - hell Jesus made it clear that women were on an equal level. And don't start an argument about how women still have a lower social standing then men, I understand we have problems in the world to fix. I am just somewhat offended that people would judge Christians based on these two things, because most Christians understand a lot about what being a true Christian is. And yes Christians like all other people aren't perfect and make mistakes and still have alot to learn. At this point I'm rambling, so in closure, stop bashing on Christians please >_>
 
You know, a trial, so that they can face the gayness inside them and... fix it.
I'd rather use "handle it" than "fix it" as the latter implies that "the gayness inside them" can be removed; from what I've heard it cannot.
 
There really needs to be less "isms" in the world. If you want to drop one, I suggest Socialism. Socialists make Islamists (who are not Muslims) look like school girls. It is a vile religion where the state is God, and God compels you to do what The Party tells you. if the Party kills your family, it is OK, because eventually utopia and deliverance is coming. Got to crack a few skulls before you get to utopia, you see. Hope and Change, you see. Ignore the blood, the right inmates just haven't run the asylum yet.

I'm not an Islamic scholar, and don't claim to be. Might want to check out Robert Spencer.

Most social policy in Christianity and Islam is derived from the same principles: respect for human life in all its forms and stages, the inherent dignity of humanity, and the divine calling to serve your friend and neighbor. From what little I know of Islam, they have a lot more restrictions on day-to-day behavior that Christianity has mostly abandoned. Their prayer lives are much more structured, as are their social customs.

Are there Christian terrorists? There are terrorists who claim to be Christians, but they certainly are not following Christian teaching if they are terrorists. Same as Islamist terrorists.

The problem with Islam is it is like Protestantism. You have a million different teachers teaching a million different things. The more radical sects of Islam, like the Wahabbists, believe that blowing up other Muslims, Christians, the kuffar(non Muslims), and basically everyone who doesn't practice their brand of Islam is a legitimate interpretation of jihad, or holy war.

Christianity also has a concept of just war, but Christianity is balanced out by a central authority, The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has always been strong on calling out heretical teachings, at least until recently, and even when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, much of his doctrinal positions were the same. Lutherans and Catholics are almost indistinguishable these days, theologically speaking. When some "Christian" acts out of line, if his own congregation doesn't do it, someone in the Catholic Church will call them out using centuries of theological data.

Furthermore, there are no leaders of Christian nations giving weekly addresses calling for the death of all Jews like Armageddonjad in Iran.

Christianity isn't necessarily "better" than Islam. It just has better public representatives. Most Muslims will not cut your throat, and most Christians will not condemn you to hell. The radicalism in both religions goes in two different directions, Islam towards global theocracy and Christianity towards secular autocracy. Radical Muslims want a government run by imams and radical Christians want charity to be imposed by a dictatorial decree.

As far as modern femisnism akuchi?

Femininity and traditional feminine leanings considered inherently bad
Innate gender differences are purposefully ignored
Prostitution and pornography portrayed as positive
Family portrayed as bad, secondary to career/money
Killing children in your own womb considered a sacred right
Unrelenting hatred of males
Unrelenting hatred of Christianity
Constant victim mentality (I am woman, hear me whimper about a man's world while proclaiming my very breath is an accomplishment!)

Please, modern feminism is a crock. A whore is a whore, and feminism is a whore. Feminists are all just a bunch of shorter, weaker, louder, more annoying male wannabes. Real men, conservative and liberal alike, laugh at feminists. They are a bunch of silly, angry little harpies, who simply haven't gotten the smacking they deserve because men are too busy laughing at them to do it.

Look at Bill Clinton. He singlehandedly set the feminist movement back at least a decade because all the harpies lined up behind him. Bill knew that at the end of the day, they were weak, loose, easy women who needed womanizers like Bill around to occasionally throw them a bone. They wanted the license that he took. They wanted to be Bill Clinton, simultaneously a whore free of responsibility and the most powerful person in the free world.

And yes akuchi, when you want to act like the annoying little man, you should expect a punch to the jaw. That's what a man would get for that kind of crap. Don't you want to be treated like a man? Oh, but not the nasty, mean, reality inducing parts, like the dangerous jobs, shit hours, the constant insults by stupid feminist harpies, the expectation that you will either work or die whether you are sick or not whether you have family obligations or not. Feminists want all the perks of being a man with none of the shit. They are spoiled brats. Equal Pay Day is in April, Equal Death Day (the day where female deaths from work equal the male deaths from the last year) is in late November.

Know your place akuchi (yes, I do dare say that). You aren't a man, you never will be, and you will never comprehend what it is like to be a man. You get to live in your world of fantasy as the big britches biatch and never have to suffer for it. I don't give a shit if you call me "sexist." You think slaughtering children in an organ designed for nurturing them is a great advancement for women. That is truly, truly backward, and the original feminists, the one's who gave women the right to vote, knew that too.

Also akuchi, you don't know anything about the Bible. You accept any criticism of it as Gospel, no matter how ridiculous on its face. The Bible condones rape? I'd ask you why you were so ignorant of Christianity, but then I remember you're a feminist. Willful ignorance of reality comes with the territory.
Dark Night, I love you. That last part was the most awsome thing ever. and I must agree. Akuchi, you know nothing about the Bible at all. You have not read the intire thing, you have not studied it, you can not make statements like that without actually knowing somehting about the bible, it jsut doesnt work that way. The bible does not condone rape, go read in Deut. The Bible is not against women, go read the gosple. Dont just read vurses, go read the chapter around the vurse. I have read the intire Bible, and it doe nothing you say it does, you just dont understand what it is saying cuz you havent read everyhting around the vurses.
 
Are you honestly claiming that akuchi needs to study the Bible fully before posting about it in this thread? I could understand that logic if this were a Bible forum, but this is a competitive Pokemon forum. It has been proven that the Bible condoned rape. You can't simply say "you need to read AROUND the verses." It doesn't work that way. You can't just tell people to ignore certain parts that you don't like them using against you.
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I'd rather use "handle it" than "fix it" as the latter implies that "the gayness inside them" can be removed; from what I've heard it cannot.
Yeah, dude, that's my point, hence the " ".

Are you honestly claiming that akuchi needs to study the Bible fully before posting about it in this thread?
Honestly, I'm pretty sure she's trolling DK. But I can't be sure, so I can't infract. Either way, no one should respond to that post anymore, it'll only cause problems.
 
Akuchi's trolling so I ignored her. It'd be wise to do the same if you haven't yet.
I've learned with experience that, in religious discussions, it's better to just state your view, let the other person express his, and then try to argue about the matter. The difference, however, is that, in religious discussions, nobody is really 'right' or 'wrong', since the logic of religion is different from normal argumentative logic. Religion is NOT based on logic, people. So how can you build logical arguments about something that is not logical?
True, at least some parts. Religion is based on a Dogma. You can base logic on that Dogma though. If we take Christianity as an example, the Dogma is the Bible. If you believe that's true, then you have an entire world full of theology and linguistic logic right in front of you.

But, the basis of all that logic is still a Dogma, which you have to believe in (or assume it's true if you don't believe it so you can discuss along) before discussing anything about the Bible.

Let me give you an example. I believe that the Virgin Mary was always a virgin throughout her life, even though Jesus was born through her. Can I explain how it happened? No. Then why do I believe it? Because I do. Can I build logical arguments about how the Virgin Mary was a virgin but also had a child? No, I can't. And you shouldn't do it too. It is just something that I believe. Religion is based on faith, not on logic.
No, you'd believe it because it's in the Bible. Why do you believe that the Bible is true? I believe in the Dogma. So yeah, one way or another it'll end up in that you have to believe something, but there can certainly be some logic.

This is why I posted earlier that discussions about different religions is pointless. It's useless. Nobody is going to budge from his stance, ever.
Indeed. Nobody's going to budge. However, I don't think it's completely useless. Firstly, people enjoy doing this (I know I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't enjoy doing so). Secondly, some people have twisted up views, and it may be good to see how other people think about it. There are very few arguments that ever end up in people agreeing with each other, and Religion is certainly not one of them.
 
Dark Night, I love you. That last part was the most awsome thing ever. and I must agree. Akuchi, you know nothing about the Bible at all. You have not read the intire thing, you have not studied it, you can not make statements like that without actually knowing somehting about the bible, it jsut doesnt work that way. The bible does not condone rape, go read in Deut. The Bible is not against women, go read the gosple. Dont just read vurses, go read the chapter around the vurse. I have read the intire Bible, and it doe nothing you say it does, you just dont understand what it is saying cuz you havent read everyhting around the vurses.
You evidently don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

Actually, I have read the entire Bible - amusingly enough I took Nietzsche to read with me on one of the many Christian youth camps I attended as a younger teen and they took it off me and gave me the Bible. So I read the entire Bible in the space of about four days. Ironically enough that was probably the first step to deconverting.

And no, I'm not trolling - I was once Christian, even attended Bible Study of a Tuesday evening because I thought there was something missing in my life, that this would 'save' me, I'd be a better person, I could give my life up to God and live the way He chose for me - I'd stand there every Sunday morning and evening and raise my hands to the sky with the rest of the congregation, feeling absolutely amazing - until I realised that my life is my own and my choices are my responsibility, I can't live by some ancient book. That the experience of the numinous I had and the feeling of euphoria was the same crowd psychology that stirred the masses of Nuremberg and is present at every football match.

I can't reconcile the bad things that have happened in my life [and continually happen in the world around us] with the idea of an all-seeing all-knowing all-loving Christian god. Too much doesn't add up for me - I'm firmly agnostic, you can't prove there's no higher power but I don't believe in the judeochristianmuslim god.

I read Siddhartha once, that about sums up my religious philosophy.

And look, you all go and live your happy little Christian lives, that's fine, but I've tried it and it is not for me. I do find the Bible misogynistic 'a woman should submit to a man, because man is head of woman as Christ is head of the Church?' [paraphrasing from some shite Paul wrote].

You read and interpret that how you wish, but I reserve my right to do the same. As it is for the rest of my life - you hold your beliefs, as ridiculous and intolerant as they might be, and as long as they don't infringe on my right to live my life the way I choose that absolutely suits me.
 
Ah, now that explains a lot. That you deconverted is your own choice, but that doesn't mean that you should hold a grudge against christians or even imply that their choice is wrong. At least, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top