Us Church To Burn Qurans On 9/11, This is disgusting... Options

A Christian minister in Florida will burn copies of the Quran with his church on 9/11 this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_...s/quran_burning

This is absolutely disgusting.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Sep 7 2010, 03:07 PM

It's a non violent symbolic act of a religion. Much better than cutting off heads. This is similar and even less directly harmful than peaceful actions Martin Luther King Jr. took in boycotts. This interferes with nothing.

"While it may well be within someone's rights to take this action, we hope cooler heads will prevail," Crowley said
When the Pastor refers to leaving the decision open, and waiting and praying, it does not seem like a hot headed rash decision to me. Christians should be more bold according to scripture. God in the Bible can't stand people that worship "false gods" and "idols" and as a result sends them to hell! That seems quite a bit harsher and Christians should actually take a much more active role in world events but due to the era of political correctness do not take this role. I understand where you are coming from but from a Christian believer, Christians should not be as tolerant as they are.

If it is wrong then it is disgusting.

Sorry in advance for the extreme belief.

It's a non violent symbolic act of a religion. Much better than cutting off heads. This is similar and even less directly harmful than peaceful actions Martin Luther King Jr. took in boycotts. This interferes with nothing.

"While it may well be within someone's rights to take this action, we hope cooler heads will prevail," Crowley said
When the Pastor refers to leaving the decision open, and waiting and praying, it does not seem like a hot headed rash decision to me. Christians should be more bold according to scripture. God in the Bible can't stand people that worship "false gods" and "idols" and as a result sends them to hell! That seems quite a bit harsher and Christians should actually take a much more active role in world events but due to the era of political correctness do not take this role. I understand where you are coming from but from a Christian believer, Christians should not be as tolerant as they are.

If it is wrong then it is disgusting.

Sorry in advance for the extreme belief.

Crowley, advocating for cooler heads? I thought that was Regardie's role? MUHAHA! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

No problem, I wasn't expecting this disagreement, but I'll take you up on it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think intent underlies the difference between King's acts and this protest. King's peaceful protests, some of which turned ugly, were intended to counter a racist system of hated and oppression. This protest doesn't directly harm anyone, but it's intended as an act of hate against all Muslims. There's no freedom or victory to be won in this act, but hatred and intolerance are perpetuated by it to no useful end. And unless you disagree with the assessment of General Petraeus, I'm not sure how you expect burning Qurans to not set off a rash of violent counter-protests. It's true that Muslims should hold themselves above violent extremism, but it's pretty obvious that some of them are going to be nudged in this direction as a result of this protest.

I don't think you mean it in this way, but Christianity isn't a homogenous belief structure. The idea that any other belief is going to cause people to go to hell is one interpretation of the scripture. If that's sincerely what you believe, I understand that it's important to want to protest any other viewpoint. Still, this particular protest seems more than a bit hateful in targeting certain groups...after all, you wouldn't want to see Bible-burnings in Afghanistan, or to be told to convert to any way of life other than your own.

Let the battle continue...(I think you may have just invoked the demon-lord of forum-based arguments by posting this here...) Demon! I bind thee by the code of useful and friendly forum discussion, least thy chains be broken and thou dost exercise thy dread power of turning us all into trolls, such as are utterly dashed against the rocks by the mod-squad...

This post has been edited by monkman418: Sep 7 2010, 06:04 PM

Crowley, advocating for cooler heads? I thought that was Regardie's role? MUHAHA! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

No problem, I wasn't expecting this disagreement, but I'll take you up on it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think intent underlies the difference between King's acts and this protest. King's peaceful protests, some of which turned ugly, were intended to counter a racist system of hated and oppression. This protest doesn't directly harm anyone, but it's intended as an act of hate against all Muslims. There's no freedom or victory to be won in this act, but hatred and intolerance are perpetuated by it to no useful end. And unless you disagree with the assessment of General Petraeus, I'm not sure how you expect burning Qurans to not set off a rash of violent counter-protests. It's true that Muslims should hold themselves above violent extremism, but it's pretty obvious that some of them are going to be nudged in this direction as a result of this protest.

I don't think you mean it in this way, but Christianity isn't a homogenous belief structure. The idea that any other belief is going to cause people to go to hell is one interpretation of the scripture. If that's sincerely what you believe, I understand that it's important to want to protest any other viewpoint. Still, this particular protest seems more than a bit hateful in targeting certain groups...after all, you wouldn't want to see Bible-burnings in Afghanistan, or to be told to convert to any way of life other than your own.

Let the battle continue...(I think you may have just invoked the demon-lord of forum-based arguments by posting this here...) Demon! I bind thee by the code of useful and friendly forum discussion, least thy chains be broken and thou dost exercise thy dread power of turning us all into trolls, such as are utterly dashed against the rocks by the mod-squad...

Ha yeah I know touchy subject right? By Crowley I meant quoting State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley from the article. Ha that's a funny coincidence in names though. I was more going for a strict Christian take on it. Not really politically correct but more or less accurate. Yes I agree that this probably would incite a violent outburst of rage and bloody beheadings from some extremest Muslin groups. That might be going too far but maybe it isn't. But Luther probably knew that his peaceful protest were going to cause some violent lash back too.

Well I disagree that Christianity isn't homogenous, as far as a strick (as in literal taught by Jesus written by apostles) goes.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME.” — Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

The views of weaker Christians:

The dominant worldview in secular and academic circles today is called postmodernism. To the postmodernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is "true" is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to humanity universally. The postmodernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person's perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another's. "Truth" becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.[1]

God/Jesus clearly does not accept a lukewarm heart when it comes to faith and what God states regardless if the person interprets the scripture that way or not. I want to emphasis that point of it doesn't matter to God if the person believes one thing or another because God only allows it one way and kicks out everyone else, according to him! If Christianity is wrong then of course it won't matter for anyone, least of all the unorthodox Christians. It's a catch-22 for them. Either you're in all the way or you're not.

What is bad conduct for Christians? Not following what God says. Listen to how God says he will personally see to punishing people who break his laws:

"14“However, if you do not listen to me or obey all these commands, 15and if you break my covenant by rejecting my decrees, treating my regulations with contempt, and refusing to obey my commands, 16I will punish you. I will bring sudden terrors upon you—wasting diseases and burning fevers that will cause your eyes to fail and your life to ebb away. You will plant your crops in vain because your enemies will eat them. 17I will turn against you, and you will be defeated by your enemies. Those who hate you will rule over you, and you will run even when no one is chasing you!

18“And if, in spite of all this, you still disobey me, I will punish you seven times over for your sins. 19I will break your proud spirit by making the skies as unyielding as iron and the earth as hard as bronze. 20All your work will be for nothing, for your land will yield no crops, and your trees will bear no fruit.

21“If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey me, I will inflict disaster on you seven times over for your sins. 22I will send wild animals that will rob you of your children and destroy your livestock. Your numbers will dwindle, and your roads will be deserted.

23“And if you fail to learn the lesson and continue your hostility toward me, 24then I myself will be hostile toward you. I will personally strike you with calamity seven times over for your sins. 25I will send armies against you to carry out the curse of the covenant you have broken. When you run to your towns for safety, I will send a plague to destroy you there, and you will be handed over to your enemies. 26I will destroy your food supply, so that ten women will need only one oven to bake bread for their families. They will ration your food by weight, and though you have food to eat, you will not be satisfied.

27“If in spite of all this you still refuse to listen and still remain hostile toward me, 28then I will give full vent to my hostility. I myself will punish you seven times over for your sins. 29Then you will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters. 30I will destroy your pagan shrines and knock down your places of worship. I will leave your lifeless corpses piled on top of your lifeless idols,a and I will despise you. 31I will make your cities desolate and destroy your places of pagan worship. I will take no pleasure in your offerings that should be a pleasing aroma to me. 32Yes, I myself will devastate your land, and your enemies who come to occupy it will be appalled at what they see. 33I will scatter you among the nations and bring out my sword against you. Your land will become desolate, and your cities will lie in ruins. 34Then at last the land will enjoy its neglected Sabbath years as it lies desolate while you are in exile in the land of your enemies. Then the land will finally rest and enjoy the Sabbaths it missed. 35As long as the land lies in ruins, it will enjoy the rest you never allowed it to take every seventh year while you lived in it.

36“And for those of you who survive, I will demoralize you in the land of your enemies. You will live in such fear that the sound of a leaf driven by the wind will send you fleeing. You will run as though fleeing from a sword, and you will fall even when no one pursues you. 37Though no one is chasing you, you will stumble over each other as though fleeing from a sword. You will have no power to stand up against your enemies. 38You will die among the foreign nations and be devoured in the land of your enemies. 39Those of you who survive will waste away in your enemies’ lands because of their sins and the sins of their ancestors."

That is a pretty big threat to keep Christians in line. But Christians who don't agree with this fall into the catch-22/postmodernism category. Not something I care to be a part of. I defiantly see where you are coming from with the not wanting Bible burnings over there. It seems to me they are still stuck in the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages deal where the (corrupt) church goes about killing and burning everyone that speaks up to disagree. Still fanaticism is what God demands and I can understand that sort of religious zeal, even if I disagree with their actions. Muhammad isn't that far from Christianity, but it's far enough I don't want to be near it.

Even after all that though I see where you are coming from, and if I wasn't a fanatic I would have to agree with ya ha.

The views of weaker Christians:

The dominant worldview in secular and academic circles today is called postmodernism. To the postmodernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is "true" is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to humanity universally. The postmodernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person's perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another's. "Truth" becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.[1]

I think this gets at the nut of the problem, which can be summed up as a question, "who defines what is true?"

As you put it, there's only one strict or literal interpretation of the Bible. But how does this account for the various orthodox churches, some claiming literal apostolic succession from Christ himself, all claiming that they have the True interpretation of the Bible? Of course some of these groups (for instance, Roman Catholics) strongly suggest that other forms of Christianity are flawed or deeply flawed (aka, the followers are going to hell). On the other end of the spectrum are groups (some Baptist churches) that equate Catholicism to the whore of Babalon from the Book of Revelations, and they find Bible verses to do it...so obviously they have the truth, right? Going to the liberal end of the spectrum, Quakers have their own interpretation of the Bible (that they will also readily defend), which they say precludes all forms of outward conflict, in addition to religious tolerance. Also at the liberal end of the spectrum are those Christians that attended the interfaith conference that protested the burning of the Qurans, and I'm sure they're also quoting the Bible as their source of truth.

In essence, each of these groups is claiming the "truth" of the Bible, yet they are all disagreeing over what that truth is.

Looking at the problem from another angle, from the same Web page you cite is the following summary of relative truth:

...what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims-particularly biblical Christianity. [1

I'm not a post-modernist, but a post-modernist wouldn't really care if someone wanted to see the world in a biblical way; according to the above site, such a person would just quip, "not my truth, but whatever." So where is intolerance coming from then? Doesn't it seem more likely that groups that want to make universal claims about the way reality "works" are actually the ones that are very threatened by the presence of other ways of living and believing? And isn't this why Muslim extremists want to wage war on America?

The Quran has lots of interpretations too, by the way. Many, many Muslims find Islamic extremism to be a perversion. Yet extremists hold these more liberal Muslims in contempt, and are happy to see them killed alongside the infidel Americans. Westernized Muslims are not real Muslims, they don't hold the Truth of the Quran (so it is said). And of course, in America we tend to lump all Muslims together in one category, just as we like to lump all Christianity into one category; and that would be a view of Islam or Christianity, another view that claims a singular truth while defining others through it.

Universal truth may exist, but it's often used as a way of putting one's own truth onto others and privileging that truth in a system of social discourse. If you define reality, and you can define someone else's reality, then you own that person. Like defining a black person as inferior to a white person, it places the truth-holder in a position of social power. Thus the truth becomes blinding to its holder while it continues to convey power through a lie.

...and that sounds a bit like Satan to me! (break out the merlot! ) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/diablo.gif)

This post has been edited by monkman418: Sep 7 2010, 09:21 PM

Well to answer the first part of the question as I see it there is a little wiggle room even within the tight constraints of any strict religion. x<1 and x>0 isn't much room to vary if it is in inches and we're talking about something the size of a football field but it does allow for x to be 0.1,0.2,0.3 ect... So there is pretty much an indefinably number of minor alterations all supposedly true within the law. That's not to say it is right but it is apparently right. Any concept past the one single act of fully accepting Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for one's sin is an effort to please God. A lot of extra information on God pleasing is given but the when push comes to shove all Christian sects will agree on that last sentence. Being so important it is no surprise everyone wants to please God best. But I think no one is likely to argue that a true God focused heart isn't going to be caught up in picking fights over these details. Debate all day long but that isn't same as fighting. Of course there are many 'wolves in sheep skin' out to make problems but they are disguised as Christians only.

Catholicism as far as I am concerned is really pushing Christianity. It has had so many problems, so many additions to the Gospel and such a power driven negative history I do not consider it Christian. I know not many people would disagree but I think Christ would be against that one. The Bible does not show a major interest in the Mary, the Bible does not list the sacraments, the Bible doesn't do so much that the Roman Church has. All these extra focal points take away from what should be focused on Christ. Jesus never worshiped any saint. He only put full faith in God. I personally disagree with the Roman Catholic church and find it worse than unbelievers.

I have read a decent bit about the Roman Catholic church being the structure set for the anti-Christ and I am not comfortable with the similarities. I think it would be wonderfully ironic and tasty to be Satan rising from a church supposedly devoted to its opposite. I suppose any structure is open to this potential danger but I am not comfortable with the church for that reason too. There are just too many extra things that get people distracted from the one single thing that saves them: Christ. The Pope is not the person between the individual and God. No one is. That is what Jesus is for.

As long as the Quakers are focusing on God then I don't see anything wrong with it. If they want to exclude fighting to be closer to God then I am happy they are willing to do that. I see that as being one of those variables that X could be between 0 and 1. It fits the rules. They are doing it to please God not because they are adding any extra requirements to faith. I disagree with the policy but not the intention and expect to meet many of them in Heaven.

About the Muslims, I really don't know. I mean to read the Quran but haven't yet. So anything I say about that would be an unfounded guess really. But I do imagine there are weak followers of that faith too, and from what I understand of Allah, he would enjoy a lukewarm Muslim about as much as Jesus enjoys a lukewarm Christian... not that much. And yes Christianity can be abused as I would argue is the case for the entire Roman Catholic church. But sometimes bad religions are as close as a person can get to God in their culture/time. (I believe) God punishes the willfully ignorant, not honest people who truly are confused, undecided or only have a certain religion available. God doesn't "set people up" to fail. Yes I know Job but that's different. I really do wish all the time I could convert people (or at least someone!) over to my faith but it is such a subjective decision all I can do is work to be as persuasive as I can when I write and hope it pushes someone it the right direction. I really recommend anyone giving it an honest shot. I gave magic a honest shot and look where I wound up.

Haha and as for the merlot, as good as it sounds I think I'll pass and take the water of truth God saves for the thirsty righteous. I'll need a clear head if we're going to keep this discussion going. Good points in general though I think. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Sep 7 2010, 11:19 PM

This is the kind of action that fosters war, hatred, destruction of life and liberty, and can potentially shatter any kind of brotherhood that is trying to develop between the peoples of these volatile religions.

I get that Tomber has chosen to personally subscribe to the Christian faith, and as such must necessarily believe that Christianity, as stated, is the one true religion, and the only right religion to boot. Jewish people believe the same thing (they predate Christianity but a few thousand years), and the younger Islam religion also believes this. It begs the question of who is correct? But, that question aside, the belief in a supreme religion is the source of all of these ages of war. Actions like this one, quantify that truth in a very modern context. This is a very violent expression of Christianity that is not universal among Christians, just as terrorist cells are not universal among Muslims. But they are the same kind of action, and that kind of religious zeal is the same. If anything, Tomber, you might consider the violent Muslim extremists to be a bit more zealous and true to their faith than most Christians. Of course, some Christians also kill abortion doctors and gays, so the Muslims don't have a totally exclusive hand on extremism.

Personally, I question the motives of this man organizing the book burning. I do not think it comes from a religious place, I believe it comes from a place of nationalist pride, racism, and bigotry. There is a difference between religious zeal and ignorant bigotry - unfortunately one can easily look like the other, depending on who is looking. Jesus also said those that live by the sword die by the sword, and that if a man strikes one cheek, you should turn the other towards him. His words made it clear that a person should be filled with spiritual fervor, but not be violent. All the talk of slaying the non-religious was in the Tanakh, not the new testament. Leviticus itself is part of the volumes of Jewish law - hint, the people that wrote that book do not consider Christianity to be the supreme religion. Plus, those verses are part of the oldest portion of the Tanakh are are intended to be read and interpreted as hieroglyphs, not taken literally in a fundamentally different cultural (that is, non-Egyptian) context. This is a practice held over from the Egyptian roots of Judaism - Egyptians ALSO taught their complex religion(s) to be the supreme way to worship deities.

Virtually every religion teaches that their way is the only/best way. Every one of them can somehow justify this internally. So, are we picking sides based on... what, historical facts? Faith? Points of some kind? Age?

The Egyptian book of the dead supposedly was dictated by oracles through whom the Gods themselves spoke. Moses got his books straight from the horses mouth as well, so it goes. The new testament is made up of letters from Jesus' buddies, and maybe not even the actual apostles. I don't even know the origins of the Quran but if I'm not entirely mistaken they are also written mostly be Muhammad and his friends.

So this man wants to hold a Quran burning, because like the Muslims, he believes other religions (particularly Islam in this case) to be inferior as a sign of religious zeal. Except he isn't burning other religions' holy books as well, now is he? So, this isn't about his religious superiority at all, it is specifically about his own view on the specific inferiority of Islam in particular - and, I'll warrant, all non-Christian middle easterners, but I won't peg that assumption on him without some kind of proof. We can only assume he indicates specifically Muslim middle easterners.

His ignorance, and that of all peoples who believe their religion is the supreme religion, or that any group of people is somehow inferior (they're the same thing, one is just more generalized), is a disease in the world. It spreads, it festers, it causes decay, it turns the Body of humanity on itself - just like an autoimmune disease making the body attack itself. Pockets of localized cancers crop up here and there, it is detrimental to all of the collective systems of the great human Body.

This seems to be in response to the suggestion of building the Islamic center over the site of the twin towers. There has been a lot of uproar about this, and not just from this one extremist. Personally I think that a center for religious communion and tolerance is a better idea - but of course, it can be difficult to keep all these different ignorance extremists from killing one another when you put them all in a room together.

Eugh.

Any concept past the one single act of fully accepting Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for one's sin is an effort to please God.

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, or Jesus' advocate, or, god damnit! (whatever...) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

How does burning Qurans convince someone who believes in the Quran that Jesus alone should be worshiped? Seems like this would generally just piss off the followers of Mohammed and make them hate Christianity even more. Which would in essence cause them to fully reject Christianity, thus ensuring that they're sent to hell? (what?)

Even assuming that your definition of a universal Christianity is correct, these are still bad tactics for luring in new sheep.

This minister, and to a degree Tomber as well (no offense meant!), is showing my problem with organised religion - there is ALWAYS a sense of superiority with NO verifiable reason to have such a high and mighty attitude. I'm a Pagan, and my beliefs work for me, provide me with comfort and strength when needed, and help to give me a sense of purpose and direction in life - but unless someone's beliefs were endangering their health (either of physically, mentally or spiritually) or the health of someone else, I would not declare their religion to be "wrong"; I may not agree with their beliefs, but if their beliefs provide them what mine provide me, in a constructive and positive way, then what's the problem? I think that's the point of view that people who preach their religion as the "true" faith are missing.

As for the effects of this Quran burning - it's asking for more terrorist attacks and will likely cause people who would not have acted violently before to take a more extremist stance and defend their faith in a violent manner. If his whole moronic plan was aimed specifically at the people responsible for the 9/11 bombing then while I wouldn't support it I'd be slightly more understanding, but unfortunately that''s not the purpose of the Quran burning.

"God in the Bible", as Tomber put it, is simply that - God in the BIBLE. What about God in the Torah, the Quran (yes I know Muslims call him Allah, but it is the same deity under a different name), the Egyptian Book of the Dead etc? God is different depending on how you interpret the spiritual aspects of this world, and I personally don't believe that any one holy book in the world at this time can be 100% correct on understanding that nature of divinity, which brings me nicely full circle back to my first point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I would just like to make it clear that I am in no way saying that any of the religions I've mentioned are "wrong", and Tomber I hope you don't take any of what I've said as a personal attack! It's good to see someone with Christian beliefs practising magic so openly to be honest. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well there's my view on things, bit of a ramble but eh well! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/egypt1.gif)

It is narrow minded, tacky, distasteful, hurtful, and utterly pointless. BUT, it is their lawful right to do so if they so choose. Just don't get pissy when some Mosque decides to burn Bibles...

Ah well I'm going to reply to all this as best I can. First to deal with what Vagrant said about all that good killing stuff being in the Torah/Old Testament, Jesus strictly upholds it:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”-Jesus Matthew 5:17-18

Yes it is a frustrating position to take when there are "Christians" that murder doctors and gays. God is extremely punishing and does seem to leave a major part of dealing out that punishment to his people. I don't go around killing people but if God wanted something done and explicitly said it, I would do it. But I choose my religion based on the differences. It did not make sense that there had to be any act I physically had to do to go to Heaven. So I choose the only one that didn't require it. That's not the only reason but it is a big separation from all the others. Also pick it after you give it a shot. I really don't care what anyone says on this but if you do not give it a chance you really have no right to say it doesn't work for you. You have a right to not accept it or argue it but saying it is not right when Christian leaders explain again and again it is an undeniable subjective experience (Lewis, Bounds). That is how you choose a side. Why on earth would I stick to this faith when I see all the perfectly reasonable arguments against it? Not to be stuck up but it is not that you see something I don't but that I am seeing something you do not. If you give God/Jesus a honest one time fair shot at your heart and it doesn't work out then you have done enough and don't need to go farther. God will keep it, because He wants it so bad. You can even justify giving Him this chance by then ruling out forever Christianity. But that will not happen, because God is not going to pass that up. Maybe if you don't give your entire heart/mind/soul during the trial period but just honestly get down and pray. This is why many people become Christians after a breakdown. They need God. When you need something you don't hold anything back.

That is my challenge to anyone who is against Christianity. If it doesn't work out, then quit it you won't have lost that much but you will have gained a new perspective at the minimum. Religious tolerance is not something I like. Tolerance does not stem from religious passion. In that respect I understand the bombing of the towers. I don't like it at all and think it deserves much more than the weak attack we gave back, but that is all secondary. Passion does not equal ignorance. Faith does not equal ignorance. Religious intolerance yes... racial bigotry? He says nothing about race. White Muslims are just as wrong as Black or Brown or Blue ones.

I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. ~Psalms 119:100
The Bible gives the potential for so much more development than anything else because it deals directly with communicating with God. I do several magic rituals daily for practice and growth along with working to strengthen my beginning astral traveling (thanks again for the tips Vagrant) and I can say from having direct experience with both that God has given me so much more. And it is harder. Magic is a walk in the park compared to what God demands. Magic is open to about any idea any lifestyle but to get the specific and many blessing of God a total lifestyle change is required. I understand not following Christianity because it is too hard (which Jesus came and made a whole lot easier) but not trying it because it is too easy is a mistake in case anybody though that.

How does burning Qurans convince someone who believes in the Quran that Jesus alone should be worshiped?-Monkman
I don't know exactly what he wants since I am not in the habit of Quran burning but if I took it up I imagine it would be a symbolic representation of something.

@NetherSpirit

I'm glad for the opportunity to discuss your opinions actually. Obviously you are not personally attacking me so go for it! Jesus did not change the Torah. He upheld it. He explained what it meant, how it was supposed to be used. He explained what God really cared for was the love and devotion of someone, not elaborate rituals. Obviously he wanted them but He explains that it is better to give God your heart than anything else at all. Jews may not accept Jesus, but Jesus explains the meaning that constant thought and daily application of the law should make apparent. I expect to see many Jews in Heaven to. Including Jesus.

I feel one of the main points for not burning the Quarans is flawed: that it should not happen because it would provoke retribution. I feel that is sort of like taking the long route from English to Science every day because a bully that picks on you is in your way. It isn't right. Burning Qurans is like saying "Hey I'm here and I'll do what I want, and this is what I think of you..." and flipping that person off. That is fine with me. Be bold. Take a stand. Do what you will but at least go about it with some passion.

Edit: also about Christians having a "holier than thou" attitude. Real Christians should not. God makes that clear but it is natural for people to act that way by accident when they have the complete belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I try to be tolerant, helpful, and avoid being rude but really I do think I am right and you are wrong. I try to go about it nice and not bring it up but you can't 100% believe this stuff and not think that. Christians have to be intolerant to some degree. I hope this makes sense like I mean it too.

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Sep 8 2010, 11:30 AM

Ah well I'm going to reply to all this as best I can. First to deal with what Vagrant said about all that good killing stuff being in the Torah/Old Testament, Jesus strictly upholds it:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”-Jesus Matthew 5:17-18

He did, however, abolish most of the sacrificial elements involved on the majority of Leviticus, both for the priestly class and the common religious man. So, he did destroy some of the law.

Yes it is a frustrating position to take when there are "Christians" that murder doctors and gays. God is extremely punishing and does seem to leave a major part of dealing out that punishment to his people. I don't go around killing people but if God wanted something done and explicitly said it, I would do it. But I choose my religion based on the differences. It did not make sense that there had to be any act I physically had to do to go to Heaven. So I choose the only one that didn't require it. That's not the only reason but it is a big separation from all the others.

Buddhism, some sects, for instance, does not require a go between or physical acts. It requires of you only a spiritual change and an honest effort to uphold the 8 noble truths.

Also pick it after you give it a shot. I really don't care what anyone says on this but if you do not give it a chance you really have no right to say it doesn't work for you. You have a right to not accept it or argue it but saying it is not right when Christian leaders explain again and again it is an undeniable subjective experience (Lewis, Bounds). That is how you choose a side. Why on earth would I stick to this faith when I see all the perfectly reasonable arguments against it? Not to be stuck up but it is not that you see something I don't but that I am seeing something you do not. If you give God/Jesus a honest one time fair shot at your heart and it doesn't work out then you have done enough and don't need to go farther. God will keep it, because He wants it so bad. You can even justify giving Him this chance by then ruling out forever Christianity. But that will not happen, because God is not going to pass that up. Maybe if you don't give your entire heart/mind/soul during the trial period but just honestly get down and pray. This is why many people become Christians after a breakdown. They need God. When you need something you don't hold anything back.

That is my challenge to anyone who is against Christianity. If it doesn't work out, then quit it you won't have lost that much but you will have gained a new perspective at the minimum.

I was raised first Mormon, then Babtist. By the time I was old enough to make up my own mind, I was a kind of mix of protestant denominations, and the church we attended at the time was a 'non-denominational' christian church. We had a really phenomenal minister who knew the bible cover to cover it seemed like, and had put genuine effort into studying greek and hebrew so that he could get a very thorough perspective on the holy book of his faith. I really did like him and to date he's one of the few true christians I've personally known. He gave me a similar speech one time when I was first considering moving on from religion all together. Not verbatim, but in essence it was "Try this: keep an open mind and heart, and for just a little while live life as though you really do have a savior and Jesus Christ, and that God really is watching over you and protecting you. Pray like you're really talking to your father, face to face, and live like you want to make him proud of you."

So, for a couple of months I thought, I am comfortable here, I know these people, my whole family is christian, and all the grimoires talk about the christian God. I was already getting into hebrew mysticism at the time and to this very day I enjoy kabbalistic symbolism, and am more familiar with it, than any other symbol set. So I did this, and prayed as earnestly as i knew how to, and I did so every day more or less, and I opened my heart to the possibility that if there was a Christ out there, and a God just waiting for me to come to him, then by all means, move me to know it.

Well, the Christian God apparently didn't take that opportunity. Now, I didn't feel I had wasted time, it was a very powerful exercise in faith. But, I was not drawn into the flock. Fast forward several years, I have begun to practice meditation at that point every day, I have developed a new (for me) idea of divinity, and spend time over the course of the day opening myself up to this entirely non-religious idea of a divine spirit. I don't need to worship, but I do give thanks out of sincere gratitude; I don't need to keep precepts because it doesn't judge me, I keep precepts because I want to honor the actions and the manifestations of this divinity. I don't need a holy book, because it lets me know what I need to know. It doesn't need a history, it doesn't need a law. And it doesn't need anything from me at all. There's no way to please it, no way to anger it, it is always pleased, it is pure compassionate radiance of a scale and degree that cannot be expressed. I bathe in its light, it fills me with peace when I allow it to, it always steers me safely on my course.

I found the Divine in the absence of religion. I experience it constantly, it doesn't have a mythos or a name. I found it by searching myself, and through myself everything else. I have had loss of ego experiences both on and off drugs, I have experienced spiritual fire, ecstatic consciousness, and degrees of union with my Divinity. I did not need to be saved by Christ to have these experiences, I did not need to pray to any god with a name. My Divinity has come to me as many Gods, and as no Gods. My Divinity has come to me as a Person, as an Bird, as a Beast, as a Tree, and as Myself. My God is self-evident, needs no supremacy, or sacrifices, or anything at all. Because it is Divinity. Since then, I have come to believe that any God that requires anything of its followers, is no God at all. The God of Abraham and Isaac requires faith and obedience from his followers, or he sends you to hell. Sometimes just one hell, sometimes lots of different hells. Those holy books are very clear on that subject. My Divinity has made it clear that there is no heaven or hell. There is only Union, and safety, and we are not ever really separated from it at all.

I gave the Christian God an honest try, both as an innocent child and as a hopeful young man. I gave the Jewish god a perhaps slightly less earnest try, but then I had already given Christ a chance at that point and he promised to personally save me. Jewish God didn't even promise that.

Religious tolerance is not something I like. Tolerance does not stem from religious passion. In that respect I understand the bombing of the towers. I don't like it at all and think it deserves much more than the weak attack we gave back, but that is all secondary. Passion does not equal ignorance. Faith does not equal ignorance. Religious intolerance yes... racial bigotry? He says nothing about race. White Muslims are just as wrong as Black or Brown or Blue ones.

There is a difference between Religious Passion and Spiritual Passion, so I will say right up front that to me there is a difference there. And religious passion is a passionate belief and execution of one's chosen religion. Passion may not equal ignorance, but it can, and often does, foment it. Passion can overcome reason and understanding, it can cast a shadow over wisdom. Racial bigotry was my own personal opinion on his motivations - the only bigotry demonstrated is that towards Islam, that is true. If he is anything like the hundreds of 'passionate' christians I have known, constantly, since the towers, then he is likely amongst those that assume all middle easterners are muslim. The general american attitude towards islam has not been isolated specifically to practicing muslims - it has been extended to the majority of those with middle eastern races in their recent family tree. This has been a huge new issue in racism since that time that has extended up into the government itself. There is racial tension here, and whether or not his intent is to poke white and black muslims in the eye as well - and he will - the result here in the states will manifest largely as racial tension, not religious tension. You cannot always tell, especially with liberal muslims, what a person's religion is just by looking at them. Race is the easiest difference to spot, which is why it is the most common prejudice. Prejudice driven by and fomented by religious passion gone wild.

I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. ~Psalms 119:100
The Bible gives the potential for so much more development than anything else because it deals directly with communicating with God. I do several magic rituals daily for practice and growth along with working to strengthen my beginning astral traveling (thanks again for the tips Vagrant) and I can say from having direct experience with both that God has given me so much more. And it is harder. Magic is a walk in the park compared to what God demands. Magic is open to about any idea any lifestyle but to get the specific and many blessing of God a total lifestyle change is required. I understand not following Christianity because it is too hard (which Jesus came and made a whole lot easier) but not trying it because it is too easy is a mistake in case anybody though that.

In the absence of christianity, or any religion for that matter, a focused lifestyle of intentionally virtuous thought and deed, keeping to natural social morality and treating others the way you wish to be treated, is not only tough, but will also enrich one's life unimaginably. Religion may be an excuse for this, but that excuse is not necessary. There are a plethora of virtuous atheists who believe in being good people just because it's good, and for no religious reasons at all. The classic statement (and it is classic) that people do not choose (insert religion) because it is to hard, is an ego ploy used constantly in order to entice people to say "I could be a christian, watch!" Living according to the christian precepts is much easier than being a good person because you just want to be a good person. I made my lifestyle changes out of a desire to honor myself, my fellow human beings, and the incredibly intricate and beautiful work of creation around and within me. Not because I will be punished if I don't. And it is hard. But, it is more enjoyable knowing there is no threat of damnation, and knowing that my lifestyle is one I can be proud of because I chose it in the absence of such a threat.

Jesus did not change the Torah. He upheld it. He explained what it meant, how it was supposed to be used. He explained what God really cared for was the love and devotion of someone, not elaborate rituals. Obviously he wanted them but He explains that it is better to give God your heart than anything else at all. Jews may not accept Jesus, but Jesus explains the meaning that constant thought and daily application of the law should make apparent. I expect to see many Jews in Heaven to. Including Jesus.

Er, this is also a common christian interpretation. But, it is simply not true. Torah is very clear on God's law, and there is talk of devotion and giving one's heart to God, however the literal interpretations are of strict a strict lifestyle which is intended to be an earnest demonstration of that love and devotion. God saying, "If you love me, then you will live this way." And there is plenty of discussion about what happens if you do such and such a thing and do not ritually cleanse yourself in some way. You can go to one of many hells in Judaism, and you will if you do all manner of apparently insignificant things. By Orthodox Jewish standards, and Christ's as well if he did not intend for the law to be changed, all christians are unfit for Gods presence. Jesus has been widely interpreted by lots of folks, all of them slanted towards the justification of not needing all the elaborate rules and regulations of the Judaic religious structure. Which is fine in my eyes because whatever your religion is is what your religion is just... call a spade a spade. Being a Christian is a walk in the park compared to being Orthodox Jewish.

I feel one of the main points for not burning the Quarans is flawed: that it should not happen because it would provoke retribution. I feel that is sort of like taking the long route from English to Science every day because a bully that picks on you is in your way. It isn't right. Burning Qurans is like saying "Hey I'm here and I'll do what I want, and this is what I think of you..." and flipping that person off. That is fine with me. Be bold. Take a stand. Do what you will but at least go about it with some passion.

There's no violation of anything holy and sacred to the bully when you flip him off in the hallway.

Edit: also about Christians having a "holier than thou" attitude. Real Christians should not. God makes that clear but it is natural for people to act that way by accident when they have the complete belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I try to be tolerant, helpful, and avoid being rude but really I do think I am right and you are wrong. I try to go about it nice and not bring it up but you can't 100% believe this stuff and not think that. Christians have to be intolerant to some degree. I hope this makes sense like I mean it too.

I and others, I think, knew that going into it. The problem is that there are so many ways to get to the spiritual experience, christians do not have a monopoly on it (though, honestly, if they were right then they kind of would). Every culture has a path to this experience. It is intrinsic to human culture and consciousness. Even atheists instinctively gravitate towards unifying concepts representing something bigger, some connecting overarching experience. Because you got there through christianity, you believe it is the correct faith. I don't think you could, but were you to put christianity away and 'turn your back on jesus' as it were, and then found your way to another spiritual experience through another religion, your views on religion and the spiritual experience might change. But, you won't because why bother? If you already have it, assuming you do, then there's no need to look further. This is a great flaw in human nature. A man who finds a quick route to the grocery store will not usually actively seek out a different route just to see how many ways he can get there. He already knows a good way. And sometimes he'll even argue with another person about which way is faster/safer/etc. Mathematicians argue over who has the correct model. Physicists argue over who has the correct philosophy. Philosophers also argue that but in a different way. Doctors argue over diagnosis. Teachers argue over the best way to teach... the list goes on. It isn't just religion. Everyone has a tendency to think that there way is the best. But, because it is such a widespread element of human nature, well... you'd think that it would be easy to see how that might play into religious culture as well, and how it might be equally as flawed there as it is anywhere else.

peace

"I don't think you could, but were you to put christianity away and 'turn your back on jesus' as it were, and then found your way to another spiritual experience through another religion, your views on religion and the spiritual experience might change."
I felt like I was playing a game of chess and hoping you wouldn't see I left that open, actually. I would say that was a knight.

I wish you felt different about it, Vagrant, but there's not much I can say. I am glad you did give it a run. I really don't have a problem with any of the above except for the part about Jesus changing the legality of Leviticus in any way. Unfortunately that is both a key issue and rather vague to me, please expand on that preferably with direct sources or examples. Jesus doesn't say not to sacrifice, he just makes it unnecessary. Jesus came and cleared up misinterpretations, but did not remove any practices.

"Christ's as well if he did not intend for the law to be changed, all christians are unfit for Gods presence"
yes exactly. They were all unfit because they were failing to uphold the law properly, that is why he came. To offer himself as a sacrifice instead of any animals.

"Buddhism, some sects, for instance, does not require a go between or physical acts." .....wait a minute I thought it required you to "... uphold the 8 noble truths." ah yup there it is.

Also in the Torah it is not written that God will for here on out quit giving new laws, throughout the first five books God continues to institute new laws in a chronological manner.

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Sep 8 2010, 06:56 PM

@NetherSpirit

I'm glad for the opportunity to discuss your opinions actually. Obviously you are not personally attacking me so go for it! Jesus did not change the Torah. He upheld it. He explained what it meant, how it was supposed to be used. He explained what God really cared for was the love and devotion of someone, not elaborate rituals. Obviously he wanted them but He explains that it is better to give God your heart than anything else at all. Jews may not accept Jesus, but Jesus explains the meaning that constant thought and daily application of the law should make apparent. I expect to see many Jews in Heaven to. Including Jesus.

So if you give God your heart, but call him by another name and carry out elaborate rituals, is that not fine too? Also, you say you expect to see many Jews in Heaven too, but what about Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs etc, and those who died thousands of years before the arrival of Christianity? I fail to see how Christians and Jews are "better" (for want of a better) than other religions, and how Christians can claim their religion is the "true" faith when it's outdated by a lot of other religions.

you say you expect to see many Jews in Heaven too, but what about Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs etc, and those who died thousands of years before the arrival of Christianity? I fail to see how Christians and Jews are "better" (for want of a better) than other religions, and how Christians can claim their religion is the "true" faith when it's outdated by a lot of other religions.

Right. Because Paganism is "a blanket term used to refer to various polytheistic, non Abrahamic religious traditions" If Pagans by definition do not accept the Abrahamic God, then I as a Ambrahamic God follower (along with Jesus) certainly do not expect to meet them in Heaven. That would be a surprise!

My heaven is not the same as a Hindus. If I was in the place a Hindu called heaven, then it would not be heaven for me. If a Hindu was in my heaven, then it would not be heaven because by my definition of heaven, Hindus are not there. (Due to principle religious differences not me hating anyone)

I don't know how familiar with Sikhism you are (no offense, I don't know that much) but if a Sikh found themselves in my Heaven, they would probably wonder what the hell is going on since their views on the afterlife are clearly much different than a Christians.

And to address the final part of what you said, about failing to see how Christians and Jews are better I want to point out they are only (supposedly) better insofar as they are right (if they are right) and you are wrong (if they are right again). Failing to understand something doesn't add validity to it being objectively wrong or right so that doesn't mean to much for either case.

How 'bout them apples?! BOOM (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evil2.gif)

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Sep 8 2010, 08:41 PM

I felt like I was playing a game of chess and hoping you wouldn't see I left that open, actually. I would say that was a knight.

I wish you felt different about it, Vagrant, but there's not much I can say. I am glad you did give it a run. I really don't have a problem with any of the above except for the part about Jesus changing the legality of Leviticus in any way. Unfortunately that is both a key issue and rather vague to me, please expand on that preferably with direct sources or examples. Jesus doesn't say not to sacrifice, he just makes it unnecessary. Jesus came and cleared up misinterpretations, but did not remove any practices.

Well the dietary laws are spread out in leviticus (chapter 11) and deuteronomy (chapter 14). You're familiar with them I'm sure. God states what is clean and unclean and instructs that unclean animals are not to be eaten. Jesus then says, in the book of matthew somewhere, that it is what comes out of a man that makes him clean or unclean, not what he eats. Now, theories abound as to the reasons why the unclean animals were called as they were, but regardless of the possible historical and scientific reasons (contagions, lack of adequate storage technologies, etc.), it is handed down to moses, from God, at mount Sinai, as Law. Paul, I'm relatively sure, had a lot to say about those laws.

It may seem like a small thing, but the two statements are in direct opposition to one another. Christians view jewish law as divided into moral, social, and dietary laws, and claim, usually, that only the 'ceremonial' laws were 'fulfilled' by jesus. However, there was no such distinction and to even modern orthodox jews there is no such thing as ceremonial law - all laws are Gods Laws and are immutable. You yourself mention that jesus came to fulfill the law, but while there are several passages in the tanakh regarding some eventual savior (of the jewish people specifically), nothing says that he will some how abolish or fulfill Gods Law and absolve mankind of the need to follow it. Talmudic law wasn't about absolution for original sin, it was about living righteously in the eyes of God.

So, jesus did remove practices. After saying the law would not be changed at all, in even the slightest way. Paul later on says lots of stuff that is debatable whether or not it conflicts with Jesus' teachings. Gnostic Christians tend to toss a lot of that and focus on Jesus' own specific teachings.

"Christ's as well if he did not intend for the law to be changed, all christians are unfit for Gods presence"
yes exactly. They were all unfit because they were failing to uphold the law properly, that is why he came. To offer himself as a sacrifice instead of any animals.

Er, no. There is no indication of that, nor any prophecy regarding that as Jesus' purpose. Animal sacrifice served many different purposes in the ancient jewish tradition, including feeding the clergy, who did everything they did for free. It wasn't about absolution, again, it was about pleasing God. Only Jesus' own words seem to imply this, and the letters from his supposed followers. So that is a debatable point without a lot of support. Whether Jesus was in fact the messiah, for instance, is a point for which there is a fair amount of support - though, granted, the prophesies that might have suggested he was the messiah were well known, and there are a few passages that suggest that Jesus' own family thought he was crazy.

"Buddhism, some sects, for instance, does not require a go between or physical acts." .....wait a minute I thought it required you to "... uphold the 8 noble truths." ah yup there it is.

That's two less than the God of Abraham requires.

Also in the Torah it is not written that God will for here on out quit giving new laws, throughout the first five books God continues to institute new laws in a chronological manner.

The Torah is internally consistent - there is very little inconsistency in the old testament, and there are volumes of 'canonical' talmudic literature clarifying points to a finely tuned legal system founded on the premise that the core laws were handed down from God Himself. Although there are in general cases in which there are specific conditional 'loopholes' here and there based on all manner of situations and conflicts such as following one law where two actually apply, but there is scriptural support for these conditionals. Throughout, however, it is stated, "This is the Law of the Lord thy God," and "Saieth the Lord," and "Forever unto the ages." Etc. It is made explicitly clear that the law is intended to endure forever, and that only the children of Israel are righteous before the lord because of it, as well as those that come unto the Law.

This makes the vast inconsistency across the new testament even MORE internally inconsistent because instead of just chucking the old testament, the case was made that christians were simply living a 'new' covenant with God. God handed his covenant, the original one, to moses supposedly in person. But the christians get a middle man? God in the body of a Man this time? In comparison, that's kind of suspect. The bible also makes it fairly clear that magical practices in general are forbidden to the faithful, and the overwhelming interpretational trend is that this is so - yet you seem to have found some loophole for yourself so apparently there is wiggle room depending on how you want to read the book.

I am genuinely happy that you were able to achieve the spiritual experience through this path. Personally I think it is possible to achieve that experience through a religion centered around Cheetos if one is earnest in his desire. Sometimes we need religion as a catalyst for that honest desire, and there are many that are readily available. For one religion to assert that it is the correct religion, regardless of the internal inconsistencies of that religion, is to simply deny that anyone outside of that religion is able to have that spiritual experience. That I, as a pagan, am wrong in my beliefs, that my experience is a Lie (presumably from the satan/the devil, etc). Even though not all christians report experiencing the Divine presence at all (must be luke warm christians).

I'm not out to deconvert you, or whatever the word would be, because I don't care how you worship. And in this subject, there can be no end to the debate unless it is simply stated to be the end of the debate. What I will say though, is that you yourself must decide, ultimately, whether or not you have in fact experienced God through your chosen religion, or not. The Divine experience alters you permanently. You say it is hard being a christian, and I get that. It is sometimes hard for me to take the next step in my own personal spiritual path. But, at each degree of connection between myself and the Divine that I recognize as such, my path becomes easier and easier. The temptations become less, the compassion grows, the ability to live life intentionally crystallizes. I simply don't want the things that distracted me in the past. Meanwhile, even the most fervent and outspoken christians - maybe a minority in the public eye - are corrupted and caught in that corruption for all to see. I guess the God of Abraham didn't protect them from temptation? Maybe the lease on their hearts was up? It's not that I expect christians to be incorruptible, no one is such a person. But, all the evidence would seem to suggest that, if all wickedness is temptation, and temptation is the devil's domain, and you ask your God to protect you from temptation... well, for a God that supposedly doesn't let go, it seems like it happens often enough to be a concern.

Maybe as a 'true' christian, you will fare better.

peace

A Christian minister in Florida will burn copies of the Quran with his church on 9/11 this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_...s/quran_burning

This is absolutely disgusting.

Okay, I'm not going to go into anybody's christian morals because christian morals are entirely human interpretation and have nothing at all to do with anything god said. Things god did NOT put in the commandments and Jesus never said: hate other religions and treat them with disrespect because they're going to hell.

OBVIOUSLY. The DEVIL will hate them and treat them awfully in hell, so what the hell makes you think you have the right?

That aside, this is not propounding Christian ideals, it's a bald-faced act of religious bigotry, nothing more. Burning Korans does not show that Christianity is right, it makes it look stupid and intolerant. It does not solve anything or shed new light on something, it's a hate crime and all the participants should be federally charged as such; it's no different than burning a cross in a black man's yard (although they don't plan to hang Muslims while they burn the Korans... do they?).

It is not the Christian's job according to God to hate and to discriminate, but to love and to educate. We are here to preach His word, not to burn that other dude's. It's God's job to judge people and not ours, and to do so is to think ourselves superior to others; which Jesus repeatedly denounced.

Also, in my heaven all my friends are there. Some of my friends are Lutheran, some Cathollic, some Jewish, some Mormon, some Hindu, some Wiccan... the list goes on and on. It's my belief that heaven is where people who live their lives well go, not where people who believe in the wrong God go. In fact, to say "the wrong God" implies that there is another. All beings that we worship are a facet of Him. That is not to say they do not exist, it is to say that they are a part of a greater whole, and He is that whole. As long as the principles are essentially the same (which they are in most cases) it doesn't matter whether you worship Vishnu or Adonai, it's all a part of God, and he judges you on character and action, not which part you choose.

There you go.

The Quran burning has been cancelled:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/0...s-quran-burning

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10obama.html?hp

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/0...ran-burning/?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/...becomes-news?hp

...but the situation is sticky.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Sep 9 2010, 05:54 PM

Okay. I am glad this got discussed. I really disagree with some of the logic behind those apparent contradictions but am glad they were brought up because I will be careful to think about those points both for personal reference and in case people bring that up I will be familiar with the stance. It seems you are quite a bit father down the magic path than me and it seems I might be farther down the Christian one (or not far enough) so we both see results. Yes there are many outspoken Christians that mess up everything. Still it doesn't sound like many people get high up there on the pure paganistic/magic path either so it might just be about sticking to it, while most people seem to mess around no matter how they try to get through to Divinity.

"a religion centered around Cheetos if one is earnest in his desire" or a flying ball of spaghetti ha. True.

Anyway I'm glad nothing got out of control because of my one sided comments.

In America, there are no rules against assholes being themselves.

Bad news update: it looks like the Qurans may still be burned!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/quran_burning

This whole thing reeks of a publicity stunt to me. This guy has what? Two, maybe three dozen people in his entire congregation? The population of the checkout line at IKEA on a Saturday afternoon is larger than this guy's whole church. Seriously.

The planned then canceled Koran burnings got him the publicity he appeared to want, though probably not in the way he wanted. I'm not big on any organised religion, but I'm with Ethereal on the race-baiting religious bigotry angle. Gainesville may not be the buckle of the Bible Belt, but it is still the South, and unfortunately views like this pastor's are not uncommon there.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/badmood.gif)

Maybe now that this has been canceled we can move on to real issues and not give this guy any more than his already allotted 15 minutes of fame.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dots.gif)