Strengthen faith, not hate.

Originally posted by divegeester
I didn't say you would calling for blood. I implied through caricaturisation that you and your neighborhood would be militant in seeking out those directly and indirectly responsible. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry, I was unsure of your actual sentiment here. Thanks for the clarification.
I would probably try to deal with directly (with words) any militants of that nature, however I'm not sure that many others in my neighborhood would necessarily follow.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Sorry, I was unsure of your actual sentiment here. Thanks for the clarification.
I would probably try to deal with directly (with words) any militants of that nature, however I'm not sure that many others in my neighborhood would necessarily follow.

My sister was a soldier at Woolwich. Not much of a connection to the murder of course, but it does make me think about how I would have felt if it was her lying in that street.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I was just saying how although Christians are hounded in this forum to come clean about some of the inconsistencies within the bible,(and other little "niggles" here and there), there has never been a call for death to all Christians.
Again I reckon that the fact that there are no active Muslim posters here gives people more courage to speak out aga ...[text shortened]... ho would certainly alert the mods if such a disgusting message was directed at their religion.

Since you say there are are no active Muslims on this Forum, then why would you expect the call for the death of Christians, Jews, and Americans in the same way as is done in the majority Muslim nations in the middle east?

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since you say there are are no active Muslims on this Forum, then why would you expect the call for the death of Christians, Jews, and Americans in the same way as is done in the majority Muslim nations in the middle east?

The instructor

Those calls for death of christians don't happen so much in Indonesia where the whole idea is tolerance for other religions. They try very hard to get along with each other in spite of the fact it is vast majority Muslim. You seem to mix up the reactionary devils that react the same as you with the great majority of Muslims who just want to do their daily work, go home, kiss the wife and have a nice meal go to bed, make love, get up the next day, go to work and so forth, of course they have to do the obligatory prayer stuff but that is their choice, the way they live their lives.

And you saying they are worshiping the devil makes you part of the problem not part of the solution so the saying goes.

There is religious intolerance in Indonesia but not as bad as some Muslim countries:

http://www.persecution.org/2013/05/08/indonesian-president-given-award-for-religious-tolerance-despite-church-closures/

Originally posted by sonhouse
Those calls for death of christians don't happen so much in Indonesia where the whole idea is tolerance for other religions. They try very hard to get along with each other in spite of the fact it is vast majority Muslim. You seem to mix up the reactionary devils that react the same as you with the great majority of Muslims who just want to do their daily w ...[text shortened]... rg/2013/05/08/indonesian-president-given-award-for-religious-tolerance-despite-church-closures/

Why are you all of a sudden taking up for the Muslims being so tolerant and yet say nothing about the tolerance of Christianity. You can't be serious that Islam is more tolerant that Christianity.

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why are you all of a sudden taking up for the Muslims being so tolerant and yet say nothing about the tolerance of Christianity. You can't be serious that Islam is more tolerant that Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LzXf1TKQ

The Instructor

You mean like the tolerance of a particular so-called Christian named RJ Hinds? You are SUCH a model of tolerance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean like the tolerance of a particular so-called Christian named RJ Hinds? You are SUCH a model of tolerance.

There are some who wish for a purely “secular” society where religion is relegated to its cloister and all Christian opinion is silenced. To those individuals, we offer these reminders:

1) Christians in a representative democracy have as much right to be involved in the political process as anyone else. This means they may vote, rally, lobby, caucus, and hold office just like any other American—all the while promoting laws that reflect their own values. Christians do not seek to subvert the political process; they engage it, as it is the right of every American.

2) Christians in a pluralistic society have as much right to voice their opinions as anyone else. This means they may broadcast, write, speak, publish, and create art as they will—all the while voicing their own view of morality. Christians are sometimes accused of censorship, on the basis that they have criticized a certain book or have objected to their tax dollars funding anti-Christian speech, but they are not burning books. The reality is that freedom of expression is a Christian value.

3) Christians in a religiously free society have as much right to live out their beliefs as anyone else. This means they may preach and teach the gospel and live according to the Bible and their conscience. When a Christian says, “You must be born again” (John 3:7), he is not trying to impose his values; he is speaking the truth, which anyone is free to accept or reject.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-impose-values.html#ixzz2UeiiHtHq

The Instructor

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I here ya, but it is my understanding that Taoman was trying to protest the slackness of the mods allowing pure hate getting posted up.
I agree with Taoman's stance, however I wouldn't leave, I would 'protest' in a different manner.

I've actually met Taoman and from that one meeting ,(put into context of his posting history), I believe that he is ...[text shortened]... temporary absence because I know Taoman is no coward in any sense of the word.

I get that he was upset over the trollish, idiotic anti-Islam threads. You can't post in a religious or political and not have it occasionally happen.

It's just that threatening to quit if you don't get your way is such an infantile tactic. Or, he is really leaving and he indeed abandoned the fight after chastising others for not fighting. Either way it's not a great way to handle the situation.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I get that he was upset over the trollish, idiotic anti-Islam threads. You can't post in a religious or political and not have it occasionally happen.

It's just that threatening to quit if you don't get your way is such an infantile tactic. Or, he is really leaving and he indeed abandoned the fight after chastising others for not fighting. Either way it's not a great way to handle the situation.

political forum*

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I get that he was upset over the trollish, idiotic anti-Islam threads. You can't post in a religious or political and not have it occasionally happen.

It's just that threatening to quit if you don't get your way is such an infantile tactic. Or, he is really leaving and he indeed abandoned the fight after chastising others for not fighting. Either way it's not a great way to handle the situation.

Taoman's motives are prominent in his (and many of the other pseudo Buddhists member's) posts; to project oneself as being above the fray, intellectually and spiritually detached from the debating carnage and to present by inflection oneself as being slightly superior to the rest of the entrapped rapscallions.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I get that he was upset over the trollish, idiotic anti-Islam threads. You can't post in a religious or political and not have it occasionally happen.

It's just that threatening to quit if you don't get your way is such an infantile tactic. Or, he is really leaving and he indeed abandoned the fight after chastising others for not fighting. Either way it's not a great way to handle the situation.

Why is it not a good way to handle the situation?
Perhaps he see's the futility of posting here.
Perhaps he's had one idiotic post too much.
Perhaps he feels his energies would be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that if he thinks this protest will achieve much he is probably wrong.

Nevertheless, I just wish the best for him and who knows, perhaps in another 10 years, I too will begin to see reasons for his departure more clearly. After all, you get to a certain age when it becomes your time. The kids are grown up. You've worked and answered to others your whole life as a younger man, there comes a time when a wise man knows when to move of and take up the slack somewhere else.

I remember terrierjack was a frequent poster here when I first got here,and then he got sick of it. I asked him and he said as much.

Perhaps Taoman feels he has achieved as much as he is going to in these forums and his protest was his final act to show how seriously he felt about tolerance, religious freedom and the precious life that we are blessed with.

Originally posted by divegeester
Taoman's motives are prominent in his (and many of the other pseudo Buddhists member's) posts; to project oneself as being above the fray, intellectually and spiritually detached from the debating carnage and to present by inflection oneself as being slightly superior to the rest of the entrapped rapscallions.

I don't see how you could draw that conclusion from his posts.

Taoman man saw everyone as equal, as do i. He attacked others words but never others. And even then he was ever the diplomat.

If he came across that way to you,(ie projecting himself as superior), I reckon you have it plain wrong.
I would be surprised if you could admit that you may have it wrong, or maybe you could show where he projected a superior attitude.

With all respect man, I'm fairly sure you have mistaken him.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Why is it not a good way to handle the situation?
Perhaps he see's the futility of posting here.
Perhaps he's had one idiotic post too much.
Perhaps he feels his energies would be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that if he thinks this protest will achieve much he is probably wrong.

Nevertheless, I just wish the best for him and who knows, perh ...[text shortened]... ly he felt about tolerance, religious freedom and the precious life that we are blessed with.

I get that, but why urge others to fight if you're not willing to lead by example?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I don't see how you could draw that conclusion from his posts.
Taoman man saw everyone as equal, as do i. He attacked others words but never others. And even then he was ever the diplomat. If he came across that way to you,(ie projecting himself as superior), I reckon you have it plain wrong. I would be surprised if you could admit that you may have i ...[text shortened]... projected a superior attitude.
With all respect man, I'm fairly sure you have mistaken him.

People read the same thing and form different perspectives. He was/is openly anti-Christian, attacking the things Christian hold dear. Others here are anti Islam, others anti all religion. It's a rich tapestry.

It's a forum for discussion and debate in which he has chided SG for not picking up the battle (so to speak) and then stropped off himself.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I get that, but why urge others to fight if you're not willing to lead by example?

Indeed ,I agree. All I can is that there are exceptions to every guideline and for better or worse taomans made his decision.

I feel quite sure having been acquainted with the man that in his mind he feels as if he has made the right decision , despite me , you and others left scratching their heads a bit as to why he did that exactly.

I reckon taoman knew that it wouldn't go down well or be thumbed up, but he followed his conviction anyway, which is brave