Christian Tolerance

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

I see in the Creationism thread your arguing with JC.

WRONG! In the creationism thread im arguing against JC on the issue ohis assertion that the theory of evolution is wrong.

I'm sure he'd love to hear that his definition of Evolution is fine and it makes no difference what the official definition is.

I'm sure off topic posts about other definitions on other things are exactly that - OFF TOPIC! if you want to make a issue of the definition of "evolution" in that discussion then go there and do it. Don't try to slip off the hook here however.

I suggest you actually review what you wrote. Look at the thread view and change it to threaded messages and follow the links back through. How the discussion between you and both PDN an myself progressed is easily viewed. What JC or anyone else stated elsewhere has nothing to do with that.

But it is quite clear what JC refers to! He doesn't redefine Darwinian evolution. He accepts the definition he just happens to disagree with it being true. At least that is how it seems to me. You could go and ask him but it is not for this discussion.

If you are accusing me of double standards please be clear about your specific accusation. I never stated definitions didn't matter. I stated PDN was quite clear about what he meant by "religion" at the start. He was discussing Christianity and toleration of homosexuals.

In fact I do believe you corrected him on this point more then once. Strange, does this 'self definition' only work for the word 'religion' ?

Again take that up there i that thread.

But if you accusing me of double standards then please say so! It seems quite clear to me that if someone supplies their own definition then that is the one you work with. Even if it is wrong the point is you both agree that that is the basis from which you are discussing "evolution" "religion" or whatever.

You didn't come in stating "I disagree with your definition of religion or Christianity but the point is Christianity was intolerant of homosexuals and that had a negative affect on society"

You came in stating the part in bold and when it was pointed out to you that PDN was referring to Christianity and the only way it could be true is changing the definition you changed the definition!

If you can't accept this point which is clearly supported by the evidence then don't expect me to argue about it.

Furthermore if you try to avoid this point by accusing me of double standards with respected to totally different bases for definitions then don't expect me to argue with you at all.
Either deal with the issue or don't and don't waffle about other off topic things.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

do we ? :P

QED

By asking such a question you apparently demonstrate it.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

And this is your problem, you came into this thread without reading it, just glanced at the title and started ranting against what you 'thought' I was saying.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64559884#post64559884


And if you follow the discussion PND there said that atheistic countries were intolerant of homosexuals and you immediatley started going through the list of atheistian and NON CHRISTIAN countries and began to redefine then as being heavily influenced by christianity!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64574698&postcount=11
PDN was quite clear about that

So now you're going to argue that anything wrong committed by atheists is really the fault of the influence of Christians or Muslims? Welcome to la-la Land!

And several times after he referred to CHRISTIAN intolerance and that the only way you can blame christianity is if you categorise ALL intolerant countries (even the oficially atheistic ones) as being uner the influence of christianity.

And THAT is EXACTLY what you proceeded to do!

One only has to change to "threaded view" to see that!

I asked him for examples and he gave many, one was North Korea.

Of NON Christian countries who were intolerant! Based on the argument that CHRISTIANITY is not the cause of intolerance! If you claim country A is intorlerant because of christianity and you are shown a counter example the "because of" bit is dismissed! the counter example was only given to disprove the suggestion that there was a rule which applied only to Christianity!


It was dismissed and the argument was buried and could only be raised again if you REDEFINED "religion" in the discussion to include a NON CHRISTIAN definition of religion
which wasspecifically outside the aegis of the discussion!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64571876#post64571876

Because you didn't read the thread.

PDN is the one who brought up the argument saying that atheist countries were/are intolerant of homosexuals. I am answering his assertion.

THe subthread begins here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64532311&postcount=5


Where PND refers in reply to you to a fundamentalist CHRISTIAN Pat Robertson in relation to tolerance of gays.

Xluna came in LATER.

But that thread was a DIFFERENT sub thread and the discussion about atheism being just an extension of christianity was dead and buried.

This sub thread in which i am replying began when YOU posted in agreement with recedite about SCANDINAVIA as relating to having a christian past and being intolerant to hoimosexuals.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64532311&postcount=5

and when it was pointed out by PDN that counter to your claim that

I haven't been able to reply for some time but that's exactly how I've wanted to put it since the start.

It" being the Scandinavian intolerance proving christian intolerance,
As i say pointed out that you were not referring to it you IMMEDIATELY in the following reply REVERTED the the linking the specifically predefined and already deat with domain of Christianity with atheism and non christian religion in an attempt to identify christianity with intolerance!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64712822&postcount=11

Unless an 'atheist' country is now defined as a 'non-christian' country then no.

there you go again!

1. I have given pages of evidence and pages of links to good sources backing up my argument. You have given nothing but your own opinion and denial. You haven't argued against the evidence I've presented you have simply ignored it.

The "atheism is heavily influenced by christianity therefore christianity is to blame for atheist intolerance" is a dead and buried argument and is dealt with in the other sub thread.

Having been shown we are dealing with Christianity as in people and cultures that practice Christianity and believe in Christ why do you continually try to re enter non Christian intolerance into the discussion of whether Christianity is to blame for intolerance?

2. I am not trying to prove that North Korea is religious ergo religion fosters intolerance of homosexuals.

Good! they enough with the North Korea. It isn't a Christian country! It only is useful for the discussion as a comparison to the same claims being made about a Christian country.

Right now all I am trying to make you understand is that North Korea is not an atheist country.

So what? We are not arguing about "Non Atheist" countries being intolerant! WE are discussing whether CHRISTIAN countries are intolerant and whether Christianity CAUSES intolerance!

PDN is the one who made the link between atheist state and intolerance of homosexuals.

NO NO NO NO NO! Only as it related to the idea that

Christians are intolerant BECAUSE Christian countries made laws against homosexuality

The point is non christian countries made worse laws so you cant say that the law is only because Christians are intolerant If non christians are similar it may not justify such laws but it DOES mean you can't say the cause is Christianity!

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Oh good I'll be popular over there now


Not that the above bothers me in the slightest since Dawkins or Hitchens could come out tomorrow and proclaim belief in any type of nonsense. It makes no difference to me.

Which directly contradicts the rest of your post! If the definition of an atheist makes no difference to you why are you constantly trying to score points harping on about definitions of juche as a religion? Why do that matter to you?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and juche is a religion and North Korea is a religious country. Okay?

Now how does North Korea being religious have anything to do with the discussion of Christian tolerance of homosexuals?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Which directly contradicts the rest of your post! If the definition of an atheist makes no difference to you why are you constantly trying to score points harping on about definitions of juche as a religion? Why do that matter to you?

..... ?

Do I worship Richard Dawkins all of a sudden ? If Richard Dawkins believes in magic teapots then that somehow effects me ?

I'm an atheist because I lack belief. What Dawkins does or doesn't do is no business of mine and doesn't affect my lack of belief.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and juche is a religion and North Korea is a religious country. Okay?

No.

I have given pages of evidence, mountains of links.

Either accept the fact that juche/Kimilsungism is a religion or argue against my points.

Now how does North Korea being religious have anything to do with the discussion of Christian tolerance of homosexuals?

It doesn't. It has to do with the discussion of religious tolerance of homosexuals which is also on-topic here.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

..... ?

Do I worship Richard Dawkins all of a sudden ? If Richard Dawkins believes in magic teapots then that somehow effects me ?

I'm an atheist because I lack belief. What Dawkins does or doesn't do is no business of mine and doesn't affect my lack of belief.

What they do themselves has nothing to do with your demand for a definition of "religion". You are so interested in the definition of religion but when it is pointed out to you that you could include atheism withing such a definition you are not interested. That is a contradiction!

No.

I have given pages of evidence, mountains of links.

Either accept the fact that juche/Kimilsungism is a religion or argue against my points.

I don't have to accept it is a religion but let us assume it is. What does it have to do with Christian tolerance of homosexuals. you only brought it into the debate as a red herring.

It doesn't. It has to do with the discussion of religious tolerance of homosexuals which is also on-topic here.

No it isn't! Because the topic was about CHRISTIANITY and you were specifically told that what you claimed about Christianity couldn't be true unless you made the cvlaim for all religion and extended religion to included Bhuddism communism etc. You then began seeking out non christian "religion" to prove that point!

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

What they do themselves has nothing to do with your demand for a definition of "religion". You are so interested in the definition of religion but when it is pointed out to you that you could include atheism withing such a definition you are not interested. That is a contradiction!

No its not. Atheism is a label applied to me because I have a lack of belief, it doesn't mean I have any connection to Dawkins etc. Christianity is a religion and you have similar beliefs to other Christians. I have no belief and anything I have in common with anyone else who doesn't have belief is a coincidence.

I don't have to accept it is a religion but let us assume it is. What does it have to do with Christian tolerance of homosexuals. you only brought it into the debate as a red herring.

No, you have stated you don't believe it. Argue against it or against it. I have given enough evidence and you have simply denied it. Present evidence against it or accept it.