Censoring September 11th

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

martha said:


What a convienient belief. I guarantee that if, like 80s wants, the prayers of these people were being censored, you wouldn't have written such a ridiculous and disingenous statement.
Oddly enough, there is NO argument here on how my statement was "ridiculous and disingenous."
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

melon said:
Bin Laden is, at best, an ultraconservative terrorist and a theocrat, and, yes, I'd say that terrorism, theocracy, and ultraconservatism certainly do go hand-in-hand.
:rolleyes:

And how is Bin Laden an "ultra-conservative?"

You equating conservatism with theocracies is downright laughable at best. If you want to see a real theocracy, go to Iran. Ahmadinejad doesn't exactly hold freedom of religion dearly.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
:rolleyes:

Ahmadinejad doesn't exactly hold freedom of religion dearly.

I think you just answered your own question. This is exactly the path conservativism is heading here in the states.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

BonoVoxSupastar said:
I think you just answered your own question. This is exactly the path conservativism is heading here in the states.
You're cracking me up.

The fact that you equate conservatism with the oppression of religious freedom is bunk.

You just hate evangelicals who actually defend their own religion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:


The fact that you equate conservatism with the oppression of religious freedom is bunk.


Just take a look at the State of Liberation thread.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Just take a look at the State of Liberation thread.
Link please.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

BonoVoxSupastar said:


You posted in it...:huh:

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163958&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

My point is made very clear with another one of your posts that couldn't see the difference between secular and athiesism.
In the sciences that are being taught in schools, that holds true. I consider the teachings to be an atheistic philosophy rather than even a hypothetical argument.

Obviously, that's a whole separate issue from what we are discussing here.

The United States goes a few years without a sexual degenerate in the White House. Suddenly, the leftists are in a full-blown panic.

"You mean he doesn't cheat on his wife? My God. He must not be faking his religion after all. What if he actually believes in it? He's gotta be a theocrat!"
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
In the sciences that are being taught in schools, that holds true. I consider the teachings to be an atheistic philosophy rather than even a hypothetical argument.

Obviously, that's a whole separate issue from what we are discussing here.

The United States goes a few years without a sexual degenerate in the White House. Suddenly, the leftists are in a full-blown panic.

"You mean he doesn't cheat on his wife? My God. He must not be faking his religion after all. What if he actually believes in it? He's gotta be a theocrat!"



you can do better than this post.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:


The United States goes a few years without a sexual degenerate in the White House. Suddenly, the leftists are in a full-blown panic.


This is why you have no credibility in here...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
:rolleyes:

And how is Bin Laden an "ultra-conservative?"

You equating conservatism with theocracies is downright laughable at best. If you want to see a real theocracy, go to Iran. Ahmadinejad doesn't exactly hold freedom of religion dearly.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

"Conservatism necessitates a defense of established values and the status quo."

And, as such...

"In Islam, the Salafist movement is often politically and socially radical, and is violently repressed by governments and distrusted by the majority of mainstream Muslims for that reason. Salafism seeks to impose, by force if necessary, its vision of a model Islamic society such as existed at the time of Muhammad's passing from this world and for a short time thereafter. It rejects the later developments of Islamic societies, and can therefore be classified as a radical religious conservatism."

"Wahhabism" is considered a derogatory term for Salafi Islam, which bin Laden is an adherent to.

And I hate to break it to you, but "religious freedom" is a traditionally liberal value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom

The early colonies, although many of them were founded as a result of religious persecution, were not tolerant of dissident forms of worship. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts.

It was not until the 18th century that Enlightenment concepts of freedom of individual worship gained ground both in Europe and America.

The modern legal concept of religious freedom as the union of freedom of belief and freedom of worship with the absence of any state-sponsored religion, originated in the United States of America.

And guess what the Enlightenment was? A wholly liberal and secular movement.

I get the impression that you define "liberal" as meaning everyone that you're opposed to, but there are actually established definitions behind these terms. You just can't go around redefining them to suit your ideological purposes.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
The United States goes a few years without a sexual degenerate in the White House. Suddenly, the leftists are in a full-blown panic.

"You mean he doesn't cheat on his wife? My God. He must not be faking his religion after all. What if he actually believes in it? He's gotta be a theocrat!"

Name one "liberal" who has actually used this argument in their opposition to Bush. I want a name and a citation to prove it.

Until then, all I'm going to do is laugh at how ridiculous and irrational this argument is. It just goes to show that you will grasp at straws to justify your rabid hatred of anyone to the left of you.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

melon said:




I get the impression that you define "liberal" as meaning everyone that you're opposed to, but there are actually established definitions behind these terms. You just can't go around redefining them to suit your ideological purposes.


:yes:
 
Kieran McConville said:


U280sisbest, you can be offended by me if you wish. I know you will.

Of course you knew I would. You planned it to be offensive to people who, like me, are offended by irreverant use of God's name.

Kieran McConville said:
It's not all about you and your Christian beliefs.

Never said it was. In fact, this is about you, not me. What I said was that it's real jerky to enjoy offending people for the fun of it.

Kieran McConville said:
There are other Christians here. I'm one of them, after a fashion at least. After a crooked fashion.

You're a Christian after a "crooked fashion"? What in the world does that mean?
 
Is there only one kind of Christian? I'd like to think that your religion is more forgiving than that, and that any worshiper is welcomed. Even a crooked one.
 
najeena said:
Is there only one kind of Christian? I'd like to think that your religion is more forgiving than that, and that any worshiper is welcomed. Even a crooked one.

Najeena, a Christian is someone who puts his/her trust in Christ, believing that Christ is the Son of God who voluntarily died upon the cross to redeem the sins of man, and who follows Christ.

najeena, I don't even know what Kieren means by "a Christain after a crooked fashion". I've never heard that term in my life, and I have been a Christian for 27 years.
 
yolland said:


As a parent I'm plenty capable of deciding for myself whether my children might be mature enough to handle this documentary. And the profanity would be about the last thing I'd have concerns over in making that decision.


Absolutely.
 
What if someone believes in the things that Jesus said as a holy man, his teachings of forgiveness and charity- and doesn't believe that he was the offspring of a diety? Can't that person be a follower of Jesus?
 
Uh, the movie's over and all of this isn't the point of discussion and has nothing to do with it. Maybe another thread can be started if people want to discuss all of that.
 
najeena said:
What if someone believes in the things that Jesus said as a holy man, his teachings of forgiveness and charity- and doesn't believe that he was the offspring of a diety? Can't that person be a follower of Jesus?

Christ taught many things, and chief amongst them was that he himself was the Son Of God who came as Savior. It is well and good to believe in and try to follow the "moral teachings" of Jesus, such as "love your enemies", "do unto others as you'd have done to you", etc. However, since man cannot follow those teachings 100%, he is sinful and separated from God. The point of the Gospel is that Christ, the Son of God, yet 100% man also, never sinned, and his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection redeems people from the penalty of their sin and the power of that sin. If a person does not believe that about Christ, he/she does not believe in the Christ of the Bible, and is not a Christian as defined by the Bible.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom