What's wrong with religion?

[squealpiggy]

Exactly. There are fanatics in all religions - Squealpiggy is a fanatic himself.

Ah yes, a fanatic of the superior race religion which I don't follow and which you pulled out of your own arse. You do know that as a Chritian you are breaking the ninth commandment when you lie?

Why don't you cut out the BS and just ADMIT you HATE Muslims?

Because I don't hate Muslims.

It's more than "disapproval" - you were rather gleeful about the deaths of all the 1500 or so Palestinian civilians including several hundred women and children as a result of the Israeli action last Dec-Jan.

This is untrue as well. I was not gleeful. Rather I was intensely condemning of the terrorists who used the civilians as a human shield and then promoted their deaths and suffering on worldwide media to drum up support for theit campaign of anti-semitic violence.

And when discussing the Iraq War, you deny the holocaust inflicted against the people of Iraq by the US.

There is no "holocaust" of Iraqi people, that's why. The US invasion was rash and ill-planned, and as a result many people died. But more Iraqis have died at the hands of other muslims than at the hands of the US and this is based on the sectarian war being waged between the Sunni minority and *****e majority. The flames are being fanned by non-Iraqi jihadists who see an opportunity to sieze power in Iraq and shape it into an Islamic state.

The US enabled this situation to happen but the blood of more muslims is on the hands of other muslims. Thankyou for illustrating another thing that is wrong with religion.

have you ever read the torrah squeel? You would be surprised at the stuff in there. Not much of a difference between the two books really.

All holy books have a great deal in common. For a start they must advocate multiple opposing positions so that there's always something in there to justify your prejudices. Secondly it must be vague enough to not have a definitive interpretation.

[Dakuwaqa]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

All holy books have a great deal in common. For a start they must advocate multiple opposing positions so that there's always something in there to justify your prejudices. Secondly it must be vague enough to not have a definitive interpretation.

Do you think it's intentional?

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Dakuwaqa

Do you think it's intentional?

No I don't.. There have been occasions when the people who are choosing what stays and what goes in the holy texts do so in a way which is favourable to their agenda (The Council of Nicaea is the best example) but largely because religious texts, like anything else which gets replicated with modification, is subject to a type of Darwinian selection in which the "fittest" survive. That is to say that the versions that get copied the most tend to survive while the others decline in frequency and eventually disappear.

It just so happens that "fittest" in terms of holy texts and traditions include the ones with the qualities I outlined.