Which religion works better in modern times. Christianity or Islam?

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="Vaultboy-101"]

Neither of them, they're both as primitive and backwards as possible.

FreddyJeffery

What's backwards about loving your neighbour?

:(

Did Jesus mention gays...? I genuinely can't remember.

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

What's backwards about loving your neighbour?

:(

Ilovegames1992

Did Jesus mention gays...? I genuinely can't remember.

I know mods are posters too, but i feel uneasy about a moderator, and representative of a site, being openly insulting and disrepespectful to a religion.

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] If your neighbor is the same-sex as you that line does not apply and its against the book.FreddyJeffery

Did Jesus mention gays...? I genuinely can't remember.

Christians aren't jews, they follow Christ's teachings.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I know mods are posters too, but i feel uneasy about a moderator, and representative of a site, being openly insulting and disrepespectful to a religion.

Yusuke420

If i had a position of authority(?) i wouldn't deride anything. Because i'm great like that.

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Did Jesus mention gays...? I genuinely can't remember.

Ilovegames1992

Christians aren't jews, they follow Christ's teachings.

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Did Jesus mention gays...? I genuinely can't remember.

Ilovegames1992

Christians aren't jews, they follow Christ's teachings.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] But Jesus was a JEw, and the basis of Chritianity, which uses that word, liking the same-sex is one thing, people can be friend, loving the same-sex is against the actual book of both religions involved. He doesn't have to mention gays to know how to read.FreddyJeffery

Christians aren't jews, they follow Christ's teachings.

What are you talking about?

Christians follow Christ, not the Jewish religion.

So, what about an outside imposed solution? Seems like the politics of both sides, to varying degrees depending on timing, screw things over from the two sides directly involved. U.S. position for decades has been the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps. Is this reasonable and, if the political will/pressure from outside of the region was there to basically say, "Do this or we're withdrawing all involvement, aide, support" whatever, what would likely happen?nocoolnamejim

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So, what about an outside imposed solution? Seems like the politics of both sides, to varying degrees depending on timing, screw things over from the two sides directly involved. U.S. position for decades has been the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps. Is this reasonable and, if the political will/pressure from outside of the region was there to basically say, "Do this or we're withdrawing all involvement, aide, support" whatever, what would likely happen?pie-junior

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So, what about an outside imposed solution? Seems like the politics of both sides, to varying degrees depending on timing, screw things over from the two sides directly involved. U.S. position for decades has been the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps. Is this reasonable and, if the political will/pressure from outside of the region was there to basically say, "Do this or we're withdrawing all involvement, aide, support" whatever, what would likely happen?pie-junior

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So, what about an outside imposed solution? Seems like the politics of both sides, to varying degrees depending on timing, screw things over from the two sides directly involved. U.S. position for decades has been the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps. Is this reasonable and, if the political will/pressure from outside of the region was there to basically say, "Do this or we're withdrawing all involvement, aide, support" whatever, what would likely happen?nocoolnamejim

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]

prob nothing.

We've been focusing on Israel, ITT, but the palestinians, also, have no real interest (or popular legitimacy) in reaching an agreement. Israel will not secede territory that houses 500,000~ Israelis w/o a clear end to the conflict. The palestinians and various other factors in the region and globally have no will to end the conflict. The 'fight against the zionists' sustains too many people and ideologies to easily disappear (Iran, Al quaeda, hamas, hezbolla, almost any arab state not wanting to be forced to accept the descendants of the 'palestinian refugges' they keep as 3rd class citizens in slums for generations etc. etc.)

Not to mention, 'Palestine' does not have a cohesive leadership to legitimately deal with Israel in the first place. Hamas, which seems the more popular of the 2 movements right now (not w/o the help of the israeli policy of inaction)- has as its sole reason for existence the destruction of Israel and the setting of a full palestinian caliphate.

even if some miracle happened and the Israeli government suddenly gained effective and clear minded goals- It would still have no one to realistically talk to to end the conflict (and not have an agreement be the 'firs step' in the downfall of the zionists as the hamas et al maintains).

at least, imo

Darkman2007

TWELVE parties? Wow.)nocoolnamejim

lol. 12 parties make it past the blocking percentage of the votes. behold the Israeli ballot box from the last election-

I count 34.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] TWELVE parties? Wow.)pie-junior

lol. 12 parties make it past the blocking percentage of the votes. behold the Israeli ballot box from the last election-

I count 34.

you know what we say, 2 Jews 5 opinions.

Most definitely not Islam.

Christianity. MrPraline

Both of them are bollocks, but Islam is the worst of the two, so I choose Christianity.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]

No, I mean atheists. even a 15%-25% portion of the population is relatively enormous.

pie-junior

Christians are less violent people in my opinion. Most Muslims are violent thugs.

That's a difficult question to answer!

Christianity is certainly more progressive and modern now, but there was a time when Islam was the more progressive of the two.

Honestly, I think you'd have to know a lot about religion, doctrine, history, and anthropology to give an acceptable answer to the question you're asking ... and that would still just be one person's opinion on a very debatable topic.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Both of them are bollocks, but Islam is the worst of the two, so I choose Christianity.

tocool340

I'm guessing he started to read the bible.

You know, like they say... "The power of the the bible comes from the fact that so few read it in its entirety."

Christianity obviously.

I heard that legislators in iran were trying to reduce the age of consent from 12 to 9 because they consider it to be unislamic since Muhammad married and raped a 6 year old.

Religion of pedophilia.

Most religions don't.

Christians are less violent people in my opinion. Most Muslims are violent thugs.

pariah3

[QUOTE="pariah3"]

Christians are less violent people in my opinion. Most Muslims are violent thugs.

Allthishate

IRA violence wasn't a direct result of religious conflict.

That's a difficult question to answer!

Christianity is certainly more progressive and modern now, but there was a time when Islam was the more progressive of the two.

Honestly, I think you'd have to know a lot about religion, doctrine, history, and anthropology to give an acceptable answer to the question you're asking ... and that would still just be one person's opinion on a very debatable topic.

Meinhard1

Islam and Christianity were once children, and while Islam was the gallant, studying hard and treating people with respect Christianity was busy burning people at the stake.

then they grew up, Islam gave up his studies and became a violent druggie and Christianity became a boring computer programmer.

Then one day islam got caught with child porn on his computer.......

I forgot where I was going with this.

[QUOTE="Allthishate"]

[QUOTE="pariah3"]

Christians are less violent people in my opinion. Most Muslims are violent thugs.

Ilovegames1992

IRA violence wasn't a direct result of religious conflict.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So something is mentally wrong with you as well since it's impossible to say one has proof that a god does not exist?LJS9502_basic

What does being an advocate for marijuana have to do with anything we have talked about?

Moving past religion seems to be a natural progression of a society, there is no need to rush it, religion will die out in time as the world enters an age of reason.

I predict ten pages and a high level of misinformation.

jim_shorts

Moving past religion seems to be a natural progression of a society, there is no need to rush it, religion will die out in time as the world enters an age of reason.

tenaka2