Insult one, insult others for free.

[Ninja_Sher]

For those of who love trying make fun of religions have you ever considered this :

The three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam have prophets who would respect and follow his predecessors. So we might have differences but our prophets would not like making fun of other prophets.

So if you insult Christianity actually you are taking on both Judaism and Islam with it.

By any means no religion supports the idea of people trying to insult other religion or the religious people. The messengers of all religion ( to my knowing ) were men of integrity.

ps - I think it might be a good idea to put off religious discussion from this froum to avoid controversy.

[thomas]

if you insult islam, you're insulting islam not christianity or judaism, each has several differant core beliefs

[GUNWOUNDS]

if you insult islam, you're insulting islam not christianity or judaism, each has several differant core beliefs

agreed... islam views christ as a prophet  while christianity views him as God.  big difference in core beliefs i would say.

however the original poster makes a good point in that men of religion should be men of integrity.... and that means acting civil.

[Acriku]

If the insult is warranted against the Islamic religion, and it simultaneously insults the other two major religions, then they are warranted as well.

[Edric O]

I think the point was that if you insult Abraham, for example, you offend Jews, Christians and Muslims all at once. Or if you insult Jesus, you offend both Christians and Muslims.

[Caid Ivik]

I can say there is no possible "insult" to a religion. If you feel your belief is hurt, you should think about it...

[GUNWOUNDS]

I can say there is no possible "insult" to a religion. If you feel your belief is hurt, you should think about it...

is there not blasphemy?

[Caid Ivik]

It is. Such "blasphemy" brought st John, Gregorius, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinus, Eckhard, Cusanius and other great teachers to christianity.

[nemafakei]

It depends on what you insult. Clearly, condeming Christianity for the church's actions during the middle ages has no bearing on Judaism and Islam, but attacking certain shared tenets - even if they each originate from separate parts of their doctrine - can assault all three.

[Dude_Doc]

I think the whole point of what he tried to say was: Don't insult any religion. Repsect the people who are excersizing it.

[Ninja_Sher]

I think the whole point of what he tried to say was: Don't insult any religion. Repsect the people who are excersizing it.

And also insulting others philosophy might backfire and hit your own belief ( some of the religions do have some common philosophies ).

ps - I can very much smell our good friend Mahdi been broken down by empworm's scud missiles, he he  ;D, anyway guys just try to ignore the fight and let us enjoy the forum.

[Wolf]

What? Mahdi got broken down?!

[GUNWOUNDS]

What? Mahdi got broken down?!

??? .. perhaps he meant to say Edrico was blown up

[danielsh]

I think the whole point of what he tried to say was: Don't insult any religion. Repsect the people who are excersizing it.

Is there not a difference between an organized religion and the practitioners of an organized religion?  It's possible to find a religion offensive and outdated without finding its followers offensive and outdated; making the distinction is important.  (For example: I think that Catholicism is a dangerous institution that lends its clandestine and unspoken support to discrimination, bigotry, fear, the patriarchy, and any number of concepts/institutions that bother me.  However, all Catholics do not support discrimination, bigotry, fear, the patriarchy, and so on, so I don't judge them by their religion and ask that they extend the same courtesy to me.)

[Caid Ivik]

Religion is act, not an institution. If you think that "discrimination, bigotry, fear, the patriarchy, and so on" are part of christian teachings, nothing forces you to practice it.

[danielsh]

Religion is act, not an institution. If you think that "discrimination, bigotry, fear, the patriarchy, and so on" are part of christian teachings, nothing forces you to practice it.

I'm well aware that practicing religion is an act, and am aware that I can refuse to do so---which is why I do.  And to clarify, I don't think that any of those things are "part of Christian teachings"; I singled out the Catholic Church (post-Vatican-II) for a reason and used the words "clandestine" and "unspoken" for a reason.

My point was simply that one can disagree with the tenants, attitudes, or practices of a religious institution (the Catholic Church, for example, is indeed a religious institution) without feeling any animosity towards the practitioners of a the institution's religion.  I'm not articulating it well, but there is a difference, to continue the example, between what the Catholic Church does and what Catholics do---which, incidentally, is why some of them are now being denied Communion.  It's possible to disagree with the Church without disagreeing with churchgoers.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Religion is act, not an institution. If you think that "discrimination, bigotry, fear, the patriarchy, and so on" are part of christian teachings, nothing forces you to practice it.

Religion is a statement from God to us about his nature.

[danielsh]

if anything people like Dan SHOULD be upset at the people and not Religion.... as the things he is upset about are spawned from Man's mis-interpretations and false additions.

[Caid Ivik]

I strongly disagree. Dan, how many religious institutions like Church has you know, excluding few protestant copycats? And these also aren't nothing else than just small firms with management, just weared in talars. I can say it only about few older protestant churches and most fanatical sects could be compared to Church in community feeling. We have only one shepherd, Jesus, priests are nothing more than just wielders of hardest work.

[Anathema]

Religious doctrines exist only in the minds of people. A religion cannot burn people on the stakes or stone them, only the people who hold these doctrines, or claim to hold these doctrines.

Wich is why we should judge people, not the religion they say belong to, wich is what I think Dan's been trying to say.

[danielsh]

Caid, I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking.

Anathema, I've been trying to say that we can judge people and religions, but not judge people by the religion to which they belong.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you showed some look on Church as a separate thing from its followers, what seems to be illogical, I can say absolutely opposite to the truth. You seem to not know what does "Church" even mean.

[danielsh]

Well, you showed some look on Church as a separate thing from its followers, what seems to be illogical, I can say absolutely opposite to the truth. You seem to not know what does "Church" even mean.

I see.  By "followers," I generally mean the worshippers and preachers.  By "the Church," I generally mean the official policies of the Roman Catholic Church.  So one can disagree with "the Church" (meaning the official stances of the Vatican) without showing any distaste for its followers (meaning those who are part of the Roman Catholic Church but may not agree with all of its official stances).  The same logic, I believe, can be applied to any religious institution: separate the stances of the institution from the stances of the people and judge them separately.

[Caid Ivik]

Each preacher is a Church official. Every active christian is a Church official. I can go now and make a praying movement or organize some gospel concert, and then I become a Church official. Just some people do this "officialing" as their only job. But they are no different from others. Few bureaucrats in Vatican have no other place. Just everybody does what he is able to do. Ratzinger & co are analysing books, Pius is preaching at masses, I am spreading evangelium here  ;D

[Ninja_Sher]

Why do not you guys understand Jesus's teaching was never discramanatory or based on domination or unequality. The head of church of the Roman Empire at that actaually got greedy and started making his own rules instead of God's rules and teaching of the great Jesus. Following came the 30 years of war which caused millions to die and more than that to suffer famine.