Why are many Christians so intolerant of other religions and spiritual paths?

[SLM]

I was responding to SLM.



More Americans have been killed by Americans than all the terrorist combined. But that is not the same things as saying Americans are better at killing than terrorists.

You may be replying to me but are you following the gist of what Ron initially posted and what and why I replied to that? Because he mentioned broad brush strokes and gave an example. I extrapolated from that to add not only the piece of broad brush strokes but the confusion and assumptions people make when others use them.

Of course I know the two statements you posted are not the same thing, lol. In fact, it serves to further illustrate my point that extrapolation from such a general statement such as your first one can be not only a complete falsehood but often can be dangerous because it affects how people treat one another.

Oh and then we also were talking about wine and then Ron posted that photo of the incredible wine cellar. Seriously, Ron, get me that address cuz' I want to move into that house!

 

[Harikrish]

Yeah, I get that, but am just looking for clarification on your reference.



I have no dog in this hunt. I'm not Christian, or even religious (though spiritual,
but that's another discussion, and I'm not recruiting). Just curious as to "whom"
the terrorists are in your reference.

I would call anyone carrying a box cutter or a knife capable of slitting someone's throat a terrorist. Anyone capable of dropping nuclear bombs, launching missiles and flying drones would be too sophisticated to fit into the category of terrorist...ie. the act of instilling fear is terrorizing and the perpetrator a terrorist. Everything else is justifiable.

 

[MHz]

I would call anyone carrying a box cutter or a knife capable of slitting someone's throat a terrorist. Anyone capable of dropping nuclear bombs, launching missiles and flying drones would be too sophisticated to fit into the category of terrorist...ie. the act of instilling fear is terrorizing and the perpetrator a terrorist. Everything else is justifiable.

Until they move to the left 2 steps and you see 6 very scared children behind them and then that makes the viewer of the scene the terrorist, every time.

 

[Harikrish]

Until they move to the left 2 steps and you see 6 very scared children behind them and then that makes the viewer of the scene the terrorist, every time.

Bombs dropped on civilians, women and children are not done to terrorize them. They are done to kill them which is quite different from threatening to cut off people's heads which are more selective and gruesome. Bombs dropped on civilian population either kill them or the survivors can be sent to hospitals. But the victim in the hands of a terrorist with a box cutter or knife is guaranteed to face certain death and when televised is too horrible to be seen by the public. It violates our Christian sense of human decency.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I would call anyone carrying a box cutter or a knife capable of slitting someone's throat a terrorist. Anyone capable of dropping nuclear bombs, launching missiles and flying drones would be too sophisticated to fit into the category of terrorist...ie. the act of instilling fear is terrorizing and the perpetrator a terrorist. Everything else is justifiable.

I carry a knife (as a tool) that 'could' be used to slit a throat, I
guess, and a box cutter much of the time too. The rest I don't
need for work so I don't utilize them. It's a slippery slope and
a slippery answer.

 

[Harikrish]

I carry a knife (as a tool) that 'could' be used to slit a throat, I
guess, and a box cutter much of the time too. The rest I don't
need for work so I don't utilize them. It's a slippery slope and
a slippery answer.

That is the point I am making. It is the lack of sophistication in the killing techniques applied that defines a terrorist. But a box cutter in the hands of a surgeon, he would still be called a surgeon. A precision guided missile or drone attack on a civilian target would be too sophisticated to be call a terrorist attack. Even the extermination of 6 million Jews was not called terrorism. No box cutters or throat slitting were discovered.

 

[MHz]

Bombs dropped on civilians, women and children are not done to terrorize them. They are done to kill them which is quite different from threatening to cut off people's heads which are more selective and gruesome.

I got this far before I started to question the sanity of your statement. As soon as women and kids became the enemy I changed camps, there is zero justification.

Bombs dropped on civilian population either kill them or the survivors can be sent to hospitals. But the victim in the hands of a terrorist with a box cutter or knife is guaranteed to face certain death and when televised is too horrible to be seen by the public. It violates our Christian sense of human decency.

If we did a bio of the two years the first reporter spent with his captives do you think he fed them any useful info or was that time the 1st reporter story until I found out the had the 'same bad lick' in Libya only a few months earlier. If you don't see the beginnings of a lie then you most likely never will, in any topic or when you do it comes as a total surprise, everytime.

That is the point I am making. It is the lack of sophistication in the killing techniques applied that defines a terrorist. But a box cutter in the hands of a surgeon, he would still be called a surgeon. A precision guided missile or drone attack on a civilian target would be too sophisticated to be call a terrorist attack. Even the extermination of 6 million Jews was not called terrorism. No box cutters or throat slitting were discovered.

The 'state' killings are hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, etc. Drones kills are an act or terrorism.

 

[Cliffy]

Does this video portray a message more in keeping with the brotherhood of Man that anything coming from any other religion out there? Is it more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus than anything coming from so-called Christians?

BridgeWalkers on Vimeo

 

[Dixie Cup]

I think that the Title of this thread is extremely disingenuous and should read....why are Islamic extremists so intolerant of other religions. Christian religions are the most tolerant of religions, with the exception of the extremists, which, thankfully are few and far between.

 

[Harikrish]

I got this far before I started to question the sanity of your statement. As soon as women and kids became the enemy I changed camps, there is zero justification.


If we did a bio of the two years the first reporter spent with his captives do you think he fed them any useful info or was that time the 1st reporter story until I found out the had the 'same bad lick' in Libya only a few months earlier. If you don't see the beginnings of a lie then you most likely never will, in any topic or when you do it comes as a total surprise, everytime.


The 'state' killings are hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, etc. Drones kills are an act or terrorism.

Maybe a few examples might make my points clearer.

Israel's bombing of the Gaza strip in heavily dense civilian populations resulting in deaths of women and children are not considered terrorist acts because they are carried out by precision guided missiles. The bombing of Iraq by the Americans were not considered acts of terrorists. It was more shock and awe!! The real terrorists are those carrying box cutters and knives that is used to slit throats. There is no escape for the victims once in the hands of the terrorists and death is certain after their throats are slit. How can anyone fail to see the comparisons reinforce our perceptions of who the terrorists are? Throw in a beard and turban and you now even have a picture of them.

 

[JLM]

More Americans have been killed by Americans than all the terrorist combined. But that is not the same things as saying Americans are better at killing than terrorists.

What's a terrorist? Is O.J. Simpson a terrorist? Was Ted Bundy a terrorist? I think it's a moot question as terrorists come in many descriptions and nationalities...............not just black bastards with beards from the Middle East.

I think that the Title of this thread is extremely disingenuous and should read....why are Islamic extremists so intolerant of other religions. Christian religions are the most tolerant of religions, with the exception of the extremists, which, thankfully are few and far between.

Good points Dixie!

 

[Twila]

What's a terrorist? Is O.J. Simpson a terrorist? Was Ted Bundy a terrorist? I think it's a moot question as terrorists come in many descriptions and nationalities...............not just black bastards with beards from the Middle East.

They had no political agenda. It's understood that any act of violence that has a political agenda is a form of terrorism. Not just an act of violencec

 

[Harikrish]

They had no political agenda. It's understood that any act of violence that has a political agenda is a form of terrorism. Not just an act of violencec

But America had a political agenda invading Iraq. It was to topple its ruler. There was no intent to harm its people. Terrorists have to be narrowly defined.

 

[JLM]

They had no political agenda. It's understood that any act of violence that has a political agenda is a form of terrorism. Not just an act of violencec

Yeah, I guess that's the "official" definition but I doubt if's the real definition! I would define it as anyone who instills terror. Bundy's victims were just as dead as the 911 victims.

 

[SLM]

Yeah, I guess that's the "official" definition but I doubt if's the real definition! I would define it as anyone who instills terror. Bundy's victims were just as dead as the 911 victims.

But the definition lies in the motivations. Bundy's motivation was not to instill fear, it was to kill women. A terrorists motivation is the affect political will through the use of fear. In the first example, fear is a side affect, in the second, it is the goal.

 

[JLM]

But the definition lies in the motivations. Bundy's motivation was not to instill fear, it was to kill women. A terrorists motivation is the affect political will through the use of fear. In the first example, fear is a side affect, in the second, it is the goal.

OK, I possibly worded my post badly. I guess what I was trying to get at (motivations aside) was who is the most evil and inflicts the worse damage?

 

[SLM]

OK, I possibly worded my post badly. I guess what I was trying to get at (motivations aside) was who is the most evil and inflicts the worse damage?

Motivation though is a key component to determining evil. So by that measurement, I'd say a serial killer ranks as more evil than a terrorist, general speaking of course. A serial killer is causing pain and death for it's own sake, a terrorist is ostensibly doing it for a "greater good", as twisted as the logic actually may be on that one.




Measuring damage is a body count.

 

[Harikrish]

Motivation though is a key component to determining evil. So by that measurement, I'd say a serial killer ranks as more evil than a terrorist, general speaking of course. A serial killer is causing pain and death for it's own sake, a terrorist is ostensibly doing it for a "greater good", as twisted as the logic actually may be on that one.




Measuring damage is a body count.

That is like asking does a tree falling in the forest make a sound?

 

[Cliffy]

But America had a political agenda invading Iraq. It was to topple its ruler. There was no intent to harm its people. Terrorists have to be narrowly defined.

So the thousands of innocent civilians killed and maimed in the invasion of Iraq was an accident? You don't think bombing the infrastructure of the country back into the stone age was an act of terrorism? You should stick to the religion threads.

 

[JLM]

That is like asking does a tree falling in the forest make a sound?

To have a sound you have to have a receiver. -