patrick.net

But the statement was that Christianity as a religion has no ambition to concern itself with worldly power. I think history pretty clearly shows that to be false.

Even now, there is a voting bloc in the US called Evangelicals that vote primarily based on religion. I think Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

joeyjojojunior says

Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

Some Americans who want power use Christianity to get it, because most Americans believe in it. Pakistanis don't generally use Christianity to get power, because that wouldn't work there; they use Islam. The difference between the doctrines is that Islam says specifically to kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, conquer and plunder, etc. Human nature is the same everywhere, but different doctrines have different consequences, some worse than others. Islam is the worst of the major current doctrines, and importing it is a dreadful mistake.

joeyjojojunior says

Even now, there is a voting bloc in the US called Evangelicals that vote primarily based on religion. I think Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

There is a difference between a voting block pushing for their preferences within a democratic secular regime (and facing an opposition) and a theocracy where laws are derived from religious dogmas, and people are punished, sometime killed, for their beliefs or what they say, and there is no opposition because who is opposed to the rule written by God.
You don't seem to take that difference into account. It's not all the same.

Heraclitusstudent says

here is a difference between a voting block pushing for their preferences within a democratic secular regime (and facing an opposition) and a theocracy where laws are derived from religious dogmas, and people are punished, sometime killed, for their beliefs or what they say, and there is no opposition because who is opposed to the rule written by God.

You don't seem to take that difference into account. It's not all the same.

So, me saying this above:

joeyjojojunior says

I never said Muslims and Mormons are the same--only that religious folks of many denominations try to convert people and spread their dogma/morality

somehow makes you think that I believe they are the same? Nuance clearly isn't your strong suit, but I wasn't even being nuanced there. It's like you just ignore what I say, and answer what you want me to have said.

joeyjojojunior says

somehow makes you think that I believe they are the same? Nuance clearly isn't your strong suit, but I wasn't even being nuanced there. It's like you just ignore what I say, and answer what you want me to have said.

Joey, you did imply all religions are the same. All religions are not the same.
There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions. Islam is the ugliest of them all.

Strategist says

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions.

No, there are no good religions, only bad and worse.

FP says

Strategist says

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions.

No, there are no good religions, only bad and worse.

he he he

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

This town needs Baptism Battalions, mobs with water balloons filled with holy water, running around baptizing the fuck out of everyone and their pets and handing out beers and bacon sandwiches.

Yeah especially in europe

Strategist says

Joey, you did imply all religions are the same. All religions are not the same.

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions. Islam is the ugliest of them all.

OK, kindly show where I implied this.

What I did, was show how almost all religions have similar traits. Which is undeniably true. FP is correct--there are no good religions.