The Forum > General Discussion > Beliefs and Behavior.
Beliefs and Behavior.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
As an example, the massacres in Orissa province. I agree they're a worry - but to use an example, I could just as easily say that they're more about generalising and categorising people by belief, as you are keen to do. Lets say there was a hindu holy man murdered by a christian - then seeking justice against a single christian would be justified, but taking action against the many based on their beliefs would not. Similarly, if a muslim commits a crime in Australia, it would be erratic to take action against all of them by limiting muslim migration, something you have long argued in favour of.
We need no ancient texts here. The issue is simple, but because your pet interest is using ancient texts to categorise people in such a manner, then of course, that's what you consider worthwhile.
But don't you dare pretend others have not 'earned' your respect for not indulging your pet cause.
So to reiterate - the vast number of contested interpretations and offshoots of religions, combined with the different practices of those within them show an extremely limited adherence in most instances. Some will be devout, some will not, and some will ignore the intended meaning in favour of one that suits their pet causes - i.e. your lack of humility and your apparent belief that your own interpretations are more valid than others, appears unchristian to some - but fortunately, the rest of us know that the lines are far more fuzzy than that... right?