Muslim hero breaks up train beating

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now, if I agree with him or I agree with anyone else, it's hardly a 'pack mentality'. I stand on my own regardless if people agree with me or not.

Or it could just be that I tolerate him way more than I tolerate you

Well, you'd add a lot more validity to your arguments that are rooted on outrage if you were consistent. I'm not talking about mawilson's post on correcting my spelling, but the string of posts he made before that, considering that you called yourself religious the other day, in other thread, one would guess that you have something to say to the contrary.

We don't have to agree or think alike to be friendly here, do we?

[mawilson 2,133]

We don't have to agree or think alike to be friendly here, do we?

You're right, Steven. I apologize for correcting your spelling earlier. If lessor works for you, stick with it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't have to agree or think alike to be friendly here, do we?

You're right, Steven. I apologize for correcting your spelling earlier. If lessor works for you, stick with it.

No need to apologize, I'm not a member of the outrage brigade...your posts hardly raise an eyebrow of mine. Speak your mind as you please as well as everyone here...if an outstanding member and spokesperson of the outrage brigade turns a blind eye, it says more about her than anyone. I guess you can't be too choosy about your fans.

[Fandango 1,439]

Now, if I agree with him or I agree with anyone else, it's hardly a 'pack mentality'. I stand on my own regardless if people agree with me or not.

Or it could just be that I tolerate him way more than I tolerate you

Well, you'd add a lot more validity to your arguments that are rooted on outrage if you were consistent. I'm not talking about mawilson's post on correcting my spelling, but the string of posts he made before that, considering that you called yourself religious the other day, in other thread, one would guess that you have something to say to the contrary.

We don't have to agree or think alike to be friendly here, do we?

No, you asked me to speculate on 'many of the outrageous comments Mawilson has made' Here, lemme refresh your memory:

Lisa, do you ever take opposition to mawilson? Seriously, I've never seen you jump on his case for any of the many outrageous posts he makes. For someone who likes to be outraged, you peculiarly quiet when it comes to some people's otherwise outrageous posts.

Without reading EVERYTHING MW has said in this thread....I agree with him in the respect of 'religion is about following rules' to a degree. You can't do things that completely contradict your religion, then call yourself a 'good __________'

As far as the bit in red, how about answering that yourself? Cos you always have something to say to me. And just because I added a 'get out of my head Mark' comment that was not meant in a nasty or disparaging way, you're attempting to turn this thread into your issues with me.

[Fandango 1,439]

Adding one bit before I go: Steven, one of your first posts in this thread was to poke me because I didn't use the word 'savage'....in attempts to carry over a disagreement from another thread. Talk about a vendetta!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Adding one bit before I go: Steven, one of your first posts in this thread was to poke me because I didn't use the word 'savage'....in attempts to carry over a disagreement from another thread. Talk about a vendetta!

Or perhaps making a point?

BTW, a hooligan is used to describe someone in their youth, while a savage does not. The young black kids were all under 16, while the attackers here were all adults. Like I said...interesting.

Without reading EVERYTHING MW has said in this thread....I agree with him in the respect of 'religion is about following rules' to a degree. You can't do things that completely contradict your religion, then call yourself a 'good __________'

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1412949

Well yes, of course, I was referring to the devoutly religious. Jews who eat pork

and Muslims who drink wine are not "religious" people in my book.

[Fandango 1,439]

Adding one bit before I go: Steven, one of your first posts in this thread was to poke me because I didn't use the word 'savage'....in attempts to carry over a disagreement from another thread. Talk about a vendetta!

Or perhaps making a point?

BTW, a hooligan is used to describe someone in their youth, while a savage does not. The young black kids were all under 16, while the attackers here were all adults. Like I said...interesting.

IMO....you didn't 'make your point'....you did a driveby just to be snarky. You didn't say 'do you think it was savagery?' you didn't question further. You just assumed that because I used a different word, that I was a hypocrite. But then again, you didn't stick around much to find out the whys and wherefores. You did a 'GOTCHA! NEENER NEENER!' post. Which is fine in and of itself, but to turn it into something it clearly wasn't (imo) now seems to me like you're trying to put lipstick on a pig after the fact.

Without reading EVERYTHING MW has said in this thread....I agree with him in the respect of 'religion is about following rules' to a degree. You can't do things that completely contradict your religion, then call yourself a 'good __________'

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1412949

Well yes, of course, I was referring to the devoutly religious. Jews who eat pork

and Muslims who drink wine are not "religious" people in my book.

You can't cherrypick doctrine, Steven. I get what he was saying (at least I think I do), and I don't see it as outrage worthy.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

You can't cherrypick doctrine, Steven.

if he does, can we say he's a republican or possibly gwb in disguise?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can't cherrypick doctrine

Sure you can. Why else do we have umpteen versions and denominations of every major religion?

[Jenn! 918]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

There are plenty of non-practicing believers. Belief has little to do with ritual.

[Jenn! 918]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

There are plenty of non-practicing believers. Belief has little to do with ritual.

Agreed. But why feel the need to say "I am of religion X" when you don't observe the rituals?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

Take Christianity, which at the very core is the believe that Jesus was God incarnate. While all Christians accept that as their core belief, they may not all believe in regarding the Bible as a literal edict from God. It's just like any other belief system or philosophy - there are various interpretations or beliefs within that system, but the core beliefs are static.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Jenn! 918]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

Take Christianity, which at the very core is the believe that Jesus was God incarnate. While all Christian accept that as their core belief, they may not all believe in regarding the Bible as a literal edict from God. It's just like any other belief system or philosophy - there are varying understanding or beliefs within that system, but the core beliefs are static.

But religion isn't just about beliefs. Beliefs can exist without religion. To me, saying that you are of a certain religion should imply observance of all the tenets of that religion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion. I don't understand observing a religion "cafeteria-style". What's the point of labeling yourself if only some of the characteristics of the label fit? But obviously not everyone feels the same. And if they want to call themselves "X", who am I to say "you're not really X" because you do such and such?

There are plenty of non-practicing believers. Belief has little to do with ritual.

Agreed. But why feel the need to say "I am of religion X" when you don't observe the rituals?

Reformed Jews do eat pork. They have concluded that the ritual tradition is not necessary or not true to the core beliefs.