RIP

[Vuk]

This was a commemoration thread?

oops........

It is ok Cent, it is a discussion thread (thus the questions I ask) and a commemoration thread.

Oh I see. Well, if this is just a commemoration thread, then so be it.


Heh, that is a long story. Mostly though, because I am nauseated by all the "let's pay respects to that bloke who died" threads. Especially when it sounds as forced and unnatural as this thread does, and when a person has so little influence on anything significant. They are empty spam threads unless the posts veer off into some half-related debate. Other than your brief trip to the Balkans, why do you care about this? Also, given your essentially American religious fundamentalism, I cannot picture in my my how you can tolerate an Orthodox Christian (alright, that was harsh...).

I know I sound harsh and generally A-hole-ish, but that is the only explanation I see

Yeah, that is about how you come off. How I can tolerate an Orthodox Christian? What the flying-@@@@ does that mean? Because I disagree with his beliefs I cannot tolerate him? Well I can tolerate Orthodox Christians, and respect them, and admire them.

American religious fundamentalism

You sound bitter. Because I disagree with you, you treat me like this?

I don't know (and frankly don't want to) why you think this of me, or 'American Christianity' (whatever that is), but I suggest that you do some serious re-examination of your beliefs, because you are way off. Yes, I am a Christian, but that does not mean that I cannot (and do not) respect, admire, love, etc people of other denominations, religions, non-religions, etc.
Please stop using my thread to attack people. If you need somewhere to get rid of all that pent up anger, get a punching bag.

[Ser Clegane]

Whoever wishes to discuss the original topic should please do so.

Posting just to troll will not be accepted.

Thanks

[Rhyfelwyr]

Pavle took over the church in 1990 just as the collapse of communism ended years of state policy of repressing religion. He often spoke against violence in the ethnic wars Orthodox Serbs fought against Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims during the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II.

"God help us understand that we are human beings and that we must live as human beings, so that peace would come into our country and bring an end to the killing," Pavle had appealed — mostly in vain — in 1991 as fighting raged between Serbs and Croats over disputed territories in Croatia.

"It is only the will of the devil that is served by this war," the patriarch was quoted as saying in 1992 but stopped short of naming names, notably not going explicitly against former President Slobodan Milosevic's ultra-nationalist policies, which triggered the wars.

But according to Dawkins, there would have been no conflict in the former Yugoslavia if it wasn't for the Catholics/Orthodox/Muslims killing each other because of their faiths...

[Sarmatian]

RIP.

Pavle was a man of peace and tolerance, always advocating against violence and hatred. I'm not a religious man, for all I care, organized religion may go to ****, but I respected him. He was a good Christian.

His possible successor will probably be a hard-liner but the influence of the church in Serbia is really minor, one of the few good things left over from communism. It may affect some domestic issues but it won't be important enough to spill over the borders, so to speak. It won't affect foreign relations in any way.

But according to Dawkins, there would have been no conflict in the former Yugoslavia if it wasn't for the Catholics/Orthodox/Muslims killing each other because of their faiths...

Ironically, it was nationality, not faith. In general religion doesn't play important role in former Yugoslavia. It's more of a new thing for nationalists, something that reaffirms their nationality, Serb/Orthodox, Croat/Catholic, Bosniak/Muslim. People in Serbia screaming in agony over Albanians destroying holy places in Kosovo didn't lift a finger to do something when those places were left to rot during communism.

[Vuk]

RIP.

Pavle was a man of peace and tolerance, always advocating against violence and hatred. I'm not a religious man, for all I care, organized religion may go to ****, but I respected him. He was a good Christian.

His possible successor will probably be a hard-liner but the influence of the church in Serbia is really minor, one of the few good things left over from communism. It may affect some domestic issues but it won't be important enough to spill over the borders, so to speak. It won't affect foreign relations in any way.

Good to here that Sarmatian. I honestly believe that organized religion should not affect the government either. The way the article was worded kinda made me think its importance may have been greater. I meant those questions esp for you. :P

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ironically, it was nationality, not faith. In general religion doesn't play important role in former Yugoslavia. It's more of a new thing for nationalists, something that reaffirms their nationality, Serb/Orthodox, Croat/Catholic, Bosniak/Muslim. People in Serbia screaming in agony over Albanians destroying holy places in Kosovo didn't lift a finger to do something when those places were left to rot during communism.

That was what I had gathered, I think it's a bit of a cheap shot to use examples of conflicts as evidence of how evil religion is. At the end of the day, the religious beliefs of people tend to be more a product of the society they live in that a major force in directing it. This is certainly what I've found looking at the various religious and political views throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

[Azathoth]

The only news about religion i listen to is when there's going to be a new pope and i await the death of Khomeini with excitement.

Khomeini died 20 years ago. Are you talking about Khamanei?

[Centurion1]

Khomeini died 20 years ago. Are you talking about Khamanei?

OH CRAP I MISSED IT!!!!!!!!!!

(i was wondering if anyone would catch it.......)

The Yugoslav conflict was more a fight over land and nationalism than it was about religion. Dont get me wrong religion played a role but it wasnt the single factor. It was more of a build up than an actual reason for war.

[Subotan]

i await the death of Khomeini with excitement.

So, it's OK to celebrate the death of one religious leader (Who incidentally is more influential and revered,Whether we like it or not), but not another?
Hmmm. I'm just puzzled as to what the boundary between the two is.

Ironically, it was nationality, not faith. In general religion doesn't play important role in former Yugoslavia. It's more of a new thing for nationalists, something that reaffirms their nationality, Serb/Orthodox, Croat/Catholic, Bosniak/Muslim. People in Serbia screaming in agony over Albanians destroying holy places in Kosovo didn't lift a finger to do something when those places were left to rot during communism.

Would those nationalist divisions have existed without those religious decisions? AFAIK Serbian and Croatian are practically the same language (Apart from the alphabet), and although I'm no linguist, it appears from a cursory glance at Wikipedia to be no more different from each other as Bayernisch is from Hochdeutsch.

[Centurion1]

Ironically, it was nationality, not faith. In general religion doesn't play important role in former Yugoslavia. It's more of a new thing for nationalists, something that reaffirms their nationality, Serb/Orthodox, Croat/Catholic, Bosniak/Muslim. People in Serbia screaming in agony over Albanians destroying holy places in Kosovo didn't lift a finger to do something when those places were left to rot during communism.

the differecnes stretch far far far more than a mere language. and there are subtle differences especially in conversational forms of the languages.

and no it isnt right i think khomeini dying is a good thing as a religious leader, though as a man he left little to be desired (i dont like him in other words...... strongly)

[Aemilius Paulus]

You sound bitter. Because I disagree with you, you treat me like this?

Ah-ha! You quoted my "religious fundamentalism" statement! Why do you assume that religious fundamentalism is a bad thing? When I said you were religiously fundamentalist, I did not mean it in a negative way. I live in the South, where nearly everyone is of the same religious views as you. If I "used people as punching bags", my hands would be stripped of the skin from punching so many people so much. Not to mention, if I had to verbally "punch people" I could find plenty right around me :P. The point is, I know them as people and while they hold some radical views, they are still very nice people generally and I cannot simply avoid/attack all of them.

The problem is that I believe you are a bit too defensive here. As an atheist, I make little distinction between types of religion: I identify with none of them. Whether you are a Southern Baptist Fundamentalist or an English Anglican matters not to me. In my view, neither is right.

The point is, is that you missed out my point, and instead (I assume) rushed to report me. My point was that I dislike commemoration threads, and not certain religious factions. Surely that is the only way my post could have been read? In my opinion, we should have one single commemoration thread, or at least for the "less-famous" individuals. Honestly, if I began posting threads on all the people I think are significant and who recently died, then the Backroom would be full of spam or pointless threads. Look at the two Remembrance Day threads. I expressed my dislike of commemoration threads there too - my post in this thread was hardly surprising.

Or do you just want to report this too?

[Vuk]

Ah-ha! You quoted my "religious fundamentalism" statement! Why do you assume that religious fundamentalism is a bad thing? When I said you were religiously fundamentalist, I did not mean it in a negative way. I live in the South, where nearly everyone is of the same religious views as you. If I "used people as punching bags", my hands would be stripped of the skin from punching so many people so much. Not to mention, if I had to verbally "punch people" I could find plenty right around me :P. The point is, I know them as people and while they hold some radical views, they are still very nice people generally and I cannot simply avoid/attack all of them.

The problem is that I believe you are a bit too defensive here. As an atheist, I make little distinction between types of religion: I identify with none of them. Whether you are a Southern Baptist Fundamentalist or an English Anglican matters not to me. In my view, neither is right.

The point is, is that you missed out my point, and instead (I assume) rushed to report me. My point was that I dislike commemoration threads, and not certain religious factions. Surely that is the only way my post could have been read? In my opinion, we should have one single commemoration thread, or at least for the "less-famous" individuals. Honestly, if I began posting threads on all the people I think are significant and who recently died, then the Backroom would be full of spam or pointless threads. Look at the two Remembrance Day threads. I expressed my dislike of commemoration threads there too - my post in this thread was hardly surprising.

Or do you just want to report this too?

I am not gonna bother arguing with you AP. It is only derailing the thread. And no, I did not report you. I do not report people for petty fights. I very rarely report anyone, and when I do, it is for something grevious. I don't think you understood anything I said, or I did not understand what you said. Either way I think it is best to leave such discussion to PMs. If you want to talk to me about our conversation, feel free to PM me, but please don't discuss it on the thread. It does not welcome people to a thread when there is fighting, it scares them away.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Alright, sure. I just have this liberal interpretation of what constitutes as "on-topic" , so I thought if anywhere, this would be the place to discuss it...

[Centurion1]

Alright, sure. I just have this liberal interpretation of what constitutes as "on-topic" , so I thought if anywhere, this would be the place to discuss it...

hahaha, funny sarcasm..... no not really.

AP you once again made broad stereotypes about a specific group of people. When I engage you in discussion do I refrain from labeling you as a Godless Liberal. No I usually restrain myself from doing so because I personally do not believe in labeling people. What you said about Vuk could be very hurtful, to label someone as a fundamentalist is very insulting and you should use the word when the situation truly calls for it.

And there are major differences between Christian sects which yourself as an intellectual should know. For all you know Vuk is a Catholic an Orthodox, or any number of Protestant branches. If someone called me a fundamentalist protestant I would be insulted.

Finally this isn't really a commemoration thread, more like a what now thread.

Respectfully to both of you
Centurion

[Aemilius Paulus]

AP you once again made broad stereotypes about a specific group of people.

And who has not? How about this? Islam is a religion of hate and immorality? Eeek. But, hey, I bet mine was, like, sooo much more generalised, eh? I am often criticised for generalising. It is true. But others do not seem to do it less frequently. At least I admit it.

When I engage you in discussion do I refrain from labeling you as a Godless Liberal. No I usually restrain myself from doing so because I personally do not believe in labeling people. What you said about Vuk could be very hurtful, to label someone as a fundamentalist is very insulting and you should use the word when the situation truly calls for it.

And there are major differences between Christian sects which yourself as an intellectual should know. For all you know Vuk is a Catholic an Orthodox, or any number of Protestant branches.

But I am a Godless Liberal... What is wrong with that? And with labels? I am what I am. I have no God. I am a Liberal. So I am a Godless Liberal. I swear, I do not see the slightest bit of impoliteness in that. What seems bad to you is natural to me. I am proudly godless, and most fundamentalists are proudly so as well - otherwise, why would the believe in what they do?

How can one insult another by calling them what they are? Some use "religious fundamentalist" as an insult. But the word itself has no negative connotations, and when you call a religious fundamentalist a "religious fundamentalist", then what is the harm? Religious fundamentalism is defined as a strict adherence to a set of religious basic principles. I personally do not respect pro-gay, pro-evolution Christians as much as I respect the more conservative ones. Compromising one's own beliefs and flip-flopping is not welcome.

If anything, "religious fundamentalist" is actually less objectionable, as it is the most sanitised official term I can name. While "Godless Liberal", which suggests a lack of something, can further be dried in its consistency by changing "godless" to the more neutral "atheist".

Vuk is not Orthodox. I have seen his previous posts in other threads, especially that Watchtower one.

If someone called me a fundamentalist protestant I would be insulted.

That is most likely because you are not one. To you, that has negative connotations. To me, religion is all negative, as far as I am concerned. The less conservative a Christian is, the more I agree with them. But I at the same time do not view liberal Christians as "true" ones, as they ignore even more of what the Bible says. It is a paradox . But seriously, if you are a fundamentalist (you do not seem like one though) and indignant about being called one, then you have me laughing.

[Hax]

Heh, that is a long story. Mostly though, because I am nauseated by all the "let's pay respects to that bloke who died" threads. Especially when it sounds as forced and unnatural as this thread does, and when a person has so little influence on anything significant.

Why not pay our respects to a man who tried his utter best to bring peace to a wartorn region of the world?

I personally do not respect pro-gay, pro-evolution Christians

Where is it mentioned in the Bible there is no such thing as evolution? I guess you could say "6000 years was too short a time to have species evolve, but I don't think there was a date given to the supposed creation of the world.

My family on my father's side, for example, are Islamic and also support the theory of evolution. The Big Bang was probably an act of God, in their opinion.