Why do people hate each other so much over religion? (baptism, Catholic)

[Timemachineman]

Originally Posted by Rubi3

What have I said that you think is a message in my last 2 posts? Nothing has been directed at you in any post. I thought I was just participating in a discussion. I didn't think you were referring to me and at no time have I referred to you. If I direct something to you I'll call your name and you'll know it. I haven't made any veiled comments and am clueless as to what you're seeing. This is getting too complicated for me so I'll just mosey on down the road.

Oh, I just read a lot of the posts on here, and I've concluded that you were likely talking about this: "Well, for one thing, their religions usually foster hatred of others in their basic tenets."-Stan4
My mistake

[Rubi3]

Originally Posted by Timemachineman

You quoted me in 2 posts, and made comments in those posts. I thought you were making statements directed at me because of the fact that you quoted me. In City Data Forums (unless I'm mistaken) quoting somebody is typically equivalent to calling their name to get their attention. If I had to take a guess as to your objective, I'd really say you were trying to get me off topic, and/or trolling. Although, I still don't understand why you have any hostility towards me...............I'm just going to make a conclusion about your objective......... good job trolling me! I haven't goofed up that badly in a long time.

After reading the direct message you sent I've returned to read the rest of the messages in this thread and just now started at the beginning to find the 2 posts where you say I've made statements about you where I quoted you. I guess I overlooked those posts because I didn't see them. I am clueless about what you're talking about. This is one of the oddest discussions I've ever been a part of, exemplified by your statement that you think I'm trying to get you off topic and/or trolling. I'm at a loss why you think I have hostility toward you. It's as if I fell into Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole.

My perception of reality is apparently vastly different from your perception which means this discussion is pointless. I don't know what you're talking about and you don't know what I'm talking about. Any more talk isn't going to change anything, I don't think. I'm not averse to sarcasm, but I've not used any in this thread. As far as I know, I'm able to communicate with all ages, but I realize there are exceptions and perhaps that's what has happened here. For you to think I've trolled you is so ridiculous all I can do is continue to be astonished by the differences in perception.

[Rubi3]

Originally Posted by Timemachineman

"There's also those who don't say what they themselves think, but are quick to say what others think, since they can read minds.... not! I'm not sure why they do this since the people whose minds they can read do not agree with them."-Rubi3

Who were you referring to with this statement? This was what I was mostly concerned about.

I know someone who does this and it isn't you.

[Timemachineman]

Originally Posted by Rubi3

I know someone who does this and it isn't you.

That's what I was saying though, is that I went back and read a bunch of posts, and realized that you weren't referring to me. So, I made a foolish mistake. In an indirect response to the discussion with Stan4, you also quoted me. After I read those posts, I came to believe that you were likely talking about him/her, but you didn't agree with my idea, and you provided an example to show why (the discussion with Stan4). Or you were just referring to somebody else entirely who didn't seem to be the most enlightened person. It certainly would make a lot more sense than what I previously thought. When you quoted me the first time, I thought you were angry about me not revealing my religious orientation, yet judging others, who had. So it was just a dumb misunderstanding of mine.

[Timemachineman]

Originally Posted by Timemachineman

That's what I was saying though, is that I went back and read a bunch of posts, and realized that you weren't referring to me. So, I made a foolish mistake. In an indirect response to the discussion with Stan4, you also quoted me. After I read those posts, I came to believe that you were likely talking about him/her, but you didn't agree with my idea, and you provided an example to show why (the discussion with Stan4). Or you were just referring to somebody else entirely who didn't seem to be the most enlightened person. It certainly would make a lot more sense than what I previously thought. When you quoted me the first time, I thought you were angry about me not revealing my religious orientation, yet judging others, who had. So it was just a dumb misunderstanding of mine.

Your input (Rubi3) was also quite helpful in getting other people to get along, or at least sort of acting as a catalyst for the desired reaction, since you were one of the most frequent posters, and you were actually discussing religious philosophy. Your statements gave me some valuable insight as well.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

No it's not the missing Link hasn't been found between Chimps and Humans a missing link would be
more than a 96% match.

Your talking the survival of fragile bones over thousands of years. Anthropological finds are rare and cherished. And chimps are the closest living species. Somewhere between the time that a species began to alter along two lines and now chimps and humans diverged.

We'll likely never find 'a' missing link but many who through a process of adaption to changing circumstmces lived to pass on their genes to the next generation. Its not a simple line of succession.

That we have Neanderthal genes in our modern gene mix does not mean that they are a missing link either, but that we and they were close enough genetically to interbreed successfully, and lived in the same areas long enough to share genes. Interestingly enough, some of the genes which came from the neanderthal likely helped human survival which means while we were 'human' then we were not the same as the human who lives today.

[Rubi3]

Originally Posted by Timemachineman

Your input (Rubi3) was also quite helpful in getting other people to get along, or at least sort of acting as a catalyst for the desired reaction, since you were one of the most frequent posters, and you were actually discussing religious philosophy. Your statements gave me some valuable insight as well.

I've appreciated the discussion we've had in direct messages and the understanding on both sides. Thanks.

[Timemachineman]

Originally Posted by Rubi3

I've appreciated the discussion we've had in direct messages and the understanding on both sides. Thanks.

Do you know much about Judaism?

[Timemachineman]

Originally Posted by swake

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It's science, completely different discipline.

But couldn't the two technically be intertwined, based on various interpretations of religious doctrine (not anything in particular, such as Christianity or Islam)?

[Rubi3]

Originally Posted by Timemachineman

Do you know much about Judaism?

I've read quite a bit about it and my brother is a Jew. I think it's an interesting subject and I was so glad Netanyahu won the election.