Written by Guest on 14.09.2007 at 03:36

I don't mean to be dismissive, but how does this tie into the Church Arsons? Because you think Christianity is a disease, that make the arsons justified?

No, I don't justify the Arsons. However, I am not surprised that these Arsons have occurred...in a nutshell. ( sorry if I was alittle unclear, Im also trying to be as realistic as possible, seriously! ).

Written by Sunioj on 14.09.2007 at 03:57

Written by Guest on 14.09.2007 at 03:36

I don't mean to be dismissive, but how does this tie into the Church Arsons? Because you think Christianity is a disease, that make the arsons justified?

No, I don't justify the Arsons. However, I am not surprised that these Arsons have occurred...in a nutshell. ( sorry if I was alittle unclear, Im also trying to be as realistic as possible, seriously! ).

It's all good man. I agree with your second sentence. It's not hard to believe that certain people would look back at the history (and present state) of Christianity and feel compelled to lash out. I suppose crazier things have been done on more shaky logic than this.

Written by Damnated on 13.09.2007 at 10:50

Written by BF on 13.09.2007 at 05:13

And if you notice, when a religous sect uses violence to impose an ideology, they instantly get labelled as terrorists.

apparently you didn't get my point. when i said "spreading an ideology through violence" i ment Chrsianity, Islam, Judaism. not some sects. if you don't know how these two religions, judaism not necesairly, became so popular, how many lives were taken and blood has flown, then consult a history book.

also, today, spreading an ideology through violence and fear is democracy. just look at the "anti-terrorist" war of the US.

Do you own a dictionary? because if you do then look up the word "democracy." History is history, I do know what has happened in the past, I have a better understanding than most on the present. however the past should be kept seperate from the present (present = 1800's and later to me). any older than that and violence was semi-permissable. It was almost okay to use violent methods to enforce a belief. Who do you think you are implying that the anti-terrorism law is about violence and fear. Its about removing those things from a society that has lived under their shadow for far too long. Remember that the terrorist started it and it is their aim to feel the western society with fear, the anti-terrorism war is meant to stop people from having to live under the constant fear of terrorist attack!

If I had some dickhead fly a plane into my buildings I'd be pretty upset about it. In my opinion if someone from another country kills one of my citizens then I'll send every fucking soldier over and slaughter a thousand of those responsible as revenge for that one they took. And before anybody says anything keep in mind that the one could have been your mum, brother, son. I think Bush did the right thing, by my ratio they killed thousands in 9/11 attacks, so bush should get revenge by killing millions. When you think about it like that he is being quite forgiving.

If I recall Bush is actually doing everybody a favour by getting rid of mass murderers, its just that everybody is so caught up in making fun of Bush (I agree he can say dumb things) that they don't actually stop and think if what he is doing is morally a good thing.

Look at it like this and I'll break it into steps.
1. Saddam/Al Quaida (maybe spelt wrong, but who cares they are dickheads anyway) are bad
2. Bush wants to get rid of 'em
3. Nobody helps because every country is too scared of the way its citizens will react (Bush just did what he thought was right, didn't care how people react = bravery)
4. People started looking for reasons to bag Bush (my favourite was always "he wants the oil" what the fuck does the worlds most powerful country need to steal oil for, not to mention that the world would be pretty pissed off about the whole thing such as the UN, BUsh would just never get away with it)
5. Still in Iraq but why? (dont you dare say oil!). What most people dont realise is that armies dont just have soldiers and tanks etc, but also engineers, doctors, nurses. The reason the army is still there is because now Bush has his engineers/doctors/nurses in Iraq doing their thing to re-build/aid the community. However there are still twits that want to kill the Americans even though they are helping them, that is why armed forces are in place, to protect these doctors/engineers etc. And also to protect the civilians from terrorist attacks.

Now remember the terrorists are cowards, what they do is they kill their own civilians because its easier than killing a soldier. This makes the people scared (thats why its called terrorism... duh) and the people think that if the Americans leave the killing will stop. But unfortunately people are dumb! What the populace does not realise is that once the Americans pull out the current (democratic government, sort-of. It's not completely up and running yet) government will quickly collapse as they are not ready to run themselves yet. After that the country will fall into extreme poverty and political unrest. I assure you a corrupt government will rise up (look at many african governments that were taken over by terrorsit acts for an example Zimbabwe, good texts to read on this include Selous Scouts Top Secret War - Lt. Col. Ron reid Daly and The Elite The Story of the Rhodesian Special Air Services - Barbara Cole). Keep in mind that the Americans are not forcefully occupying the country, if the government asks them to leave they will do so. (a good arguement here would be that the current government was put in place by the States so it does what the states tell it, and so it should, as it is not ready to stand-alone yet)

Keep in mind that Osama and Saddam were in the business of killing a long time ago. Yet still nobody says anything about that. It's only when Bush comes in to save lives that people start complaining. We all have a responsibilty to help those weaker than us, Be it a kid being picked on by a bully, a granny being mugged or a country that has a leader that commits genocide (mass killing a particular group of people based on a factor common to them usually religion or race).

P.S. If you cant write at least half of what I have then you probably havn't thought about the situation enough yet, do some more research before any of you respond to this.

How does this apply to church arsons... I dont know either I just don't like to see people bag out Bush when they have limited understanding of whats actually going on thats all. Hope I don't get this topic locked or anything but its just too misguided some of the things that were said and I couldn't ignore it.

The more I read into this I find something very ironic, Black Metal seems to be a religion itself.

@Hemlock, it would seem that it is going that way. Many people have taken on the ideology of anti-religion directly from Black metal. As this ideology becomes re-inforced in our culture (metal culture/ young adult culture) and the belief becomes stronger it can be argued that a religion is forming. I would argue that it is still in its infancy though and that those that are starting to take this ideology further can be classed into an existing religion (ie: paganism of some form or atheist etc).

I do not believe that Black metal will ever be able to start a mass movement of people to the scale that it can be considered a true religion as people these days are turning their backs on religion and shall be unlikely to take these notions seriously anymore. It would be good to make observations over the next 10 to 20 years, if we are patient enough. As this would be a good example of how a religion would start. If enough people get serious about it that is.

Goddamned, I can't think anymore, church arsons were just great promotion for black metal groups

Seriously, religion is only a channel, where human finds help, even though it would be actual person's imagination or true, I agree totally with religion as a personal help. But, when it comes staining Christianity in blood in vain, that's the bad thing. On the other hand, religion seems to be just a channel for killing people and cheating people.

Written by BF on 14.09.2007 at 06:01

If I had some dickhead fly a plane into my buildings I'd be pretty upset about it. In my opinion if someone from another country kills one of my citizens then I'll send every fucking soldier over and slaughter a thousand of those responsible as revenge for that one they took. And before anybody says anything keep in mind that the one could have been your mum, brother, son. I think Bush did the right thing, by my ratio they killed thousands in 9/11 attacks, so bush should get revenge by killing millions. When you think about it like that he is being quite forgiving.

If I recall Bush is actually doing everybody a favour by getting rid of mass murderers, its just that everybody is so caught up in making fun of Bush (I agree he can say dumb things) that they don't actually stop and think if what he is doing is morally a good thing.

you either watch to many tv or i don't know, but if you think that slaughteting millions for 9/11 is justified, then you have some serious issues. Because today the eye for an eye routine doesn't work anymore. it's not morally good . wars aren't fought because of vengence. wars have purposes. like oil, in this case. You actually think that Bush is fighting this war for 6 years, just to kill as many muslism as he can? Hah. i bet he stands near a huge chalkboard and draws a line every time one is killed!

and him doing everyone, so including me, a favour? have you lost it, man? btw, there is a posability that osama bin laden is already dead. because saddam was captured long before they made it public, so there's a chance this happened with osama too.

so you think it's morally good to kill millions of people in hunt for one man, who may already be dead or captured?

1. I didn't say anything about an eye for an eye...
2. Nor did I say that Bush was doing this for vengeance...
3. I don't know who is alive or not, they were just examples...
4. Glad to see you are still pedalling that oil routine, did you come up with that yourself or was it something someone else said to you that you are now saying to someone else...
5. It is not morally right to kill anything, that is why I am glad that Bush is only interested in hunting those responsible for horrific acts of violence, not in Killing civilians (unlike some terrorist organizations)...
6. But I do believe that Bush has a responsibility to protect his citizens, I think the most effective way to do this would be to scare the torrerists responsible by killing a shitload of them. If it was a choice between letting a terrorist kill your citizens or kill the terrorists which would you choose Damnated?
7. I bet he does stand near that huge chalkboard as well, he is ordering troops to kill and troops to die for a good cause. He obviously keeps tabs on the death toll, thanks for pointing out how concerned he is about these affairs to everyone, I almost forgot...
8. I don't watch any T.V as everything portrayed is given a slant. That is to say that T.V stations only show you the bits they want you to see. That is why so many people don't understand the good things that the brave men and women are doing in hostile territory, they just don't get shown them...
9. I consider it a great favour to me, as my world is safer now that these people have been removed. But could you imagine for example if nobody had done anything about Hitler (poor Jews) this is the same thing, Just with a different tyrant in power (saddam, but not any more) and a different group of people (Kurds I believe its spelt). Not because I benifit personally but because I think about the atrocities of mankind and I rest easier knowing that suffering is reduced somewhere else in the world...
10. I think Bush is fighting this war for 6 years to help people that can't help themselves...

11. Think for yourself, Not everything you see on T.V is of a true perspective and regurgitating things like the oil argument is plain silly.

America is the most powerful country (That can be argued to). They have no problems getting oil if they need it. But a hostile takeover of anything In another country will bring repercusions. One example is international sanctions, another is other countries aiding the country being taken over (such as in both world wars). basically its just not possible for a country to seize assets from another today. However one way of achieving this to a degree would be to use political leverage. For example Amereica might strike a trade deal with another country. So they would say, we will buy a resource from you cheaply if you buy something from us cheaply. Another technique could be providing infrastructure in return for kickbacks. Open warfare for resources is just not acceptible today however. The second America try to take over an oil well the world will come down like a ton of bricks. G. Bush understands this alot better than I (and especially you) do.

Why did I write such a big response to such a few childish comebacks. Because alot of you will think the same things as afore mentioned, so now everyone has got a better understanding on this situation.

How many terrorists would you want dead if a relative of yours was in the twin towers and never left?

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 06:23

The more I read into this I find something very ironic, Black Metal seems to be a religion itself.

I would say its a cult, secta and possesion but not religion, because mout of them who likes BM are ateists, and satanists, so if thay dont belive to eny gods hwo can it be religion?

Written by BF on 14.09.2007 at 10:26

How many terrorists would you want dead if a relative of yours was in the twin towers and never left?

None, the damage has been done, I'd move on with my life. Why dwell in the past?

As for Bush, a 5 year old is just as capable of doing his job, since it's his advisers that are responsible for his actions.

Evidence to suggest his somewhat limited/stunted mental capacity includes his recent blunders at the APEC summit - "OPEC" and "I thank the Austrian troops". I'd like to know what crazy explanation you might have for his errors, because I'm quite convinced he's not as sharp as you describe him to be. Given, he might have been nervous, but even a nervous adult would correct their self.

@Opium... I admire your ability to simply forget the murder of your loved ones. I hope its happened to you, otherwise you will look like a bit of an idiot for saying that you can just get over it like that, simply because you are saying you would react a certain way. When something that drematic happens to a person they can't predict how they will react. I have friends and family that have had everything taken away from them by terrorists. They arn't so melancholic about it as you think you would be.

His advisors are not responsible for his actions, if you truly believe this then it demonstrates that your knowledge of politics is poor at best. People provide Bush with information (those would be the "advisors" you speak of, of course in reality they all have different titles) and Bush uses this information to make his own decisions.

Here is evidence to suggest your limited/stunted intelligence (corrections to your post):

1. my life. Why you should have had 2 spaces after a full stop (one after all other punctuation
2. doing his job if you do not know someone personally you always relate to them by their last name (except in non fiction novels based on real people)
3. advisers spelt advisOrs
4. APEC A.P.E.C.
5. summit - "OPEC" you don't use "-" try : or ; for pause
6. but even a nervous adult would correct their self. Would this nevous adult like to correct HIMself or ITself by any chance?

I guess you are no smarter than him then???????

My point is we all make mistakes. However I will make no excuses for Bush, like I said before he say a lot of stupid stuff, there is no excuse for getting the country wrong, ever.

I am allso awear that I make alot off misstakes in punctuation/gramma, before anybody else gets smart. Just wanted to prove a point that we are all human. I never claimed he was smart either, just that he is doing the right thing and most people have been blinded by the media or are too busy following the crowd (looking at you Opium) to realise the truth.

Written by Bad English on 14.09.2007 at 13:52

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 06:23

The more I read into this I find something very ironic, Black Metal seems to be a religion itself.

I would say its a cult, secta and possesion but not religion, because mout of them who likes BM are ateists, and satanists, so if thay dont belive to eny gods hwo can it be religion?

Well what is the defenition of religion? Religion is just a common belief help by a group of people. Atheism, therefor is a religion. The Anti-Christian attitudes of the Black Metal guys, would also make it a religion.


Oh, and to everyone else: This thread is about church burnings and not 9/11, Bush, etc. Move the conversation elsewhere, please.

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 19:22

Oh, and to everyone else: This thread is about church burnings and not 9/11, Bush, etc. Move the conversation elsewhere, please.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Keep this on subject, please. I am sorry if it was my post that derailed this thread. If you want to continue to talk terrorism or world politics there are probably still threads for those in the serious forums.

I haven't read the whole thread but I posted my opinion on another forum today and just noticed this thread so repost time. This was referring to a particular incident so here's the link: http://www.blackmetal.co.uk/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=16517

Surely the purpose of church arson is to make a statement against organised religion in the hope that this might provoke some serious thought as to why these people dislike it so much. They should realise that very few people will give it any serious thought. It'll be seen as an act of mindless vandalism by the majority so what's the point?

What they also don't realise is that they're not seeing the whole picture. These arsonists are seeing christians and non-christians as black and white but the vast majority of people fall into the grey area in between. I'm sure we've all seen numerous examples of christian hate-mongering on the internet by someone posting one example of some extremists doing something retarded (e.g. godhatesfags) but people then generalise their dislike of these people to a broad spectrum of different beliefs that fall under the label of christianity. I'd bet good money that christian forums have the same narrow-minded, ignorant, biased discussions only with the atheists as the bad guys.

The actions of these individuals deserve some respect though. How many people have the balls to take action for what they believe in? I think they're ignorant and misguided but worthy of respect.


NOTE: yes, i do post on BMUK or "the arsehole of the internet BM scene" to give it a more appropriate name.

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 19:22

Written by Bad English on 14.09.2007 at 13:52

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 06:23

The more I read into this I find something very ironic, Black Metal seems to be a religion itself.

I would say its a cult, secta and possesion but not religion, because mout of them who likes BM are ateists, and satanists, so if thay dont belive to eny gods hwo can it be religion?

Well what is the defenition of religion? Religion is just a common belief help by a group of people. Atheism, therefor is a religion. The Anti-Christian attitudes of the Black Metal guys, would also make it a religion.


Oh, and to everyone else: This thread is about church burnings and not 9/11, Bush, etc. Move the conversation elsewhere, please.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religious belief. Why is it so impossible to believe that some people simply are not religious at all? A - theist. Not - religious.

Written by BF on 14.09.2007 at 10:26

Nor did I say that Bush was doing this for vengeance...

Written by BF on 14.09.2007 at 06:01

bush should get revenge by killing millions[

etcetera, etcetera. let's drop this.

i see the church burnings in norway as an act of gratuitious violence against the whole of christianity, i mean, some people just can't get over something. plus there's the anti-christian nazi trend to think about, if i would trace [insert infamous BM church burner here]'s roots and they would point his ancestors being native americans, would he go back to america and burn a church or some state building? didn't think so.. he'd probably say "well christians are bad bla bla can't wait to burn another church"

Written by Valentin B on 14.09.2007 at 22:09

[insert infamous BM church burner here]'s roots and they would point his ancestors being native americans, would he go back to america and burn a church or some state building? didn't think so..

i don't see where you're heading with this. but the point is the church arson, not the place were it took place!

Written by Damnated on 14.09.2007 at 22:27

Written by Valentin B on 14.09.2007 at 22:09

[insert infamous BM church burner here]'s roots and they would point his ancestors being native americans, would he go back to america and burn a church or some state building? didn't think so..

i don't see where you're heading with this. but the point is the church arson, not the place were it took place!

i'm saying that it's not all "let's have vengeance on the BLASFEMOUS CHRISTIAN RACE FOR KILLING THE GREAT VIKING WARRIORS 1000 YEARS AGO!!!!AHAAHAHAHAAAAH!!1"

and it's a little because of the trend. hell, have you ever heard of a church burning in spain? the inquisition there was FUCKING BRUTAL, maybe worse than the christianizing of the northern lands, but in norway there were underground people meeting and planning stuff, and don't tell me that it's because of vengeance, cause frankly, 1000 years of "hatred boiling inside the hearts of the viking norwegian people"(LOL) means quite enough vengeance already..

and fuck dude, if i should follow that line of thought, i should probably burn your home for being a pesky avar invader's grandson who pillaged romania 1000 years ago!

haha, stfu we were here first

but back on topic: this isn't vengance for old times. this is just resisting christianity. simple as that.

Written by Damnated on 14.09.2007 at 23:03

haha, stfu we were here first

but back on topic: this isn't vengance for old times. this is just resisting christianity. simple as that.

yeah but if it's not for vengeance for old times, then it's not for something violent, then any violence is gratuitious=> it's not good

Written by Guest on 14.09.2007 at 21:28

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 19:22

Well what is the defenition of religion? Religion is just a common belief help by a group of people. Atheism, therefor is a religion. The Anti-Christian attitudes of the Black Metal guys, would also make it a religion.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religious belief. Why is it so impossible to believe that some people simply are not religious at all? A - theist. Not - religious.

No, atheism is a religion of sorts. Read the post you quoted or the below link. The lack of a belief system would be agnosticism (i.e. Acceptance of the idea that we don't know and will never know if there is a god).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Also: A-theism = non - belief in (a) god(s)

Written by Valentin B on 14.09.2007 at 22:41

Written by Damnated on 14.09.2007 at 22:27

Written by Valentin B on 14.09.2007 at 22:09

[insert infamous BM church burner here]'s roots and they would point his ancestors being native americans, would he go back to america and burn a church or some state building? didn't think so..

i don't see where you're heading with this. but the point is the church arson, not the place were it took place!

i'm saying that it's not all "let's have vengeance on the BLASFEMOUS CHRISTIAN RACE FOR KILLING THE GREAT VIKING WARRIORS 1000 YEARS AGO!!!!AHAAHAHAHAAAAH!!1"

and it's a little because of the trend. hell, have you ever heard of a church burning in spain? the inquisition there was FUCKING BRUTAL, maybe worse than the christianizing of the northern lands, but in norway there were underground people meeting and planning stuff, and don't tell me that it's because of vengeance, cause frankly, 1000 years of "hatred boiling inside the hearts of the viking norwegian people"(LOL) means quite enough vengeance already..

and fuck dude, if i should follow that line of thought, i should probably burn your home for being a pesky avar invader's grandson who pillaged romania 1000 years ago!

About church burning in Spain no there are no, its because there ppl belive and us eto belive since I dunno, but in Scandinavia when in Old Europe was strong crsitianity there still was ppl who wa scrucifield, but sma etime belive to pagan gods, and in north till 19th century so there never crsitainity was streong and never will eb, even how sad it is,

Written by -tom- on 14.09.2007 at 23:59

No, atheism is a religion of sorts. Read the post you quoted or the below link. The lack of a belief system would be agnosticism (i.e. Acceptance of the idea that we don't know and will never know if there is a god).

Nihilism comes the closest to the lack of a belief system, but not even nihilism is without a belief. in nihilism you state that life has no meaning and that you believe in nothing. THUS you "believe" in non-believing. the same thing is true for agnosticism. You believe in ambiguity.

but calling the belief in the non existence of a god a religion, is absurd. religion is a belief system, centered around a diety. without one, there's no religion.

Written by Bad English on 15.09.2007 at 00:02

About church burning in Spain no there are no, its because there ppl belive and us eto belive since I dunno, but in Scandinavia when in Old Europe was strong crsitianity there still was ppl who wa scrucifield, but sma etime belive to pagan gods, and in north till 19th century so there never crsitainity was streong and never will eb, even how sad it is,

everywhere, throughout the world there are anti-religious actions. some are bigger, some are smaller. in a comunity where the relgious opression is bigger, where the large part of the population is a believer, these anti-religious actions are more violent and gain more publicity.
where the oppresion isn't significant, there's no need for violent attacks. there is no need for church burnings.

conclusion: where a comunity is rather insignificant towards religion, churches stay. where the comunity is very religoius the churches will burn. speaking in general terms. there are exeptions of course

I agree about what you say about anti religion, ist ewery where but in place where realigion are stronger there are not so much anti religius ppl, and also thay can not work and say what thay think so free how in lil tolorant countries

Written by -tom- on 14.09.2007 at 23:59

Written by Guest on 14.09.2007 at 21:28

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 19:22

Well what is the defenition of religion? Religion is just a common belief help by a group of people. Atheism, therefor is a religion. The Anti-Christian attitudes of the Black Metal guys, would also make it a religion.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religious belief. Why is it so impossible to believe that some people simply are not religious at all? A - theist. Not - religious.

No, atheism is a religion of sorts. Read the post you quoted or the below link. The lack of a belief system would be agnosticism (i.e. Acceptance of the idea that we don't know and will never know if there is a god).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Also: A-theism = non - belief in (a) god(s)

To me, that is not a religion. I have no religious beliefs. I believe in no Gods, I live my life according to no religious doctrine, and I believe in no sort of afterlife. How, then, do I subscribe to a religion?

Written by BF on 14.09.2007 at 15:36

His advisors are not responsible for his actions, if you truly believe this then it demonstrates that your knowledge of politics is poor at best. People provide Bush with information (those would be the "advisors" you speak of, of course in reality they all have different titles) and Bush uses this information to make his own decisions.

Here is evidence to suggest your limited/stunted intelligence (corrections to your post):

1. my life. Why you should have had 2 spaces after a full stop (one after all other punctuation
2. doing his job if you do not know someone personally you always relate to them by their last name (except in non fiction novels based on real people)
3. advisers spelt advisOrs
4. APEC A.P.E.C.

Onoez, the punctuation and grammar police!

I'm aware all the "advisers" (sorry once again) have different titles in reality, however, naming all the people and their positions would be rather lengthly, don't you think?

As for 3, I blame spellcheck, since it corrects what I type according to American spelling

Concerning A.P.E.C. or APEC, I've only seen it written as APEC, I apologize for inaccuracy, though to me it makes no difference, we're still discussing the same entity.

Quote:
5. summit - "OPEC" you don't use "-" try : or ; for pause
6. but even a nervous adult would correct their self. Would this nevous adult like to correct HIMself or ITself by any chance?

I'll keep 5 in mind.

'Their' is still acceptable, don't get too scrupulous (I'm aware it's a less accurate description, no need to remind me). You'll find many other posts on MS have mistakes, so you'll just have to live with it.

Quote:
I guess you are no smarter than him then???????

I'm in no position to judge this, so why are you asking me? Surely you can't makes such an assumption, nor ask by making comparisons that I'm not entirely to be blamed for?

Quote:
most people have been blinded by the media or are too busy following the crowd (looking at you Opium) to realise the truth.

I tend not to follow suit/follow the media, if you think that, then you're surely wrong.

FYI, I only watch 1 1/2 hours of television a week, 1 hour of that time is consumed by two comedy programs. The other 30 minutes is consumed by news, and not the commercial news either. As for discussing such things as Bush's presidency with others, I avoid it at all costs, since they'll simply regurgitate what the general consensus is.

I know I'm not perfect although there were underlying implications in what you wrote, suggesting that you think that I think I am perfect. Experience reality, much? (I know all reality differs according to one's perception, however, we are forced into the same 'boat', so to speak and thus we eventually realize our own inadequacies)

Written by Dane Train on 14.09.2007 at 19:22

Oh, and to everyone else: This thread is about church burnings and not 9/11, Bush, etc. Move the conversation elsewhere, please.

Will do, just replying one last time, I promise to not derail the topic any further. Cheers for mentioning this, because I was going to as well.

Written by Guest on 15.09.2007 at 00:58

To me, that is not a religion. I have no religious beliefs. I believe in no Gods, I live my life according to no religious doctrine, and I believe in no sort of afterlife. How, then, do I subscribe to a religion?

I don't consider myself religious either, but I a a follower of Jesus Christ have have deep spiritual faith. A religion is a common belief, it does not have to deal with spirituality. Most of the time it is refered ot in a spiritual sense, but that is not the sole meaning of it.

People cane be spiritual but not have a religion. People can be religious but have no spirituality.

Therefor the Anti-Christian Black Metal ideas and those who subscribe to it are part of a religion.