Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
rtwngAvngr said:Wow. You're pretty superior.
Oh and it's the islamics who have as their doctrine "convert, payup, or die". I would think that by your own statements this would force you to make at least a partial value judgement between the two.
Arabian said:then why didnt you mention how they try to eliminate muslims and deal bad withthem in Ireland or in france ,, although you say in this country they respect other religion,,,
im gonna tell you something strange
shristians here in Egypt made a very strange thing
they went to the poor people and offer them money and food and jop to become christians
and these campaign started very fast but ended very fast ,, cause they couldnt buy people faith to allah
do you like this??
they will pay you to become christian??
is that what bible says
sagegirl said:Well there were the crusades and the inquisition.....The genocide in both N and S America, the Nazis (what religion were THEY), the Jews,
What I said about KILLING applies for ALL sides.
Im not superior....religion just doesnt do it for me.
Arabian said:then why didnt you mention how they try to eliminate muslims and deal bad withthem in Ireland or in france ,, although you say in this country they respect other religion,,,
im gonna tell you something strange
shristians here in Egypt made a very strange thing
they went to the poor people and offer them money and food and jop to become christians
and these campaign started very fast but ended very fast ,, cause they couldnt buy people faith to allah
do you like this??
they will pay you to become christian??
is that what bible says
rtwngAvngr said:These were clear perversions of christian doctrince. Jihad is not a perversion, it's the clear intent of the applicable quaranic verses. The nazis were not christians. In fact, hitler's goal was to replace current religions with one based around his persona.
Thanks for trying, nonetheless.
You have used bad logic and wrong facts to morally equate the two, so you can avoid making a distinction. Typical of the left.
Nice black and white thinking. I thought libs were thoughtful.sagegirl said:I think you've made a legitmate claim....
However I think that maybe all doctrines and teachings are perversions of what may have been said.
That's your right.That is my point. You sarcastically referred to my attitude as superior, like I thought I was on some high ground....when I am discussing the legitmacy of people who claim to know God, to speak to God, and on a level that they understand what "HE" intends and expects of us. They talk to God and they speak for God.....now I would consider that a superior attitude.
I do not disrepute religion, I think it comes in all flavors and colors....any of which are legitmate if it meets the needs of the believer and does not challenge/override the beliefs of others.
I think faith is our greatest gift. The major religions have perverted that faith and like you say the perversions/interpretations go back in time, and I say they remain with us in the present....True faith comes from within ones inner core, the soul, and those who find it no longer have a need to explain themselves/to convince others of what they experience. They are living proof of what they believe. (So we have saints, and martyrs, and zealots and monks) It works for us as saints and it works against us, as martyrs. This being alive and believing in the neccessity of explaining it to ourselves is really tricky business and we are very inventive. I believe it is ours to enjoy.
Originally Posted by sagegirl
Well there were the crusades and the inquisition.....The genocide in both N and S America, the Nazis (what religion were THEY), the Jews,
What I said about KILLING applies for ALL sides.
Im not superior....religion just doesnt do it for me.
rtwngAvngr said:These were clear perversions of christian doctrince. Jihad is not a perversion, it's the clear intent of the applicable quaranic verses. The nazis were not christians. In fact, hitler's goal was to replace current religions with one based around his persona.
Thanks for trying, nonetheless.
You have used bad logic and wrong facts to morally equate the two, so you can avoid making a distinction. Typical of the left.
The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Arabian said:Judges 16
Samson and Delilah
Genesis 38
Judah and Tamar
There is also a chapter called How to rape your own sister?
Samuel 13:8
Amnon and Tamar
Is that how the bible deal with women
To be honest, I'm much more interested in the situation as it stands today rather than how it was recorded 1-3000 years ago. I don't care if you found a quote in the bible that said Thou shalt rape all women and subjugate them and they are dirty and evil and blah blah blah. The truth is that in most judeo-christian societies today, women are treated as equals or fairly close to it. They are allowed to vote, to walk next to men, to TALK to men, to show their faces, etc. Tell the women in Saudi Arabia who weren't allowed to vote last month that 1000 years ago, some guy wrote a chapter in the Koran and named it after a woman. If I was a Saudi Arabian woman, my reply to you would be I don't care. Last month I couldn't vote but my brother could. Do you see the difference?Arabian said:WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:...
rtwngAvngr said:These were clear perversions of christian doctrince. Jihad is not a perversion, it's the clear intent of the applicable quaranic verses. The nazis were not christians. In fact, hitler's goal was to replace current religions with one based around his persona.
Thanks for trying, nonetheless.
You have used bad logic and wrong facts to morally equate the two, so you can avoid making a distinction. Typical of the left.
elephant said:"Punkte 24" of the "25 Punkte Programm" written by Hitler in 1920 says the Nazi party is tolerant of all religions (unless you count Judaism) and then goes on to say "the party comes to a positive point of view on Christianity." You can probably find better translation than mine.
Read it however you like. It also states later that the 25 points may never be changed.
I do not know why people get so upset that the Nazis were Christians. There have been many more good Christians than bad ones.
Don't let Hitler bring you down, RWA.
Kathianne said:Read my postings, few that they may be. You will find that I'm far from a bible based person. Your take here, that Hitler was Christian, is a bit off. While this is not definitive, it's a start:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/hitler.html
A better take is here:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
elephant said:The Nazi party line and agenda as written in the 25 points which was written by Hitler and says the Nazis are Christians or at a minimum support Christianity. They do not subscribe to any particular sect of Christianity, but they are Christian. I really could not care less if Hitler himself was a Christian or a Jew or a Taoist. The party which he was more or less the founder and leader of says, right in its articles of conception, the 25 points, again written by Hitler, that they support Christianity. It seems pretty clear.
I am not saying the Nazis were good Christians or that they embody the the word of the Bible. I am repeating what they themselves said. How is that "a bit off"?
), he followed NO Christian tenants. He even had the state engage in witchcraft, astrology and other non-Christian means to guide him. Not Christianity. So to say that because he wrote on a piece of paper that he supports or will put up with, Christianity does not make him a Christian. Germany as a whole was a Christian nation at the time, but very apostate. Like 8-Ball said, saying you are a Christian does not make one Christian.freeandfun1 said:Regardless of what Hitler said (hey, I wonder if it was just another case of a politician saying whatever is popular.... could be!
elephant said:Now we obviously all agree. I never said Hitler was a Christian. Congratualations on winning a point that was never argued. The Nazis, all the people that followed Hitler, and who probably had no idea what he was really doing religiously, were Christians. So he publicly accepted Christianity and his followers believed to some extent that national socialism and Christsianity went together.
And to your idiotic point about 'just saying so does not make it true, duh' - right, but if you believe it when you say it, it makes it true to you. So when all the Bavarian Catholics went to church on Sunday in 1930 they thought they were at the same time good Nazis and good Christians. Then they reread the 25 points of the party and #24 says that the party endorses Christianity - they feel better and any conflict they may have had is soothed away.
So you have shown there might have been one non-Christian in the party, and he most likely kept that secret. Now explain away the rest of the Nazis who were Christians.
freeandfun1 said:Read THIS and educate yourself a bit wise-ass.
Also, you are assuming that all Germans were Nazis. Not true. Only an elect few were allowed to join the party as full party members. Furthermore Mr. NotSoBright, they Nazi Party held public occult ceremonies, so they were not doing it in hiding and Hitler was not the only one participating.
The entire "Church" in Germany was APOSTATE which means, they had abandoned their religious faith. So the mentioning of Christianity was nothing more than a jesture. Something I guess to give people like you the "ability" to say, "look, Christians have killed millions" when anybody with any understanding of Christianity knows that much killing has been carried out under the name of Christ, but not *in* the name of Christ.
Nice try.
