thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
According to Zeb, Mao killed 45 millions people.
world population was 4 billions when Mao died in 1976
so Mao killed 1,1 percent of the world population
conclusion 1 :
maoism is 31,2% less lethal than christianism
or
conclusion 2 :
these comparisons are stupid
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Certainly there are secular examples too but there are more religious deaths in my opinion than non in history.[/quote]
Could it be that you hold this opinion because that’s what you want to believe? It’s certainly not rooted in fact.
If you add up all the deaths supposedly caused by Christians I don’t think they’d equal even one example of non Christian murder.
Mao killed about 45 million people!
http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/08/11/how-mao-killed-45-million-people/
Now let’s see your proof, or just drop from the thread.[/quote]
for some reason this is what i picture when i think of groo ‘reading’
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Certainly there are secular examples too but there are more religious deaths in my opinion than non in history.[/quote]
Could it be that you hold this opinion because that’s what you want to believe? It’s certainly not rooted in fact.
If you add up all the deaths supposedly caused by Christians I don’t think they’d equal even one example of non Christian murder.
Mao killed about 45 million people!
http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/08/11/how-mao-killed-45-million-people/
Now let’s see your proof, or just drop from the thread.[/quote]
Still 3 million light.
[/quote]
That’s only one non Christian. Through in Stalin and a half dozen others and they easily surpass any deaths caused by Christianity…EASLY!
[quote]kamui wrote:
thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
According to Zeb, Mao killed 45 millions people.
world population was 4 billions when Mao died in 1976
so Mao killed 1,1 percent of the world population
conclusion 1 :
maoism is 31,2% less lethal than christianism
or
conclusion 2 :
these comparisons are stupid[/quote]
The charge was that Christianity has killed more people than non Christians have and that is simply false.
No run along.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
According to Zeb, Mao killed 45 millions people.
world population was 4 billions when Mao died in 1976
so Mao killed 1,1 percent of the world population
conclusion 1 :
maoism is 31,2% less lethal than christianism
or
conclusion 2 :
these comparisons are stupid[/quote]
The charge was that Christianity has killed more people than non Christians have and that is simply false.
No run along.[/quote]
Never once did I use christianity I don’t believe. The fact you find the words “religion” and “christian” to be synonomous is interesting.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
According to Zeb, Mao killed 45 millions people.
world population was 4 billions when Mao died in 1976
so Mao killed 1,1 percent of the world population
conclusion 1 :
maoism is 31,2% less lethal than christianism
or
conclusion 2 :
these comparisons are stupid[/quote]
The charge was that Christianity has killed more people than non Christians have and that is simply false.
No run along.[/quote]
Never once did I use christianity I don’t believe. The fact you find the words “religion” and “christian” to be synonomous is interesting.
[/quote]
It’s not that interesting there are more Christians than any other religion. Now hurry up and google it.
You are basically full of shit and I called you on it and you don’t like it.
That makes me laugh.
Thank you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
According to Zeb, Mao killed 45 millions people.
world population was 4 billions when Mao died in 1976
so Mao killed 1,1 percent of the world population
conclusion 1 :
maoism is 31,2% less lethal than christianism
or
conclusion 2 :
these comparisons are stupid[/quote]
The charge was that Christianity has killed more people than non Christians have and that is simply false.
No run along.[/quote]
Never once did I use christianity I don’t believe. The fact you find the words “religion” and “christian” to be synonomous is interesting.
[/quote]
It’s not that interesting there are more Christians than any other religion. Now hurry up and google it.
You are basically full of shit and I called you on it and you don’t like it.
That makes me laugh.
Thank you.
[/quote]
So the fact that christianity is the largest religion means other religions can’t be accounted for? You and your arbitrary fucking rules. The world would be such a great place without you fuckers in it. Please God, take away all your true believers so the rest of us can live a peaceful and happy existence.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Really though, let’s find all the pedophiles and put them on an island somewhere while we wait for them to finish cloning those dinosaurs. We could make a sport out of it.[/quote]
That would be cool. I think we should save the pedo’s for the ones they molested and when the victims become a certain age they can do what they want with them.
[quote]kamui wrote:
thirty years war : 8 millions of deaths
world population during this time : 500 millions
so, the religious wars of the 17th century killed 1,6 percent of the world population
[/quote]
The 30 years war was as much political as religious - that’s why France was on the Protestant side - but you are correct with the numbers. 1/3 of the population of Germany is thought to have died in the 30 years war. But the deaths were largely caused by armies on both sides that didn’t provision themselves properly and ate up of the food in the lands. Also the officers, commissariat and private purveyors of provisions were all corrupt. Gustavus Adolphus’ army was an exception to some extent.
I know you go on to say that these comparisons are meaningless but you still refer to ‘religious wars’ without qualification.
[quote]WW3General wrote:
The world would be such a great place without you fuckers in it.[/quote]
Now if you were only man enough to take me out of it.
Ha…you guys crack me up.
Mindless, gutless wonder boys!
Zeb- are you really that ignorant and violent? I want your god to take you out of it. I am asking him to give you the ultimate reward which you live your life to recieve. And all I get from you is insults and veiled threats? Not very christian, or catholic, or religious of you in anyway sir. Hypocritical religious person… not even suprised by this anymore. You want to espouse religions kindness and acceptance and all the good in it and you are nothing but a hypocrite. Zeb it takes much less of a man then me to take you out of this world. Unless you really want to be dead for some reason I would not use the come kill me if you’re tough enough line to much. Eventually you will get what you ask for. And, now I am positive the world would be a much better place with you not in it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So is this really a war on Catholicism? [/quote]
Yes.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]
I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.
Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?
I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.
[/quote]
Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]
Well, who am I to believe?
You or Urban II ?[/quote]
Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. [/quote]
No it wasnt.
It was about finding some bullshit reason to get a large army of heavily armed and unruly men out of Europe and somewhere else.
It was spectaculary succesful too, over 60% of them died.
But even if you accept his reason which you can find here Internet History Sourcebooks Project it is basically the same idea you find in Islam.
If the Umma is threatened, every Muslim warrior is called to fight. [/quote]
Yes, it was.
In the 7th century, large parts of the Byzantine Empire (Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt) were taken by the Arabs and placed under their princes. Those who survived were given a special tax (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days), and discriminated against (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days) and placed into a class known as dhimmi.
Churches were destroyed, even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, you know where the Crucifixion happened.
Eastern Christians had been sending complaints to Rome, but of course Europe was having their own issues with the various invading barbarians.
When the 11th century rolled around, a new Muslim Dynasty came over the former Byzantine Empire, ish got worse. During this time is when they destroyed the Holy Sepulcher. This was of course other churches and pilgrims to the Holy Land (and other holy lands).
A turning point in the history is in 1067 when 6500 German pilgrims lost ~4600 members of their group by a Muslim assault.
A list of Popes, most famously (before UII) St. Gregory VII, were calling for the new Christian princes to help their eastern brothers. Not until 1095 when Urban II made that famous speech at Clermont did there become a response.
Looking at his four letters to the Flemish, Blogonese, Vallombrosa, and to the counts of Catalonia this would confirm this reason for calling the crusades.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]
I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.
Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?
I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.
[/quote]
Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]
Well, who am I to believe?
You or Urban II ?[/quote]
Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. [/quote]
No it wasnt.
It was about finding some bullshit reason to get a large army of heavily armed and unruly men out of Europe and somewhere else.
It was spectaculary succesful too, over 60% of them died.
But even if you accept his reason which you can find here Internet History Sourcebooks Project it is basically the same idea you find in Islam.
If the Umma is threatened, every Muslim warrior is called to fight. [/quote]
Yes, it was.
In the 7th century, large parts of the Byzantine Empire (Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt) were taken by the Arabs and placed under their princes. Those who survived were given a special tax (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days), and discriminated against (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days) and placed into a class known as dhimmi.
Churches were destroyed, even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, you know where the Crucifixion happened.
Eastern Christians had been sending complaints to Rome, but of course Europe was having their own issues with the various invading barbarians.
When the 11th century rolled around, a new Muslim Dynasty came over the former Byzantine Empire, ish got worse. During this time is when they destroyed the Holy Sepulcher. This was of course other churches and pilgrims to the Holy Land (and other holy lands).
A turning point in the history is in 1067 when 6500 German pilgrims lost ~4600 members of their group by a Muslim assault.
A list of Popes, most famously (before UII) St. Gregory VII, were calling for the new Christian princes to help their eastern brothers. Not until 1095 when Urban II made that famous speech at Clermont did there become a response.
Looking at his four letters to the Flemish, Blogonese, Vallombrosa, and to the counts of Catalonia this would confirm this reason for calling the crusades. [/quote]
Look, I posted his speech, just look at the second part of it.
I know, its a whopping two or three paragraphs, just take your time.
Either way, that does not address the point that he was calling for Jihad, for the exact same reason an armed Jihad is justified in Islam.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]
I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.
Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?
I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.
[/quote]
Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]
Well, who am I to believe?
You or Urban II ?[/quote]
Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. [/quote]
No it wasnt.
It was about finding some bullshit reason to get a large army of heavily armed and unruly men out of Europe and somewhere else.
It was spectaculary succesful too, over 60% of them died.
But even if you accept his reason which you can find here http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html it is basically the same idea you find in Islam.
If the Umma is threatened, every Muslim warrior is called to fight. [/quote]
Yes, it was.
In the 7th century, large parts of the Byzantine Empire (Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt) were taken by the Arabs and placed under their princes. Those who survived were given a special tax (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days), and discriminated against (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days) and placed into a class known as dhimmi.
Churches were destroyed, even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, you know where the Crucifixion happened.
Eastern Christians had been sending complaints to Rome, but of course Europe was having their own issues with the various invading barbarians.
When the 11th century rolled around, a new Muslim Dynasty came over the former Byzantine Empire, ish got worse. During this time is when they destroyed the Holy Sepulcher. This was of course other churches and pilgrims to the Holy Land (and other holy lands).
A turning point in the history is in 1067 when 6500 German pilgrims lost ~4600 members of their group by a Muslim assault.
A list of Popes, most famously (before UII) St. Gregory VII, were calling for the new Christian princes to help their eastern brothers. Not until 1095 when Urban II made that famous speech at Clermont did there become a response.
Looking at his four letters to the Flemish, Blogonese, Vallombrosa, and to the counts of Catalonia this would confirm this reason for calling the crusades. [/quote]
Look, I posted his speech, just look at the second part of it. [/quote]
I’ve read and studied all five versions of his speech. Significant parts of the speech come out differently (I’m specifically thinking of the God wills it part). However, his letters are written by him/dictated by him.
Read it again.
I never said he wasn’t calling for Jihad. That doesn’t extinguish the distinction that Jihad is a tenet of Islam and is not of Christianity.
Also, what I find highly hilarious is that anyone believes that the Byzantines wanted a whole army of unwashed rabble to help them.
They asked for a few hundred knights, not the locusts that descended on them.
Of course they happily sent them on and given the fate of later Christian cities that was probably a wise decision.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]
I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.
Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?
I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.
[/quote]
Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]
Well, who am I to believe?
You or Urban II ?[/quote]
Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. [/quote]
No it wasnt.
It was about finding some bullshit reason to get a large army of heavily armed and unruly men out of Europe and somewhere else.
It was spectaculary succesful too, over 60% of them died.
But even if you accept his reason which you can find here http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html it is basically the same idea you find in Islam.
If the Umma is threatened, every Muslim warrior is called to fight. [/quote]
Yes, it was.
In the 7th century, large parts of the Byzantine Empire (Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt) were taken by the Arabs and placed under their princes. Those who survived were given a special tax (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days), and discriminated against (just as Sharia Law calls for in modern days) and placed into a class known as dhimmi.
Churches were destroyed, even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, you know where the Crucifixion happened.
Eastern Christians had been sending complaints to Rome, but of course Europe was having their own issues with the various invading barbarians.
When the 11th century rolled around, a new Muslim Dynasty came over the former Byzantine Empire, ish got worse. During this time is when they destroyed the Holy Sepulcher. This was of course other churches and pilgrims to the Holy Land (and other holy lands).
A turning point in the history is in 1067 when 6500 German pilgrims lost ~4600 members of their group by a Muslim assault.
A list of Popes, most famously (before UII) St. Gregory VII, were calling for the new Christian princes to help their eastern brothers. Not until 1095 when Urban II made that famous speech at Clermont did there become a response.
Looking at his four letters to the Flemish, Blogonese, Vallombrosa, and to the counts of Catalonia this would confirm this reason for calling the crusades. [/quote]
Look, I posted his speech, just look at the second part of it. [/quote]
I’ve read and studied all five versions of his speech. Significant parts of the speech come out differently (I’m specifically thinking of the God wills it part). However, his letters are written by him/dictated by him.
Read it again.
I never said he wasn’t calling for Jihad. That doesn’t extinguish the distinction that Jihad is a tenet of Islam and is not of Christianity.
[/quote]
Jihad is a tenet of Islam according to some interpretations, in most it is not, Islam does not have a central authority.
Christianity however had and that authority called for a holy war.
To call Jihad a tenet of Islam is a stretch, that a Pope, no less, called for one is an undisputed fact.
[quote]orion wrote:
Jihad is a tenet of Islam according to some interpretations, in most it is not, Islam does not have a central authority.
[/quote]
Utterly false. EVERY major school of Shia and Sunni Islamic jurisprudence throughout history teaches jihad - jihad is the central tenet of Islam. Stop the silliness.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Jihad is a tenet of Islam according to some interpretations, in most it is not, Islam does not have a central authority.
[/quote]
Utterly false. EVERY major school of Shia and Sunni Islamic jurisprudence throughout history teaches jihad - jihad is the central tenet of Islam. Stop the silliness.[/quote]
It is definitely not THE central tenet and I do not care what some or other schools says, or rather, what you claim that they say.
Once again, Islam has no central authority.
Christianity had, and it called for war.
Insofar all of this Islam is a violent religion whereas Christianity is not is poppycock, unless of course you addmit that Pope Urban II was waaaaaayyyyyyyy out of bounds which I am perfectly willing to do, BC however is probably not.