[quote]orion wrote:
Well because they are human and are quite capable of having a lot of conflicting shit in their heads that would not even make sense on its own?
[/quote]
Like what you wrote?
[quote]florelius wrote:
his point is simple. He want you( who are claiming that all conflicts with muslims in it, is caused by islam, becuase murder, chaos is the root of islam ) to be consistent. you cant choose to use a materalistic history perspective on europa/christianity and a idealistic one when wiewing muslims.
thats inconsistent. This is the point I think orion is trying to make( I can be wrong )
ps. I dont know if you have claimed a idealistic aproach to islamic/arab history btw.[/quote]
I understand his point, I do not agree.
Communists and Nazi’s wanted to destroy existing religion and substitute it with something else.
Muslims do not wish to do this. Bin Laden fancies himself a religious man. He wants to reform the Caliphate. He wants to spread Islam by the sword like his ancestors did.
Or do you deny this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]
Wait, which ones?[/quote]
I’m not sure how Nationalism fits into Christendom, but whatever.[/quote]
it doesn’t. It’s a strawman.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you disputing that innocent lives were lost? Are you disputing the US caused it? Do you deny it did not receive nearly as much press as the loss of American lives - which by the way pales in comparison to the loss of innocent lives? What of “enemy” Iraqi combatants? Many of which did not want to fight?
[/quote]
The loss of innocent lives did and does recieve as much press as the loss of American lives. Every time a car bomb goes off in a market in Iraq or Afghanistan it is reported in the news. Every time a soldier is killed it is reported in the news. What more reporting do you want?
I bet if you did add up all the deaths in the Iraq war most would come from muslim on muslim violence in which they strove to start a religious civil war. Even the locals got sick of the bloodshed and joined up with America to stop the indiscriminate killings. Stop the killing, not ignore the killing, not turn a blind eye to the killing, but stop the killing.
And it’s ironic that most anti-war Americans put the blame of ALL civilian casualties on the US military and government’s shoulders. Even if it was muslim on muslim indiscriminate killing. “Well they wouldn’t be killing each other if we weren’t there.” No, but possibly Saddam would be still be killing SOMEONE.
And ironic how the tribesmen who were fed up with Al-Qaeda came to THE AMERICANS to put a stop to the killing. What does that tell you?[/quote]
Ignoring everything else you interjected into this discussion for a moment, are you telling me that the American media has accurately reported (or reported at all) the innocent death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, can you provide me the reference from a mainstream media outlet?[/quote]
found this first place I looked.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars.[/quote]
Yes, but when a country makes such actions, the lack of Christianity of obvious. Yes, US could be described as holding to Christian virtues opposing the Nazi’s.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars.[/quote]
Yes, but when a country makes such actions, the lack of Christianity of obvious. Yes, US could be described as holding to Christian virtues opposing the Nazi’s.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars.[/quote]
Yes, but when a country makes such actions, the lack of Christianity of obvious. Yes, US could be described as holding to Christian virtues opposing the Nazi’s.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]
Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.[/quote]
That claim is disputed. Only Catholics belief that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.[/quote]
Assuming for a moment this is correct, doesn’t the Bible “teach” many things that no longer occur? Killing? Sacrifices, etc.?[/quote]
Sacrifices still happen…
I don’t know why people think this way, you judge a medicine by those that take it, not those that don’t. Most “Catholics” seem to not actually practice what is taught, therefore you get fallacious arguments against Catholicism. I don’t know how most Muslims practice Islam, but the whole “conflicting verses take the later one” seems to me that Islam is a very war orientated religion, not like war orientated like Catholicism (enemy is not flesh and blood) compared to Islam (enemy is the infidel).
So, you dig the religious atheism? [/quote]
So how much of the Quran have you read in context?
Religious atheism is how you refer to it? That’s interesting given that it predated Christianity and Christianity borrowed heavily from it. Yes, heavily.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]
Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.[/quote]
I’m trying to figure out how to ask this without sounding accusatory, but I can’t, so please don’t take it that way. But do you honestly think the Catholic Church isn’t corrupt? Or hasn’t been?[/quote]
The Catholic Church is a cesspool of corruption dating back to the beginning to the present. Apparently, knowing a tree by its fruit does not apply to the Catholic Church. But you’re going to get some interesting reply about evil men, bla bla bla when in fact the evil is institutionalized. They even protect child molesters. How do I know? I handled a molestation claim against the Church.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you disputing that innocent lives were lost? Are you disputing the US caused it? Do you deny it did not receive nearly as much press as the loss of American lives - which by the way pales in comparison to the loss of innocent lives? What of “enemy” Iraqi combatants? Many of which did not want to fight?
[/quote]
The loss of innocent lives did and does recieve as much press as the loss of American lives. Every time a car bomb goes off in a market in Iraq or Afghanistan it is reported in the news. Every time a soldier is killed it is reported in the news. What more reporting do you want?
I bet if you did add up all the deaths in the Iraq war most would come from muslim on muslim violence in which they strove to start a religious civil war. Even the locals got sick of the bloodshed and joined up with America to stop the indiscriminate killings. Stop the killing, not ignore the killing, not turn a blind eye to the killing, but stop the killing.
And it’s ironic that most anti-war Americans put the blame of ALL civilian casualties on the US military and government’s shoulders. Even if it was muslim on muslim indiscriminate killing. “Well they wouldn’t be killing each other if we weren’t there.” No, but possibly Saddam would be still be killing SOMEONE.
And ironic how the tribesmen who were fed up with Al-Qaeda came to THE AMERICANS to put a stop to the killing. What does that tell you?[/quote]
Ignoring everything else you interjected into this discussion for a moment, are you telling me that the American media has accurately reported (or reported at all) the innocent death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, can you provide me the reference from a mainstream media outlet?[/quote]
found this first place I looked.[/quote]
Well, there’s 655k right there since 2003 not counting deaths due to sanctions. By the way, your link above does not constitute proof that the American media has given this fair treatment. I sure don’t hear much about it on the news. Are you denying media bias in this country?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
his point is simple. He want you( who are claiming that all conflicts with muslims in it, is caused by islam, becuase murder, chaos is the root of islam ) to be consistent. you cant choose to use a materalistic history perspective on europa/christianity and a idealistic one when wiewing muslims.
thats inconsistent. This is the point I think orion is trying to make( I can be wrong )
ps. I dont know if you have claimed a idealistic aproach to islamic/arab history btw.[/quote]
I understand his point, I do not agree.
Communists and Nazi’s wanted to destroy existing religion and substitute it with something else.
Muslims do not wish to do this. Bin Laden fancies himself a religious man. He wants to reform the Caliphate. He wants to spread Islam by the sword like his ancestors did.
Or do you deny this.[/quote]
…
…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
his point is simple. He want you( who are claiming that all conflicts with muslims in it, is caused by islam, becuase murder, chaos is the root of islam ) to be consistent. you cant choose to use a materalistic history perspective on europa/christianity and a idealistic one when wiewing muslims.
thats inconsistent. This is the point I think orion is trying to make( I can be wrong )
ps. I dont know if you have claimed a idealistic aproach to islamic/arab history btw.[/quote]
I understand his point, I do not agree.
Communists and Nazi’s wanted to destroy existing religion and substitute it with something else.
Muslims do not wish to do this. Bin Laden fancies himself a religious man. He wants to reform the Caliphate. He wants to spread Islam by the sword like his ancestors did.
Or do you deny this.[/quote]
I dunno, there seem to be people that want to spread “freedom and democracy” with the sword, or do you deny this?
Now, who is the greater danger to peace overall?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]
Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.[/quote]
That claim is disputed. Only Catholics belief that. [/quote]
No, pretty sure Jesus says ‘thou art Peter (translated to rock in Greek and Aramaic, the languages of Jesus); and upon this rock I will build my church.’
Evolution is disputed, does it make it false? A truth isn’t a false because of doubts and questions. And, especially when those doubts and questions are based on straw man.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.[/quote]
Assuming for a moment this is correct, doesn’t the Bible “teach” many things that no longer occur? Killing? Sacrifices, etc.?[/quote]
Sacrifices still happen…
I don’t know why people think this way, you judge a medicine by those that take it, not those that don’t. Most “Catholics” seem to not actually practice what is taught, therefore you get fallacious arguments against Catholicism. I don’t know how most Muslims practice Islam, but the whole “conflicting verses take the later one” seems to me that Islam is a very war orientated religion, not like war orientated like Catholicism (enemy is not flesh and blood) compared to Islam (enemy is the infidel).
So, you dig the religious atheism? [/quote]
So how much of the Quran have you read in context?[/quote]
In context? I took it from Muslim scholars and what they say. This is from the mouth of Mo’ himself.
[quote]
Religious atheism is how you refer to it? That’s interesting given that it predated Christianity and Christianity borrowed heavily from it. Yes, heavily. [/quote]
Uh, yes, they don’t have a deity and they are religious, religious-atheism. The reason I pointed it out is because you said you believed in G-d, so I found it strange that you’d follow something that viewed a believe in G-d as unhealthy.
Similarities don’t equal copying. And the Buddhism is 2550 years old, Judaism is 4000 years old. If you want to say I am “Christian” that is true, but the term came from the distinction between Hellenistic Jews and Nationalist Jews because we acted as little Christs. However, talk to almost any Jew and besides Jesus, we got the morals and G-d part down. They even recognize (not as say it’s valid but recognize the rituals) our Mass as like their ceremonies. And, if you don’t buy that, then Judaism in it’s current form (which I still hold Catholicism is a branch of Judaism) is only 2000 years old as well.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]
Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.[/quote]
I’m trying to figure out how to ask this without sounding accusatory, but I can’t, so please don’t take it that way. But do you honestly think the Catholic Church isn’t corrupt? Or hasn’t been?[/quote]
The human nature (the individuals), yes. We’re sinners. Like my Israeli friend says, “We’re not hypocrites because we’re Catholics, we’re Catholics because we’re hypocrites.” We are not perfect, never claimed to be.
Peter our Pope, denied Christ three times. Let me tell you about numerology here for a second. Three is very symbolic in the Bible, stands for completeness (Trinity, three days in Hell, Jesus tempted three times, &c.). Peter denied Jesus completely, Peter also told Jesus he loved him complete (Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him, and he answered affirmative thrice).
As Catholics we know three things (okay we no more than that, but trying to make a point and go along with the theme of three). Those three things are some of the most morbid things you’ll ever wrap your head around, how we remind ourselves is even more morbid (but that is a later topic). What we know…we know of our fallen nature (we’re sinners), we know without the Lord we couldn’t do anything (anything that’s not going to be dashed in the pit of fire at least), and we know one day we’ll die (Tempus Fugit, Memento Mori).
As Catholics, we should not, or at least should not, have any illusions otherwise.
However! Always a however. 
The Church has two natures (think of Jesus, two natures: human and divine). Jesus’ body, or Church, is made up as any other body. The reason for the divine nature is because Jesus is G-d and Jesus promised the Holy Ghost to the Church to guide us to the end of time.
Just as Jesus’ body was crucified, torn apart, beaten, corrupted by the nails, the lance, the leather of the whip and everything deemed profane, but his divine nature stayed pure, he never sinned. It was never corrupted.
That is why Catholics believe the Church can be perfect (morals, teachings, &c.), with sinners in it. Not because we’re some uber-uptight people who never do a bad thing or because our Bishops are sooooo good at teaching the same thing from the beginning of the Church on Calvary to the current date, but because Jesus is G-d and Jesus said he’d protect the Church from Hell and the Holy Ghost would be our guide, and we believe that the Holy Ghost cannot be deceived or deceive us.
As well, what congregation in Christendom has a sacrament of reconciliation? If we have a Sacrament (with a capital S) for the sole purpose of forgiving sins, you think we don’t recognize that we’re not corrupt? We know, trust us. We’ve been trying to tell the world of the human’s fallen nature, but no one believes us. What shall we do? Keep the preaching I guess.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
his point is simple. He want you( who are claiming that all conflicts with muslims in it, is caused by islam, becuase murder, chaos is the root of islam ) to be consistent. you cant choose to use a materalistic history perspective on europa/christianity and a idealistic one when wiewing muslims.
thats inconsistent. This is the point I think orion is trying to make( I can be wrong )
ps. I dont know if you have claimed a idealistic aproach to islamic/arab history btw.[/quote]
I understand his point, I do not agree.
Communists and Nazi’s wanted to destroy existing religion and substitute it with something else.
Muslims do not wish to do this. Bin Laden fancies himself a religious man. He wants to reform the Caliphate. He wants to spread Islam by the sword like his ancestors did.
Or do you deny this.[/quote]
I agree that bin laden is a religious nut, but that is not an argument for that all muslims that are in conflict, are there because of theire religion. PLO and arafat where muslims, but there objectiv where nationalism. just to use an example.
When it comes to the “communist” regimes, yes they developed an aggressive atheist position.
The nazi`s where all over the place when it comes to religion.
My point stills stands, its important to hold people to the same standards.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Catholic Church is a cesspool of corruption dating back to the beginning to the present. Apparently, knowing a tree by its fruit does not apply to the Catholic Church. But you’re going to get some interesting reply about evil men, bla bla bla when in fact the evil is institutionalized. They even protect child molesters. How do I know? I handled a molestation claim against the Church. [/quote]
I wrote a long…long response. But, you know I came to the conclusion that I could simplify it. And, I’ll ignore that cesspool comment. You’ll know why soon enough.
The tree metaphor is a good way to see what is going on. Except, you’re being a little fallacious in using it. Do we judge a medicine by those who take it, or those who don’t? Well, at least scientist usually judge it on those who take it. You have a good example of those who have, both living and dead. Just pick up a book on the lives of the saints. If you want a good saint, Father Maximilian Kolbe.
However, if we want to talk about institutionalizing abuse…let’s talk about it. Let’s look at the facts.
The hard facts, here it is…you (as a father) are in THE group (fathers) with the highest percentage of child molesters among your ranks. So, if we want to start pulling punches and saying certain institutions are institutionalizing child molestations…it’s the institution of the family. Fathers are the number one physical and sexual abusers of their own children (they are also the highest repeat abusers), not clergy, not teachers, not any buddy else…fathers.
The ones who are given the responsibility to take care of their own offspring and have the trust of their own children and society to be the ones to ultimately protect and care for their children are the main culprit of abuse.
Now, are you telling me with the highest level of child abuse…of all kinds. That I’m supposed to believe that the institute of the family is just institutionalized child abuse, that it is just a cesspool? Or, am I supposed to believe that there is some bad apples that disregard responsibility, right behavior, normal and proper behavior, and any kind of moral decency when they hurt their own blood and flesh, innocent blood and flesh?
You should know about bad raps and the media, you own a few of the most notorious dogs in America, pit bulls. Pit bulls in general wouldn’t nary touch a nail to a human. You and I both know this, I have had more money stolen in pit bulls out of my front yard than anything else…combined. Is there bad dogs, yeah, there is. Who’s fault is it? The owners. Is there some bad priests? Yeah, who’s fault is it, the priest is at fault.
The difference, the priest has his own will, a dog does not. The Church doesn’t condone protecting guilty priests. The Pope, although a little later than one might wish, has put into place a policy (with repercussions along with disobedience) that any body who is suspected of abusing a child (with prudence of course, the accusation has to have substance) should not be protected and that if evidence comes about that indicates a priest of child abuse he shall be put on administration leave or as it is commonly referred to, their public faculties are removed (they are allowed to perform private mass, but nothing public). Did some bishops protect guilty priests? Yeah, they should be punished along with their priests.