The Muslim Holocaust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
244

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Fuck, do you people read?

look through what I wrote if you want. I specifically state that, if you don’t accept the above argument, there are plenty of examples throughout history of both Christianity and Islam directly bloodying their hands.

My point all along was this: regardless of the intentions of their founders (I think the intentions of Jesus and the Apostles were noble/commendable), men have found ways to twist religions for evil throughout history.

This holds true for Christianity (Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars of Reformation, etc. etc.) as it does for Islam.[/quote]

Ok Ok I agree. I get it. You are correct, sir.

But my point is the Nazis were not Nazi’s for Jesus. They had their own agenda. I just object to calling the Nazi motives, and Communist motives (who were athiest btw) CHRISTIAN.

Just because they happened on Christian lands does not make their (Nazis, Commies) actions any more Christian than the US’s actions Shamanist because our country was built on what was once Native American’s land.

If that were the case, the Iranians should be bitching about The Great Spirit, rather than The Great Satan. Maybe someone should send them a memo.

245

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[The Catholic Church is a cesspool of corruption dating back to the beginning to the present. [/quote]

What about the Orthodox Church? Do you believe they are corrupt as well? Everyone seems to ignore the “other” church from the east.[/quote]

Yeah, there is nothing like the Catholic Church in the world. And, like it’s said we’re a city on a hill, light to the world. Everyone sees us. The Eastern Church and all other congregations (protestants) are such a small and unconnected bunch that there is hardly a way to connect one congregation to another. So, when the pastor of so-and-so congregation is found with kiddie porn, it’s just so-and-so congregation and doesn’t even hit headlines on the local 6 o’clock news. The media gets wind of a Catholic priest suspected of something…first page, headlines across the world. As well, the incentive of money is there as well like Jeffrey Anderson and Jeff Herman who have let comments slip from the lips that makes it obvious they are not in it for the justice but the money.[/quote]

Unless, of course, it’s a small parish with 60 members total who want to burn Korans…then it makes the news.

246

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Save some of that righteous indignation for granpa, please.[/quote]

But my grandpa did not walk in Jesus footsteps, did not claim to be christs represantative on this here planet or lecture all of mankind on what is right and what is wrong.

Nor did he, as far as I know, believe in an afterlife were kind and noble actions were rewarded.

247

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Fuck, do you people read?

look through what I wrote if you want. I specifically state that, if you don’t accept the above argument, there are plenty of examples throughout history of both Christianity and Islam directly bloodying their hands.

My point all along was this: regardless of the intentions of their founders (I think the intentions of Jesus and the Apostles were noble/commendable), men have found ways to twist religions for evil throughout history.

This holds true for Christianity (Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars of Reformation, etc. etc.) as it does for Islam.[/quote]

Wow! The Crusades and Inquisitions was started for noble and good reason and some were never for evil reasons. If you want to throw shit then we can take it to another thread to discuss this, but just to presume that the Crusades and the Inquisitions were bad because some pseudo-historian shows that people were killed, that doesn’t make it bad.[/quote]

What is interesting to me Chris, is the revisionists claim the Crusaders were blood thirsty, while the Muslims were noble. And they point to the siege of Jerusalem, when the Crusaders conquered it and killed everyone inside. Then, when Saladin re-took the town he pardoned everyone. Yeah, great guy. chalk 1 up.

But a century later, Jerusalem fell once agian into Christian hands. The muslims, from modern day Afghanistan, who were driven into the area by Genghis Khan’s troops, proceeded to sack Jerusalem and…you guessed it, killed everyone in the city. So they were just as bad. But you never read about it anywhere.

Hey BG, you wanna bitch about the American press? How come that second story’s not in the PC history books?

248

[quote]smh23 wrote:
(some idiot thought I was saying ‘all Christians are evil’). [/quote]

Never said that. Just was wondering if some idiot would agree.

And you DID NOT.

The closest thing I got was someone saying Buddhists, the Orthodox and followers of Confucius were evil because they happened to live in lands which were taken over by Godless Communists, unfortunately.

249

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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]

Perhaps freedom and democracy are more important than a “peace” maintained through oppression.[/quote]

Perhaps, but who are you to make that choice for other people?

Perhaps submitting to the will of Allah is more important than even freedom, in fact, that might be true freedom.

Perhaps those evil Muslims only want to liberate you, and yet you do not greet them with flowers.

[/quote]

Ah, but there were plenty of happy faces & flowers – at least at first – in Iraq, and now in Libya.

Besides, after people are free, THEY can decide for themselves what they want.

Freedom negates no option.

That can’t be said about anything else.

Freedom can’t be bad.[/quote]

Says you ,bu tlook where your freedom leads you!

Your women no longer know their rightful place, they order men around, young girls strut around and distract young men from their studies and their prayers.

You value houses and cars more than you God and your families!

You call this freedom?

I call this demonic possession and you should thank the brave young warriors who give their lifes to show you what power lies in true faith.
[/quote]

No, your “freedom” tells what me is “right.”

Mine tells you to decide that for yourself.

Mine does not preclude yours.

Yours prohibits mine.

Is that what you want for yourself?

Fine with me. Help yourself.

You can’t say the same to me, though.

I have every right to be possessed, if I so chose.

Just as you are possessed by your “God.”[/quote]

Funny, because right now people are killing other people to spread “freedom” in your name, which makes choosing rather difficult.

If you make more than 80k a year they even do it with your money.

[/quote]

Eh, temporarily, maybe.

But they’ll get their chance once freedom is established

Just like in much of Europe and in Jaoan.[/quote]

How do you know that “they will get their chance” once YOUR version of YOUR freedom is established?

For all we know, your version of freedom could be anathema to theirs.

I would also like to point out that the clkaim of the univerality of human rights is of course a totalitarian and authoritarian doctrinbe and the very same people who want to spread their belief system all around the globe go apeshit when Muslims try to solve internal disputes in their own courts, according to their own rules.

250

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Save some of that righteous indignation for granpa, please.[/quote]

But my grandpa did not walk in Jesus footsteps, did not claim to be christs represantative on this here planet or lecture all of mankind on what is right and what is wrong.

Nor did he, as far as I know, believe in an afterlife were kind and noble actions were rewarded.

[/quote]

Were those family photos of your grandpa at Easter in his travels to Yugoslavia in 1942?

Wait a minute, didn’t the Waffen SS believe in Vahallah? Possibly he’s drinking with Odin right now.

251

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Save some of that righteous indignation for granpa, please.[/quote]

But my grandpa did not walk in Jesus footsteps, did not claim to be christs represantative on this here planet or lecture all of mankind on what is right and what is wrong.

Nor did he, as far as I know, believe in an afterlife were kind and noble actions were rewarded.

[/quote]

Were those family photos of your grandpa at Easter in his travels to Yugoslavia in 1942?

Wait a minute, didn’t the Waffen SS believe in Vahallah? Possibly he’s drinking with Odin right now.

[/quote]

I dunno, do you get to Valhalla if you die in a partisan ambush?

252

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Oh, yes. I forgot. Arm chair moral theorist here. Well, you’re wrong. Someone is not obligated morally to put their lives in danger in such situations.

So, the Pope did not directly condemn the Nazi party while in the middle of their territory…

Instead of rocking the boat any worse than he was (he definitely wasn’t loyal to Hitler), he kept neutral publicly, and quietly hid and condoned the hiding of Jews from the Nazi party on Catholic property and on private property.

The Pope thought it more prudent (something most people today lack) to not set up a front assault on the Axis, and instead remain silent while acting against the Axis.

Yes, definitely Hitler’s Pope. Bullshit.

253

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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]

Perhaps freedom and democracy are more important than a “peace” maintained through oppression.[/quote]

Perhaps, but who are you to make that choice for other people?

Perhaps submitting to the will of Allah is more important than even freedom, in fact, that might be true freedom.

Perhaps those evil Muslims only want to liberate you, and yet you do not greet them with flowers.

[/quote]

Ah, but there were plenty of happy faces & flowers – at least at first – in Iraq, and now in Libya.

Besides, after people are free, THEY can decide for themselves what they want.

Freedom negates no option.

That can’t be said about anything else.

Freedom can’t be bad.[/quote]

Says you ,bu tlook where your freedom leads you!

Your women no longer know their rightful place, they order men around, young girls strut around and distract young men from their studies and their prayers.

You value houses and cars more than you God and your families!

You call this freedom?

I call this demonic possession and you should thank the brave young warriors who give their lifes to show you what power lies in true faith.
[/quote]

No, your “freedom” tells what me is “right.”

Mine tells you to decide that for yourself.

Mine does not preclude yours.

Yours prohibits mine.

Is that what you want for yourself?

Fine with me. Help yourself.

You can’t say the same to me, though.

I have every right to be possessed, if I so chose.

Just as you are possessed by your “God.”[/quote]

Funny, because right now people are killing other people to spread “freedom” in your name, which makes choosing rather difficult.

If you make more than 80k a year they even do it with your money.

[/quote]

Eh, temporarily, maybe.

But they’ll get their chance once freedom is established

Just like in much of Europe and in Jaoan.[/quote]

How do you know that “they will get their chance” once YOUR version of YOUR freedom is established?

For all we know, your version of freedom could be anathema to theirs.

I would also like to point out that the clkaim of the univerality of human rights is of course a totalitarian and authoritarian doctrinbe and the very same people who want to spread their belief system all around the globe go apeshit when Muslims try to solve internal disputes in their own courts, according to their own rules.[/quote]

Let them do what they want, just don’t push your shit on me. I’m willing to bet the Taliban could have kept their “caliphate” in Afghanistan, had they not went apeshit Jihad on everyone. We had no quarrel with them, shit, a decade ago we were the friends of Afghanistan. Why the fuck did they attack us anyway.

One of Bin Laden’s son disowned him and is asking the same question.

254

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Save some of that righteous indignation for granpa, please.[/quote]

But my grandpa did not walk in Jesus footsteps, did not claim to be christs represantative on this here planet or lecture all of mankind on what is right and what is wrong.

Nor did he, as far as I know, believe in an afterlife were kind and noble actions were rewarded.

[/quote]

Were those family photos of your grandpa at Easter in his travels to Yugoslavia in 1942?

Wait a minute, didn’t the Waffen SS believe in Vahallah? Possibly he’s drinking with Odin right now.

[/quote]

I dunno, do you get to Valhalla if you die in a partisan ambush?

[/quote]

Sure.

255

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Fuck, do you people read?

look through what I wrote if you want. I specifically state that, if you don’t accept the above argument, there are plenty of examples throughout history of both Christianity and Islam directly bloodying their hands.

My point all along was this: regardless of the intentions of their founders (I think the intentions of Jesus and the Apostles were noble/commendable), men have found ways to twist religions for evil throughout history.

This holds true for Christianity (Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars of Reformation, etc. etc.) as it does for Islam.[/quote]

Wow! The Crusades and Inquisitions was started for noble and good reason and some were never for evil reasons. If you want to throw shit then we can take it to another thread to discuss this, but just to presume that the Crusades and the Inquisitions were bad because some pseudo-historian shows that people were killed, that doesn’t make it bad.[/quote]

I said bloodshed. Whether you think they began for good reasons is irrelevant. Blood was shed, and that has been my one and only claim all along. And it is not deniable.

Pseudo-historians? Read any reputable history of Medieval Europe and you will be presented with myriad examples of violent religious conflict. I’m not trying to make any larger claims (some idiot thought I was saying ‘all Christians are evil’). I’m simply talking about religion being used by men for evil.[/quote]

Well, yeah on evil man. And, yeah, there is definite historical revision and guessing. It was only released like 3-4 years ago the records for the inquisitions, so it was just speculation on there part. The inquisition was an office of mercy than it was bloodshed, the inquisition itself did not really kill anyone themselves, it was the state that did. But later topic.

256

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Swastika-vs-Cross.pdf

Brother Chris, Orion, read this.[/quote]

So?

One cleric who acted against the expressed wishes of his own church.

I think we would find one or the other Iman who does the same.

[/quote]

Wishes of his own Church? You mean the Pope that saved thousands of Jews…also was a Nazi sympathizer…

And Nazi’s like teh gay butt sex. If we’re going to just say claims that have no basis, I’m down. As much as people hate Catholics, they hate Nazis more. They hate Catholics because we speak on morals and no one likes there dirt talked about. They hate Nazis because they are evil.[/quote]

He saved thousand of Jews.

How kind of him.

And yet he remained quiet when millions where killed.

And he, unlike many others, knew.

Did he clothe in a robe and sandals and turned up at a trainstation demanding to share the fate of the Jews that were deported from Italy?

He most certainly did not.

Did he make public what he knew, not regarding his own safety?

Nope, not really.

Did he excommunicate any priest, bishop or military chaplain who took part in these atrocities?

Oh no, he was full of understanding.

Did he prevent his own church from smuggling nazis to latin america?

No, of course not.

Quite the sheperd, and entirely christ like.

He not only failed as a pope, not even only as a christian, he failed as a human being.

But, and lets try to focus on the positive side of things, the concorde struck with Hitler still stands, providing quite a stream of income.

[/quote]

Oh, yes. I forgot. Arm chair moral theorist here. Well, you’re wrong. Someone is not obligated morally to put their lives in danger in such situations.

So, the Pope did not directly condemn the Nazi party while in the middle of their territory…

Instead of rocking the boat any worse than he was (he definitely wasn’t loyal to Hitler), he kept neutral publicly, and quietly hid and condoned the hiding of Jews from the Nazi party on Catholic property and on private property.

The Pope thought it more prudent (something most people today lack) to not set up a front assault on the Axis, and instead remain silent while acting against the Axis.

Yes, definitely Hitler’s Pope. Bullshit.[/quote]

Lol.

So he believes in an afterlife, where good deeds are rewarded, and he is the representative of Jesus on this planet but he can of course act like any other run of the mill schmuck that is out there.

Just one question, no actually two:

What doe we need the Catholic Church for then and how is it special?

257

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That article is a hysterical load of bullshit based upon wild estimates. Here’s something to compare those number to. Germany lost 5 million dead in ww2. There were bodies everywhere. We carpet bombed Germany for years and their army was in massive battles involving over a million men to kill that many. Yet somehow we have killed one and a half times as many people in Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the bodies neatly disposed of. This ridiculous article is not worth debating. [/quote]

i noticed this too. if the true numbers were even remotely close to that, baghdad would have piles of bodies as far as the eye can see.

258

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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]

Perhaps freedom and democracy are more important than a “peace” maintained through oppression.[/quote]

Perhaps, but who are you to make that choice for other people?

Perhaps submitting to the will of Allah is more important than even freedom, in fact, that might be true freedom.

Perhaps those evil Muslims only want to liberate you, and yet you do not greet them with flowers.

[/quote]

Ah, but there were plenty of happy faces & flowers – at least at first – in Iraq, and now in Libya.

Besides, after people are free, THEY can decide for themselves what they want.

Freedom negates no option.

That can’t be said about anything else.

Freedom can’t be bad.[/quote]

Says you ,bu tlook where your freedom leads you!

Your women no longer know their rightful place, they order men around, young girls strut around and distract young men from their studies and their prayers.

You value houses and cars more than you God and your families!

You call this freedom?

I call this demonic possession and you should thank the brave young warriors who give their lifes to show you what power lies in true faith.
[/quote]

No, your “freedom” tells what me is “right.”

Mine tells you to decide that for yourself.

Mine does not preclude yours.

Yours prohibits mine.

Is that what you want for yourself?

Fine with me. Help yourself.

You can’t say the same to me, though.

I have every right to be possessed, if I so chose.

Just as you are possessed by your “God.”[/quote]

Funny, because right now people are killing other people to spread “freedom” in your name, which makes choosing rather difficult.

If you make more than 80k a year they even do it with your money.

[/quote]

Eh, temporarily, maybe.

But they’ll get their chance once freedom is established

Just like in much of Europe and in Jaoan.[/quote]

How do you know that “they will get their chance” once YOUR version of YOUR freedom is established?

For all we know, your version of freedom could be anathema to theirs.

I would also like to point out that the clkaim of the univerality of human rights is of course a totalitarian and authoritarian doctrinbe and the very same people who want to spread their belief system all around the globe go apeshit when Muslims try to solve internal disputes in their own courts, according to their own rules.[/quote]

Let them do what they want, just don’t push your shit on me. I’m willing to bet the Taliban could have kept their “caliphate” in Afghanistan, had they not went apeshit Jihad on everyone. We had no quarrel with them, shit, a decade ago we were the friends of Afghanistan. Why the fuck did they attack us anyway.

One of Bin Laden’s son disowned him and is asking the same question. [/quote]

The Taliban actually kept their shit in Afghanistan.

One tribe had Bin Laden as a guest and they did offer to turn him over to their American allies if and when they were ready to make a convicing case, which, unfortunately, was never made.

All other Afghans were bombed though.

259

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Fuck, do you people read?

look through what I wrote if you want. I specifically state that, if you don’t accept the above argument, there are plenty of examples throughout history of both Christianity and Islam directly bloodying their hands.

My point all along was this: regardless of the intentions of their founders (I think the intentions of Jesus and the Apostles were noble/commendable), men have found ways to twist religions for evil throughout history.

This holds true for Christianity (Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars of Reformation, etc. etc.) as it does for Islam.[/quote]

Wow! The Crusades and Inquisitions was started for noble and good reason and some were never for evil reasons. If you want to throw shit then we can take it to another thread to discuss this, but just to presume that the Crusades and the Inquisitions were bad because some pseudo-historian shows that people were killed, that doesn’t make it bad.[/quote]

I said bloodshed. Whether you think they began for good reasons is irrelevant. Blood was shed, and that has been my one and only claim all along. And it is not deniable.

Pseudo-historians? Read any reputable history of Medieval Europe and you will be presented with myriad examples of violent religious conflict. I’m not trying to make any larger claims (some idiot thought I was saying ‘all Christians are evil’). I’m simply talking about religion being used by men for evil.[/quote]

Well, yeah on evil man. And, yeah, there is definite historical revision and guessing. It was only released like 3-4 years ago the records for the inquisitions, so it was just speculation on there part. The inquisition was an office of mercy than it was bloodshed, the inquisition itself did not really kill anyone themselves, it was the state that did. But later topic.[/quote]

You are right about the inquisition not directly killing. But condemning a man to death and then handing him to the ‘secular’ authorities to be killed qualifies as bloodying your hands in my book.

I’ll repeat that it was the evil in man and not the evil in religion that was responsible for this.