[quote]orion wrote:
Lol.
So he believes in an afterlife.
[/quote]
Yeah, what’s your point. He thought he’d do better without provoking the Germans. At least he did something.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
You do realise the only reason they had an inquisitions was because the kings deemed it a capital offense to be a heretic? That the kings deemed heretics a threat to their authority?
The Inquisition was there to determine if they were guilty or not. The Inquisition was usually deemed as being a group of softies, letting people off with a don’t do that again. Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
Funny fact, when lay people came with their pitch forks and torches for the the Office of Inquisition, they weren’t there to stop them they were there to threaten them if they didn’t do their job of finding the heretics. If the Office of Inquisition just dismissed every case all alike (like some folks say they should have) the King would have gone back to “safety measures” and burned every suspected heretic at the stake.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
You do realise the only reason they had an inquisitions was because the kings deemed it a capital offense to be a heretic? That the kings deemed heretics a threat to their authority?
The Inquisition was there to determine if they were guilty or not. The Inquisition was usually deemed as being a group of softies, letting people off with a don’t do that again. Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
Funny fact, when lay people came with their pitch forks and torches for the the Office of Inquisition, they weren’t there to stop them they were there to threaten them if they didn’t do their job of finding the heretics. If the Office of Inquisition just dismissed every case all alike (like some folks say they should have) the King would have gone back to “safety measures” and burned every suspected heretic at the stake.[/quote]
So Innozenz VIII never published the summis desiderantes affectibus and the dominican Heimrich Kramer never published the malleus maleficarum?
Both were not instrumental in witch trials, did not authorize trials against witches, were not the only documents that acknowledged the sheer existence of witches, against church doctrine up to this point.
The occasional witch trials, which where condemned as superstition by the church until then did not increase afterwards after?
Witch trials were not used as a weapon against protestants?
Interesting.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Lol.
So he believes in an afterlife.
[/quote]
Yeah, what’s your point. He thought he’d do better without provoking the Germans. At least he did something.[/quote]
My point is that the self proclaimed proxy for Jesus had a chance of proving his faith and failed. Given that he was an old man and allegedly believes that life on earth is just a transition to something else this was his chance to prove his faith.
A surprising number of Muslim goatherders are willing to die because of their faith and he hid in his Roman pallazi like a frightened old woman.
I am sorry, but when you wont stand up for your beliefs when it counts, I am not really interested in hearing about them when its all safe and cozy to chastise people for not living up to your dogmatic mores.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Now you’re just being absurd.
You can argue the merits of Islam all day long, but saying that it leads to “freedom” – at least in as much as that is defined as the ability to decide the course and nature of one’s life for oneself – is just plain stupid.
“Submission” (that is “Islam”) means just that: Doing only what another says.
As for your last paragraph, well, maybe the issue of how those courts and rules were established is important. If that woman who gets told she has no right to leave her husband, or to inherit an equal proportion of the wealth, had no say in who the “judge” is, that’s nothing but oppression, no matter is “Islamic” it is.
Again, it’s really simple: Let each person decide for himself. Nothing else will or can block oppression carried out for selfish gains. [/quote]
Well, please take that up with Thunderbolt who is an expert on what freedoms are reasonable and what freedoms are unreasonable.
Surely violating Allahs eternal laws is an unreasonable use of your freedom.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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.
[/quote]
It’s amazing how you become Mr. Naive when it suits you.
Not to mention the fact that that’s not how it recall it happening… Source, please?[/quote]
Pakistan delivered an ultimatum to Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers today Ã??Ã?¢?? hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in last Tuesday’s terrorist attacks on America, or face massive retaliation by the US and its allies.
Pakistan delivered an ultimatum to Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers today Ã??Ã?¢?? hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in last Tuesday’s terrorist attacks on America, or face massive retaliation by the US and its allies.
Yesterday President George Bush’s top advisers declared acomprehensive and open-ended war to stamp out the terrorist organisation, which they said embraced dozens of countries, including their own.
After intense diplomatic pressure from Washington, a delegation of senior Pakistani officials went to the Afghan capital, Kabul, today to present the Taliban leadership with the demand to surrender the Saudi-born dissident, who is blamed for the suicide attacks that are believed to have caused more than 5,000 deaths.
Early indications were that the Taliban position was unchanged and that Mr bin Laden would not be handed over.
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, called on Taliban leaders yesterday “to help us destroy” Mr bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, warning that they faced the wrath of America if they did not expel him from Afghanistan.
Taliban “will be held accountable for the help they have given the organisation”, Mr Powell said on CNN.
The choice for the Taliban, he said, was “either help us rip them up” or suffer “the full wrath of the United States and other countries”.
The magazine said the U.S. demand to surrender bin Laden was made to Taliban Deputy Foreign Minister Abdul Jalil at his meeting with senior U.S. counter-terrorism officials in Frankfurt in the second week of November.
The U.S. has warned that Taliban military assets such as airports, ammunition dumps and military bases may be targeted if bin Laden is not handed over, the magazine reported.
Meanwhile, Washington is pressing for tougher sanctions to be imposed on the Taliban by the United Nations Security Council, probably in December, the magazine added.
The Taliban has said it has no proof of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism and cannot hand over a guest to his enemies.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/attacks/afghanistan/metimes_taliban_defies_bush.htm
Afghan’s ruling Taliban on Friday defied US ultimatums and preparations for war, saying it was not prepared to surrender Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden to the United States.
“Without evidence, no,” Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef told reporters in Islamabad when asked if the Taliban would bow to intense US pressure to extradite the main suspect in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
“Our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it. We are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in the light of the evidence,” Zaeef said.
The Taliban has stated that any trial process would have to be instigated by the Afghan Supreme Court, with senior Muslim clerics from three members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference participating as observers.
Handing over bin Laden in the current situation would be “an insult to Islam,” Zaeef said.
Hours later, Pakistan appealed to the Taliban to consider the consequences for the Afghan people if it ignored an edict from Afghanistan’s religious leaders recommending that bin Laden be asked to leave the country voluntarily.
U.S., Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show
During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda’s deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents.
The newly declassified documents, posted Thursday on the National Archives Web site, provide a fascinating glimpse into U.S. diplomacy exerted on Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban – a regime officially unrecognized by Washington – nearly three years before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
According to the documents, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, Alan Eastham Jr., met with Wakil Ahmed, a close aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, in November and December 1998. That was just months after the August al Qaeda attacks that killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
“It is unbelievable that this small man did this to you,” Ahmed said during their meeting on December 19, 1998, according to the documents.
Ahmed told Eastham that he spoke with Omar about bin Laden and that the Taliban still considered the Saudi exile “innocent.”
During a meeting between Ahmed and Eastham on November 28, 1998, just days after the Taliban’s supreme court cleared bin Laden of terrorist activities, Ahmed said one possibility “would be for the U.S. to kill him or arrange for bin Laden to be assassinated.”
Ahmed “said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be little the Taliban could do to prevent it,” according to the documents.
Another alternative, Ahmed said, would be for the United States to provide the Taliban with cruise missiles to have “the situation resolved in this way.” Ahmed also noted that expelling bin Laden likely would result in the Taliban regime being overthrown, according to the documents.
And while Ahmed suggested a possible assassination of bin Laden, he also “urged the U.S. not to bomb Afghanistan again” as Washington did in the weeks following the embassy bombings. Ahmed “asked instead for a new U.S. proposal aimed at resolving the matter,” the documents said.
Ahmed expressed anger about the cruise missile attacks ordered by President Clinton on al Qaeda training camps in Khost, Afghanistan, targeting bin Laden after the embassy bombings. Twenty-two Afghans, including members of al Qaeda, were killed in the attacks.
“If Kandahar could have retaliated with similar strikes against Washington, it would have,” Ahmed said, according to the documents.
“I consider you as murderers of Afghans,” Ahmed told Eastham. “The U.S. said bin Laden had killed innocent people, but had not the U.S. killed innocent Afghans in Khost too? Was this not a crime?”
The declassified State Department documents were cables recapping the meetings and outlining the U.S. position on bin Laden. They were originally sent to U.S. officials in Washington; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Peshawar, Pakistan; Cairo, Egypt; Abu Dhabi, UAE; Lahore, Pakistan; and the United Nations
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=2612
Taliban spurns Bush’s ultimatum on bin Laden
“We are not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence,” Kabul’s ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, told reporters in Islamabad. He said an edict by leading Afghan clerics on Thursday declaring bin Laden should be persuaded to leave the country “whenever possible” was not binding on the government.
…
Tens of thousands of Afghans, including Taliban officials, have streamed out of major cities for the relative safety of the countryside and for the borders of Pakistan and Iran amid growing expectations of a punishing U.S. military strike. Zaeef, speaking through an interpreter, said the Taliban would never surrender if the United States launched attacks on their Central Asia nation and that Muslims had an obligation to respond with jihad, or holy war.
“It would be a showdown of might,” he said. "We will never surrender to evil and might. On Thursday, the council or shura of clerics said bin Laden, a 44-year-old multimillionaire based in Afghanistan as a “guest” of the Taliban, should be persuaded to leave. Zaeef said the move was only “a suggestion”. “If Osama voluntarily leaves Afghanistan, he may,” Zaeef told the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press agency.
“The ulema’s (clerics’) decision was not to forcibly (remove him), or that he must leave Afghanistan. Rather, the ulema’s decision was that he should be persuaded to leave.” Aiming to head off charges he is waging war on Islam, Bush called bin Laden’s militants traitors to the peaceful teachings of their faith and said America’s fight was not with Muslims.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26410.htm
A Pakistani official told the U.S. that â??Pakistan â??will always support the Talibanâ??â??. This â??policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border.â?? But the Taliban were â??â??looking for a way outâ?? of the problem with bin Ladenâ??. The U.S. was urged to â??find a way to compromise with the Talibanâ??, and possible â??ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasseâ?? were suggested, including â??the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) countryâ??, â??U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penaltyâ??, and â??a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Ladenâ??.[2]
It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued â??until just days beforeâ?? the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, â??State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.â??
Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, â??We never heard what they were trying to sayâ?¦. We had no common language. Ours was, â??Give up bin Laden.â?? They were saying, â??Do something to help us give him up.â??â?? Bearden added, â??I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,â?? but this â??never clickedâ?? with U.S. officials.
Michael Malinowski, a State Department official involved in the talks, acknowledged, â??I would say, â??Hey, give up bin Laden,â?? and they would say, â??Noâ?¦. Show us the evidenceâ??â??, a request U.S. officials deemed unreasonable.[3]
According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored. A U.S. official did not deny that such warnings were issued, but told BBC rather that it was dismissed because â??We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuffâ??.[4]
Indeed, underscoring Muttawakilâ??s stated reasons for having delivered the threat warning to the U.S., a State Department document from June 2001 obtained by INTELWIRE.com[5] showed that the U.S. had warned the Taliban â??that they will be held directly responsible for any loss of life that occurs from terrorist actions related to terrorists who have trained in Afghanistan or use Afghanistan as a base of planning operations.â??[6] The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef responded that â??the Taliban do not see Americans as their enemies and that there are no threats to Americans coming from the Taliban. Nontheless, said Zaeef, â??We will do our best to follow up and stopâ?? any threat.â?? With regard to bin Laden, â??Zaeef emphasized that the Talibanâ??s relationship with UBL [Usama/Osama bin Laden] and others is based not on enmity against the United States, but on â??culture.â??â??[7]
Rejecting the Taliban offers to have bin Laden handed over, the U.S. instead pursued a policy of regime change well prior to the 9/11 attacks. Janeâ??s Information Group reported in March 2001 that â??India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistanâ??s Taliban regimeâ??, which included support for Afghanistanâ??s Northern Alliance, including â??information and logistic supportâ?? from Washington.[8] Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik told the BBC that he had been told by senior U.S. officials in July 2001 at a U.N.-sponsored summit in Berlin that military action would be taken against the Taliban by the middle of October. Preparations had already been coordinated with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Naik also â??said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.â??[9]
A newly released document dated August 30, 2001 shows that Pakistan was continuing to urge the U.S. â??to maintain open channels to the Taliban.â?? Pakistani officials denied that their support for the Taliban included military assistance. When asked â??why Pakistan supports the Talibanâ??, an official replied, â??We donâ??t support but inter-act with the Talibanâ??. Pressed further on why Pakistan continued â??to give the Taliban international diplomatic support and to press the USG [United States Government] to engage with the Taliban?â?? the Pakistanis â??reiterated that the Taliban are the effective rulers of at least 90 percent of Afghanistan, that they enjoy significant popular support because they ended the banditry and anarchy that once bedeviled the country, and that the instant success of the opium poppy production ban underscored â?¦ the reality and effectiveness of Taliban authority.â?? If it wasnâ??t for â??external supportâ?? for the Northern Alliance, it â??would collapse in a matter of days.â??[10]
Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told â??bluntlyâ?? that â??There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban.â?? The U.S. was already prepared for military action and â??believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.â?? The U.S. was â??fairly sureâ?? that bin Laden â??and his Al Qida network of terroristsâ?? were guilty.[11]
The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistanâ??s cooperation was expected â??should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this networkâ??.[12]
Mahmud conveyed the message to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and reported back to Armitage that â??the â??response was not negative on all these pointsâ??.â?? The Taliban was to convene a grand council to discuss the U.S.â??s terms. Mahmud said he had â??framed the decision to Mullah Omar and the other Afghans as essentially choosing between one man and his safe haven versus the well-being of 25 million citizens of Afghanistanâ?? and that they were â??now engaged in â??deep introspectionâ?? about their decisions.â??[13]
The BBC reported on the Pakistani talks with the Taliban, noting that the Taliban were â??demanding proof of his involvement in the terror attacks on the USâ?? before they would consider handing over Osama bin Laden, who issued a statement saying, â??The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done thisâ??.[14] CNN similarly reported that the Taliban was â??refusing to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involvedâ?? in the 9/11 attacks. Ambassador Abdul Salam Zaeef said â??that deporting him without proof would amount to an â??insult to Islam.â??â?? But, he added, â??We are ready to cooperate if we are shown evidence.â?? U.S. officials said evidence gathered linking bin Laden to other terrorist attacks were all the proof that was needed, but declined to provide evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.[15]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
[/quote]
Look man, that is my point. That, for me, is blood on their hands.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
You do realise the only reason they had an inquisitions was because the kings deemed it a capital offense to be a heretic? That the kings deemed heretics a threat to their authority?
The Inquisition was there to determine if they were guilty or not. The Inquisition was usually deemed as being a group of softies, letting people off with a don’t do that again. Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
Funny fact, when lay people came with their pitch forks and torches for the the Office of Inquisition, they weren’t there to stop them they were there to threaten them if they didn’t do their job of finding the heretics. If the Office of Inquisition just dismissed every case all alike (like some folks say they should have) the King would have gone back to “safety measures” and burned every suspected heretic at the stake.[/quote]
So Innozenz VIII never published the summis desiderantes affectibus and the dominican Heimrich Kramer never published the malleus maleficarum?
Both were not instrumental in witch trials, did not authorize trials against witches, were not the only documents that acknowledged the sheer existence of witches, against church doctrine up to this point.
The occasional witch trials, which where condemned as superstition by the church until then did not increase afterwards after?
Witch trials were not used as a weapon against protestants?
Interesting.
[/quote]
Except the Protestants were using their own trials against the witches. I don’t know much about the witch trials in and of themselves.
[quote]orion wrote:
My point is that the self proclaimed proxy for Jesus had a chance of proving his faith and failed.
[/quote]
How did he fail? Explain this to me?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
[/quote]
Look man, that is my point. That, for me, is blood on their hands.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying the judge and jury who convicts a murder has blood on their hands. Heresy was deemed a capital crime by the king, so instead of burning everyone suspected of heresy, they set up the office of inquisition to determine who was actual heretics and to let those go who weren’t heretics.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying the judge and jury who convicts a murder has blood on their hands. Heresy was deemed a capital crime by the king, so instead of burning everyone suspected of heresy, they set up the office of inquisition to determine who was actual heretics and to let those go who weren’t heretics.[/quote]
Actually it’s much closer to saying the judge that convicts a political dissident or innocent man has blood on their hands. Would Jesus have pronounced such verdicts?
[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]
Again, since we’re throwing stones here. No one can compete with the crimes against humanity that Atheist have leveled on this world on the basis of “Imagine there’s no religion”. Yeah, that worked really, well.
[quote]pat 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]
Again, since we’re throwing stones here. No one can compete with the crimes against humanity that Atheist have leveled on this world on the basis of “Imagine there’s no religion”. Yeah, that worked really, well.
[/quote]
Nobody have done shit in the name of atheisme.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
[/quote]
Look man, that is my point. That, for me, is blood on their hands.[/quote]
Every group, nation, political party, religion or non religion, club, idealist state, everyone has blood on their hands. Everybody wants to believe that what they believe holds the moral high ground, which is bullshit, somebody who believe like you killed somebody else. What is true is that people who hate religion, has the most blood of anybody, by a long, long way. It’s just a plain fact.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Did they find people guilty? Yeah, they did. Where those people killed because they were heretics? Yeah.
[/quote]
Look man, that is my point. That, for me, is blood on their hands.[/quote]
Every group, nation, political party, religion or non religion, club, idealist state, everyone has blood on their hands. Everybody wants to believe that what they believe holds the moral high ground, which is bullshit, somebody who believe like you killed somebody else. What is true is that people who hate religion, has the most blood of anybody, by a long, long way. It’s just a plain fact.[/quote]
would you like to back up that fact with a good source?
And one more thing, dont mix up communism with atheism. Stalin did not order people killed in the name of atheism.
ps. I am not an atheist btw. I am a agnostic.
[quote]pat wrote:
Again, since we’re throwing stones here. No one can compete with the crimes against humanity that Atheist have leveled on this world on the basis of “Imagine there’s no religion”. Yeah, that worked really, well.
[/quote]
I’m not an atheist but can you explain the above more fully? Has there been prejudice, persecution and war waged because of conflicts rooted in atheism?
I would agree that imagining there is no God could be problematic; I see nothing wrong with doing away with “religion” itself.
[quote]pat wrote:
What is true is that people who hate religion, has the most blood of anybody, by a long, long way. It’s just a plain fact.[/quote]
Is it?
Under normal circumstances I would doubt such a statement, especially in light of the fact that most human civilizations have operated under some sort of religious dogma throughout most of recorded history, which in turn would lead me to believe that most people who have lived since the dawn of civilization have ostensibly subscribed to some sort of religious belief, which in turn would lead me to the conclusion that most human activity–including war–has throughout history been undertaken by people of some sort of religious conviction.
I would also, under normal circumstances, further doubt your credibility in light of your apparent inability to write in grammatically correct English.
But since you tell me “it’s just plain fact,” I suppose I’m obliged to ignore my instincts and graciously accept your golden nuggets of incontrovertible wisdom.
[quote]pat wrote:
Every group, nation, political party, religion or non religion, club, idealist state, everyone has blood on their hands. Everybody wants to believe that what they believe holds the moral high ground, which is bullshit, somebody who believe like you killed somebody else. What is true is that people who hate religion, has the most blood of anybody, by a long, long way. It’s just a plain fact.[/quote]
How do you support the above fact?
And yes, I concur; man hates, continues to hate and has blood on its hands. I ask you then, how has religion served mankind? If anything, it’s largely only served the adherents to a particular faith and hasn’t done much, if anything, to serve mankind as a whole.