The Muslim Holocaust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

282

[quote]florelius wrote:

[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]

See the source I post under 'smh’s quote.
Also, for light reading:

283

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

“fact that most human civilizations have operated under some sort of religious dogma throughout most of recorded history,…” ← Oh, should I take your word for that? See the link I posted for florius.

All this crap of religion = evil is a neat little jedi-mind trick, but it’s simply devoid of facts. Because religious people have acted in opposition to the faith they claim, doesn’t make religion evil. If it does, then atheists are more evil because they have done even worse.

284

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

http://thepirata.com/top-mass-murderers-in-history/

285

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, offer your cloak when they take your mantle. Yes, he would. He condemned those that had twisted the faith. St. Paul says that if any angel come and teach false doctrine may he be burn in Hell.

As well, heretics back in the day were a threat to civil society. If say a king was deemed to not have authority over his country the country would likely go into revolt.

G-d ordains government as authority. This is part of the problem with Protestantism is that it denies the Biblical teaching of the authority of the Church, which has obviously lead to no man having authority, not even though who have authority like the Government.

286

[quote]florelius wrote:

[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]

You’re probably right, but they have definitely done things “against” religion.

287

[quote]florelius wrote:

[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]

Stalin 100 million body count.

288

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[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]

You’re probably right, but they have definitely done things “against” religion.[/quote]

the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens.

289

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

All this crap of religion = evil is a neat little jedi-mind trick, but it’s simply devoid of facts. Because religious people have acted in opposition to the faith they claim, doesn’t make religion evil. If it does, then atheists are more evil because they have done even worse.
[/quote]

My claim throughout the entirety of this thread has been the following, or a variation of the following: the world’s major religions, regardless of the intentions of their founders and/or the documents upon which they are based, have at one point or another throughout human history been used by men to justify, instigate, and/or carry our acts of violence and evil.

I have said again and again and a-fucking-gain that this is a reflection upon the nature of man rather than upon the nature of religion in general or any religion in particular. It has befallen Christianity as it has befallen Islam as it has befallen Buddhism as it has befallen Zoroastrianism as it has befallen etc. etc. etc.

Does that argument sound to you like I am saying, as you so eloquently put, “religion=evil”?

290

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

All this crap of religion = evil is a neat little jedi-mind trick, but it’s simply devoid of facts. Because religious people have acted in opposition to the faith they claim, doesn’t make religion evil. If it does, then atheists are more evil because they have done even worse.
[/quote]

My claim throughout the entirety of this thread has been the following, or a variation of the following: the world’s major religions, regardless of the intentions of their founders and/or the documents upon which they are based, have at one point or another throughout human history been used by men to justify, instigate, and/or carry our acts of violence and evil.

I have said again and again and a-fucking-gain that this is a reflection upon the nature of man rather than upon the nature of religion in general or any religion in particular. It has befallen Christianity as it has befallen Islam as it has befallen Buddhism as it has befallen Zoroastrianism as it has befallen etc. etc. etc.

Does that argument sound to you like I am saying, as you so eloquently put, “religion=evil”?[/quote]

good post smh23.

only people that subscribes to a idealistic wiew of history would come to the ignorant conclusion that religion is the root of all evil.

291

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

I agree with you. And no, no way in hell would Jesus have pronounced those death sentences.

292

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

I agree with you. And no, no way in hell would Jesus have pronounced those death sentences.[/quote]

I too agree with this. If I sentence a man to death for holding different religious convictions and then turn him over to the state for execution, I have blood on my hands.

293

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, offer your cloak when they take your mantle. Yes, he would. He condemned those that had twisted the faith. St. Paul says that if any angel come and teach false doctrine may he be burn in Hell.

As well, heretics back in the day were a threat to civil society. If say a king was deemed to not have authority over his country the country would likely go into revolt.

G-d ordains government as authority. This is part of the problem with Protestantism is that it denies the Biblical teaching of the authority of the Church, which has obviously lead to no man having authority, not even though who have authority like the Government.[/quote]

He condemned them, but he didn’t condemn them to death. Big difference.

Also, you’re missing the bigger point of innocents being put to death during the Inquisition. Ok, granted for the sake of argument–if there was someone practicing black witchcraft they maybe deserved a death sentence (for purposes of this argument I am conceding this).

BUT the more important question is how many innocents were condemned to death?? Salem witch hysteria anybody? Only instead of a small town in the Colonies it was an entire country.

Further, I would suggest that Bodyguard’s analogy to political dissidents has much more merit than you are giving it. Most Protestants throughout the early century’s of Protestantism were NOT revolutionaries. They just disagreed with the Catholic institutional dogma (as they saw it). Now, you are telling me that an otherwise productive member of society who happens to have a different belief deserves to be sentenced to death? I think not friend. Hell, they even believed in the same Triune God. And Jesus. They weren’t even Muslims!

294

[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]

Athiests? Athiests, you haven’t been following…The countries the Communists came to power in were Christian and Buddhist countries, so that makes um Christians and Buddhists even though they wanted to wipe out all religion.

That being the standard, I said we should call the United States a Shamanist country, since it was originally inhabited for thousands of years by people following shamans.

295

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Athiests? Athiests, you haven’t been following…The countries the Communists came to power in were Christian and Buddhist countries, so that makes um Christians and Buddhists even though they wanted to wipe out all religion.

That being the standard, I said we should call the United States a Shamanist country, since it was originally inhabited for thousands of years by people following shamans.[/quote]

The examples presented here have been mainly of directly religious violence–the Inquisition, witch trials, the Wars of Reformation, the Crusades, the September 11 attacks, etc.

It was also mentioned that, though the relationship between (for example) Naziism and religion was a complex one, the majority of the soldiers doing the actual killing during WWII were Christian. That point was made by me for the sole purpose of pointing out that the most destructive war in human history was fought primarily in Christendom. I allow that it was not fought because of Christianity but I also believe that if a continent (Europe) defined for centuries by one religion (Christianity) suddenly falls to war and genocide (WWII), that religion is at the very least ineffective in curbing violence and, at the worst, conducive to the creation of a violent socio-political landscape.

The above point is a secondary argument. If you disagree, fine; that doesn’t change the primary concern, which is with religious violence in human history–of which there are enough direct examples (Christian, Muslim, and otherwise) to make your refusal to accept the WWII argument of no consequence. Anyone with a high school degree should be familiar enough with basic history to be able to come up with at least a handful of examples of directly-religious violence in the Christian world.

296

[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]

Lol. Trust me, I could tear those guys up in a coma, if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.

As well, you’re forgetting Russia and Germany and their governments.

297

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

I agree with you. And no, no way in hell would Jesus have pronounced those death sentences.[/quote]

Oh really? Well if you’d meet Jesus in the temple with his bull whip, I’m sure you’d let him know he needs sensitivity training. Same for Paul, same for John and James the Sons of Thunder!

[Site note: When the show “Sons of Anarchy” premiered I was thinking about how similar it was to the title of Sons of Thunder, and I was thinking about getting a tattoo (yes, I know I’m an idiot, but I love irony second only to the Lord…after all I named three of my dogs Anathema) with the same lettering and style, but instead of the Grim Reaper I’d have John and James calling down an Angelic air-strike on the Samaritan Village for their inhospitality to Jesus.]

298

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, offer your cloak when they take your mantle. Yes, he would. He condemned those that had twisted the faith. St. Paul says that if any angel come and teach false doctrine may he be burn in Hell.

As well, heretics back in the day were a threat to civil society. If say a king was deemed to not have authority over his country the country would likely go into revolt.

G-d ordains government as authority. This is part of the problem with Protestantism is that it denies the Biblical teaching of the authority of the Church, which has obviously lead to no man having authority, not even though who have authority like the Government.[/quote]

He condemned them, but he didn’t condemn them to death. Big difference.

Also, you’re missing the bigger point of innocents being put to death during the Inquisition. Ok, granted for the sake of argument–if there was someone practicing black witchcraft they maybe deserved a death sentence (for purposes of this argument I am conceding this).[/quote]

I’m not talking about witchcraft, the Spanish Inquisition squashed that as soon as it tried to start up, that was just people being spooked. I’m talking about heretics here, not witches.

[quote]
BUT the more important question is how many innocents were condemned to death?? Salem witch hysteria anybody?[/quote]

That was the Protestants.

Yeah, Spain had it right, they didn’t do the witches, that was mostly in Northern Germany and other places. I’m not talking about witches though, talking about heretics. Innocent people condemned as heretics, scholars came out a few years ago (I’ll look for the documents) but it seems as if historians have blown it out of proportion.

[quote]

Further, I would suggest that Bodyguard’s analogy to political dissidents has much more merit than you are giving it. Most Protestants throughout the early century’s of Protestantism were NOT revolutionaries. They just disagreed with the Catholic institutional dogma (as they saw it). Now, you are telling me that an otherwise productive member of society who happens to have a different belief deserves to be sentenced to death? I think not friend. Hell, they even believed in the same Triune God. And Jesus. They weren’t even Muslims! [/quote]

If political dissidents you mean treason, yeah it does. What does America do to those who commit treason? Oh…yeah treason is a capital offense punishable by hanging.

Dude…Protestants are revolutionaries (as much as people love that word, I’m not using it in a kind light). The KING OF THE COUNTRY deemed heresy to be an attack on his personal authority over his country. Kings would just burn those suspected of heresy, because it was seen as treason (basically the rejection of the Church’s authority was rejection of all governments legitimacy). And, because most public officials are not theologians, they set up an office of inquisition (which we still have) that had theologians to investigate and to see if someone was a heretic or not so that innocent people would not be burned or killed.

I don’t understand how come other people do not understand this. If you have a Catholic priest and he is preaching heretical ideas that call into question the legitimacy of the King and his authority, do you not think the King is going to do something about it?

The only reason to have an Office of Inquisition is not because the Church really cares about those that do not believe what she says, it is because THE STATE deemed it a CAPITAL OFFENSE to be a HERETIC. This is the truth. If you have a problem with putting heretics to death, go back in time, talk to the King of Spain (long live the King), talk to the Kings who deemed it a capital offense and tell them yourself. The Pope wrote to Spain telling them their Inquisition was going against Church teaching towards the end.

Stop blaming the Church for the actions of the State. The Church doesn’t have decrees to kill heretics or infidels. States did though, however in order to determine if the person was a heretic they need theologians…who were in the Church.

299

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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]

Athiests? Athiests, you haven’t been following…The countries the Communists came to power in were Christian and Buddhist countries, so that makes um Christians and Buddhists even though they wanted to wipe out all religion.

That being the standard, I said we should call the United States a Shamanist country, since it was originally inhabited for thousands of years by people following shamans.[/quote]

The examples presented here have been mainly of directly religious violence–the Inquisition, witch trials, the Wars of Reformation, the Crusades, the September 11 attacks, etc.

It was also mentioned that, though the relationship between (for example) Naziism and religion was a complex one, the majority of the soldiers doing the actual killing during WWII were Christian. That point was made by me for the sole purpose of pointing out that the most destructive war in human history was fought primarily in Christendom. I allow that it was not fought because of Christianity but I also believe that if a continent (Europe) defined for centuries by one religion (Christianity) suddenly falls to war and genocide (WWII), that religion is at the very least ineffective in curbing violence and, at the worst, conducive to the creation of a violent socio-political landscape.

The above point is a secondary argument. If you disagree, fine; that doesn’t change the primary concern, which is with religious violence in human history–of which there are enough direct examples (Christian, Muslim, and otherwise) to make your refusal to accept the WWII argument of no consequence. Anyone with a high school degree should be familiar enough with basic history to be able to come up with at least a handful of examples of directly-religious violence in the Christian world.[/quote]

I never said there wasn’t any religious violence in history.

When did I ever say there wasn’t?

The most destructive war was fought all over the entire globe, from the pacific, to the atlantic, to africa, to the middle east, and to russia. It was not just primarily fought in Christendom.

But once again, I agree with most of your post. Violence in religion. If you really want to see some examples read Muslim history. It was all wars, conquest, violence and algebra during the off season.

300

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The examples presented here have been mainly of directly religious violence–the Inquisition, witch trials, the Wars of Reformation, the Crusades, the September 11 attacks, etc.
[/quote]

(I’m not sure what THE Inquisition is, but) Inquisitions: 2000 by Spain, few thousand outside Spain.
Witch Trials: 26,000 in by Germany
Wars of Reformation: 5000’s
Crusades (besides about the first 3/4th of all the Crusades being just): (let’s go liberal) 2 million
September 11 Attacks: 3000

So, we have a total of…2,039,000 deaths…let’s just go with Hitler (or would you like to go with Stalin?) 6 million (100 million of his own people).

[quote]
It was also mentioned that, though the relationship between (for example) Naziism and religion was a complex one, the majority of the soldiers doing the actual killing during WWII were Christian.[/quote] What was the ideology, and who was commanding it. [quote] That point was made by me for the sole purpose of pointing out that the most destructive war in human history was fought primarily in Christendom. I allow that it was not fought because of Christianity but I also believe that if a continent (Europe) defined for centuries by one religion (Christianity) suddenly falls to war and genocide (WWII), that religion is at the very least ineffective in curbing violence [/quote] Yes, when not followed

[quote] and, at the worst, conducive to the creation of a violent socio-political landscape.

The above point is a secondary argument. If you disagree, fine; that doesn’t change the primary concern, which is with religious violence in human history–of which there are enough direct examples (Christian, Muslim, and otherwise) to make your refusal to accept the WWII argument of no consequence. Anyone with a high school degree should be familiar enough with basic history to be able to come up with at least a handful of examples of directly-religious violence in the Christian world.[/quote]

Yeah, but not on the scale which is atheism specifically the sort which is involved in materialism of the sort that comes from Marxism. Most of what Christians did (Crusades, Inquisition, &c.) was for proper reason (if it was just is another question) at the beginning and lead to something bad. However, starving your country can never start out as good, neither is sending whole countries to their death.