CHRISTIANITY HATERS

[papachulo10]

sorry messed up on the posting
I had a psuedo-double posting.

[data_link]

papachulo10: If the bible is written by man (it is), and is therefore filled with mistakes, personal opinions, and reflections of the fucked-up culture of a primitive society (it is), then what is the point of reading it? If you aren't knowledgable enough to filter out the good parts from that mountain of crap, then you would be better off reading something that contains less crap. If you are that good, then you already know more about morality than the bible can possibly teach you. Therefore, the bible is still worthless.

[Durandal]

Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Yes, the ten commandments, which command the faithful to tear down the sacred objects of other cultures, decry freedom of speech and religion, and place respect for your fellow man at a lower priority than meaningless lip service to invisible men in the sky. What a nice set of rules. Read the thread before you post in it.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

What does this have to do with anything?

I am quite sure the hindus discriminated back in the day (lol i am not sure of the exact date) and this led to deaths i am sure. So one cannont blame this on the religions of the people of the book (Christianity, Islam, and Judism).

Bullshit; the Bible encourages discrimination, and its followers (surprise!) practice it.

True the crusades were bad, but one must look at the political (or more accurately lake of) climate of the middle ages in the early 11th century. Europe was a barbarian wasteland. What was left of the Western roman empire was rotting in the dust and the East turned a blind eye because the west didn't recognize the Patriarch(not sure if this is the right title, just consider religious mackdaddy) in constantinople, they recognized the pope. So urban decided that the populous of europe would actually do something good if they went east and conquered the holy land. The arabs conqured god know how many people. True the tolerated the christians and the jews, yet one just needs to look at the conquest of persia to observe not everything was roses in Dar es Islam.

So repeated wars to recapture the same useless strip of sand that led to millions of deaths was a good thing? Christ, we've got another fucking apologist.

In all likelyhood the crusades helped bring the dark ages in europe to an end. When the crusaders came back from the holy land they brought all the opulent things from the east. This stimulated trade (which was relatively nonexistent in the dark ages) with the muslims. It was a step in the right direction.

All right lol, ill quit my ranting. SHoot sorry bout the lenght, i sound like a damn professor.

And that's worth millions of people's lives? I'm sure that the women who were savagely raped by the crusaders because the Pope said it was acceptable would be comforted by your words.

Read the damn thread.

[Darth Servo]

Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

And complete intolerance to anyone else's religion resulting in countless 'holy wars' etc.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

Got any evidence to back that up?

I am quite sure the hindus discriminated back in the day (lol i am not sure of the exact date) and this led to deaths i am sure. So one cannont blame this on the religions of the people of the book (Christianity, Islam, and Judism).

The Bible encourages people to kill anyone who doesn't worship God. If people follow this council, how can we not blame it on thier holy book? The problems other religions have had with discrimination does not excuse the people who practiced it in the name of the biblical God.

True the crusades were bad, but one must look at the political (or more accurately lake of) climate of the middle ages in the early 11th century. Europe was a barbarian wasteland.

Which was essentially controled by the Pope.

What was left of the Western roman empire was rotting in the dust and the East turned a blind eye because the west didn't recognize the Patriarch(not sure if this is the right title, just consider religious mackdaddy) in constantinople, they recognized the pope. So urban decided that the populous of europe would actually do something good if they went east and conquered the holy land. The arabs conqured god know how many people. True the tolerated the christians and the jews, yet one just needs to look at the conquest of persia to observe not everything was roses in Dar es Islam.

And one of the primary contributing factors to those problems was the peoples fanatical worship of the bible/quoran.

In all likelyhood the crusades helped bring the dark ages in europe to an end. When the crusaders came back from the holy land they brought all the opulent things from the east. This stimulated trade (which was relatively nonexistent in the dark ages) with the muslims. It was a step in the right direction.

The ends do not justify the means. Europe wouldn't have even been in the dark ages in the first place if it weren't for mideval's Christianity's complete lack of tolerance for other beliefs/knowledge considered 'pagan' (meaning "contradicts the scriptures").

[papachulo10]

[quote] Quote:
Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

Got any evidence to back that up?

Well yes i do. Before Constantine's predesseor, Diocletian, the empire shook itself apart, literaly and metaphorically. During this time the legions brought back the plauge which ravaged the population, major earthquakes shook the empire, the barbarians in the west continued in the relentless endeavour and the persians in the east were driving the romans mad. Not to mention the political upheavals of the time. Diocletian brought rome back from the brink(albeit with a large number of Christain and Jewish persecutions). He crowned himself as a god. Yet the empire, though togehter, was far from healed. It distrusted the emperor. So after diocletian (died or retired not sure), constantine came to power. WE all know the story about how he saw the cross in the sky and that is when he became a christian. Well he did and he became emperor. And so he embarked on the great "MOVE" that is moving the empire political center from rome to the east (Old byzantium, next constantinople, then Istanbul) where everything was happining (or at least where the persians were).

Now like i said before the empire was falling apart, and not even these changes would work. As i stated in the above post constantine found the virtues of christianity and used it as a tool to bring the empire back together. That is what basically held the empire together. It was something in common that a Roman from greece and a roman from spain and a roman from italy could share. (if you don't believe me i am sure if you do a search on the internet, or read a few books you'll find out that this is no BS, believe me i am one of the most unimaginative people on the earth).

[quote] papachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

And complete intolerance to anyone else's religion resulting in countless 'holy wars' etc.

Well the holy wars were an extrapolation of the politcal/religious leaders of the time. One would be wise to distinguish organized religion from faith. The fomer only serves to subdue a populace (as was done in the roman empire).
Yet one must not put this all on the Christians, the muslums did the same thing. Persia, in particular. Anyway there would be killing for other reasons. Jeez have you read the history of Europe, Mediterrianian, and the middle east before christianity and islam. Fighting was all they did (i am sure that this happened elsewhere too but i am hard pressed to find places where it was this violent and rampant).

[quote]Quote:
I am quite sure the hindus discriminated back in the day (lol i am not sure of the exact date) and this led to deaths i am sure. So one cannont blame this on the religions of the people of the book (Christianity, Islam, and Judism).

The Bible encourages people to kill anyone who doesn't worship God. If people follow this council, how can we not blame it on thier holy book? The problems other religions have had with discrimination does not excuse the people who practiced it in the name of the biblical God.

Indeed, yet like i said it was written by man. More specifically written by men in another era. They didn't look at the same things as we did.

[quote]Quote:
True the crusades were bad, but one must look at the political (or more accurately lake of) climate of the middle ages in the early 11th century. Europe was a barbarian wasteland.

Which was essentially controled by the Pope.

Well only in part. The pope crowned the kings i believe, but i also believe that is what the catholic monks who kept the embers of edcation and learning alive. One must not pin the coming of the "Dark Ages" soley on the shoulders of Christianity. I admit the merging of church and state was, shall we say, not prudent. Yet the Byzantine empire did this and i must say they were light years ahead of the roman empire. Perhaps is the barbarian incursions, or Justinians ravaging of the italian peninsula (which did more damage than any barbarian invasion before it), or the Viking raids. The truth is, it is like saying what the fall of rome was in one word. You can't do that. Events this large require many things to get them in motion.

[quote]

Quote:
In all likelyhood the crusades helped bring the dark ages in europe to an end. When the crusaders came back from the holy land they brought all the opulent things from the east. This stimulated trade (which was relatively nonexistent in the dark ages) with the muslims. It was a step in the right direction.

The ends do not justify the means. Europe wouldn't have even been in the dark ages in the first place if it weren't for mideval's Christianity's complete lack of tolerance for other beliefs/knowledge considered 'pagan' (meaning "contradicts the scriptures").


True, true, yet one must look above the pope and religion. The kings who ruled over their lands have just as much to blame. As do the barbarians and justinan's troops (like i said before the barbarians aren't as bad but they do take parts of the blame, especially the ones after the goths, not sure bout that one thouhg, i gotta look it up).

Plus the muslums had the same hardline view upon infedels (the persians) and they thrivied above western europe until the renassance (which during this period the muslums got slapped quite hard a few times).

And as the old addage goes, you can't break an omlet without breaking the egg.

[quote]papachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.


Yes, the ten commandments, which command the faithful to tear down the sacred objects of other cultures, decry freedom of speech and religion, and place respect for your fellow man at a lower priority than meaningless lip service to invisible men in the sky. What a nice set of rules. Read the thread before you post in it.

All right, you look at the other religions of the period in THAT AREA. Tell me what you find. At the time it was the best to be had. As with everything in life, when taken to the extreme it becomes dangerous.

[quote]Quote:
Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.


What does this have to do with anything?

To point out that Christianity was not toatally worthless in the ancient world, as a few of you state.

[quote]Quote:
I am quite sure the hindus discriminated back in the day (lol i am not sure of the exact date) and this led to deaths i am sure. So one cannont blame this on the religions of the people of the book (Christianity, Islam, and Judism).


Bullshit; the Bible encourages discrimination, and its followers (surprise!) practice it.

The political situation in India and pakistan, proves that no one is above religious bickering.

[quote]Quote:
True the crusades were bad, but one must look at the political (or more accurately lake of) climate of the middle ages in the early 11th century. Europe was a barbarian wasteland. What was left of the Western roman empire was rotting in the dust and the East turned a blind eye because the west didn't recognize the Patriarch(not sure if this is the right title, just consider religious mackdaddy) in constantinople, they recognized the pope. So urban decided that the populous of europe would actually do something good if they went east and conquered the holy land. The arabs conqured god know how many people. True the tolerated the christians and the jews, yet one just needs to look at the conquest of persia to observe not everything was roses in Dar es Islam.


So repeated wars to recapture the same useless strip of sand that led to millions of deaths was a good thing? Christ, we've got another fucking apologist.


Calm the fuck down, alright. If the Christians didn't go over to the Palestine they would have hacked each other down to pieces in Europe. Urban thought that they could at least stop killing each other. Both choices were bad, but it was the begnning of the middle ages in Western Europe, all choices were bad. I guess urban just tried to get the lesser of the two evils.

What the hell is an apologist?

[quote]Quote:
In all likelyhood the crusades helped bring the dark ages in europe to an end. When the crusaders came back from the holy land they brought all the opulent things from the east. This stimulated trade (which was relatively nonexistent in the dark ages) with the muslims. It was a step in the right direction.

All right lol, ill quit my ranting. SHoot sorry bout the lenght, i sound like a damn professor.


And that's worth millions of people's lives? I'm sure that the women who were savagely raped by the crusaders because the Pope said it was acceptable would be comforted by your words.

I never said it was justified. True many bad things happened in the Crusades. They were committed by both the Christians and the Muslums. I guess that all i can say is, collaterol damage. I despise using such sterile words in an era when warfare was anything but sterile (i am not saying that it is better now, god knows it isn't.).

[papachulo10]

Aww crap i screwed up on the quoting.

Shit that is hard to read, sorry.

[Durandal]

You should be able to edit your message with the edit button. Remember to close all quote tags.

[weemadando]

Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

You fucking what?

That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard since it was suggested malaria was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was one of the major contributing factors to the fall. You don't believe me? Ask any REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution, not one of those goddamn fundie Doctorate churning wankfests.

Here's an essay by me (so don't expect anything utterly remarkable) on the instituting of Christianity as a religion. [nb - this essay received a high credit- copyright yadda yadda yadda]

http://www.geocities.com/weemadnosh/constantine.doc

I'm not saying that Christianity was the one and only cause of the decline and fall, I am saying that it was a major contributing factor.


By instituting Christianity as an official religion (not Constantine's doing, but that of one of his successors) and moving the capital to the East to escape the mainly pagan traditionalists who ran the Senate and Rome
they effectively split the Empire and exacerbated the problems that already existed.
These problems included communication and command, supply routes as well as the massive economic problems. The cost of building a new Imperial centre, not to mention creating a MASSIVE new bureaucracy placed such a drain on the economy that again, the Roman currency was devalued to an amazing level.
This is without going into the problems associated with massively increasing government size (two courts, one in Rome, one in Constantinople) and reducing the Senate to just another town council.

All this served to make the Pagans in the West of the Empire uneasy and feel discriminated against due to the reduction in power of their traditional ruling bodies.
Later you have the problems of the Christians deciding to take vengeance on the Roman state for supressing them and destroying pagan temples and murdering many pagans (far more than the pagans ever did to the Christians).

Eventually through a combination of discontent and neglect (not mutually exclusive) the Western portion of the empire collapsed, while the East continued on. All this is due in part to Christianity. Yes, there were many other factors, but you cannot possibly argue that Christianity PROLONGED the life of the Roman Empire.

Feel free to rebutt this. I'll be waiting.

[Alyrium Denryle]

True the crusades were bad

Bad, bad? lets just put this in perspective.

In the first crusade, the chtristians sacked every city they entered, raping and pillaging, killing jews and eastern orthodox christians

When they took Jerusalem, they bruttaly butchered the ENTIRE MUSLIM AND JEWISH POPULATION, the blood running in rivers down the street was knee deep.

Here is a happy quote for you

"Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded ... others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with fIames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the temple of Solomon, the horses waded in the blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers."- Raymond of Aguilers, on the massacre of Muslim and Jewish prisoners of war following the capture of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099

They justified an act of jenocide by sayiong it was gods will. Fucked up

[XPViking]

weemadando,

I'm curious as to why you include your essay as part of your rebuttal. Your essay only has to do with the implementation of Christianity, as you mentioned. Not its effects on the longevity of the Empire.

XPViking

[weemadando]

weemadando,

I'm curious as to why you include your essay as part of your rebuttal. Your essay only has to do with the implementation of Christianity, as you mentioned. Not its effects on the longevity of the Empire.

XPViking
8)

Mainly as to show that Christianity wasn't implemented for the reasons that many people think it was and also to debunk popular Christian myths about Constantine and the early Christians within the Empire. Call it a preemptive rebuttal...

[papachulo10]

[quotepapachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.


You fucking what?

That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard since it was suggested malaria was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was one of the major contributing factors to the fall. You don't believe me? Ask any REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution, not one of those goddamn fundie Doctorate churning wankfests.]

papachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.


You fucking what?

That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard since it was suggested malaria was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was one of the major contributing factors to the fall. You don't believe me? Ask any REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution, not one of those goddamn fundie Doctorate churning wankfests.

First of all i must inform you that i get my information from books. Rarely do i use the internet as a source. Also i must say that all the books that i use are secular in nature. I adamantly refuse to use books that were written by a christian or islamic point of view. That said i must say all the books that i have read also state the fact that christianity was a bridge that brought MOST of the citizens of the empire together. The authors of these books are varied scholors with PHDs, i do NOT get my information from bible thumping fundamentalists.
I wonder where you get your information? Do not take this as an insult, i would like to read it. It offers an interesting view that i have not read about before. If you want a decent book try the Idiot's Guide to the Roman empire(this is not an insult, it really is a decent compiliation of roman history and the prose isn't that hard to read).
In my previous post I mentionted the fact that christianity was an effective crowd control device for the emperors. In my previous post i mentioned the fact that it bridge the ONE god in heaven and the ONE emperor on earth ideal, so i won't repeat everything.

[Lagmonster]

That said i must say all the books that i have read also state the fact that christianity was a bridge that brought MOST of the citizens of the empire together.

You're right in the fact that Christianity helped bring the citizens of Rome together, because it DENIED the existance of other religions. Get your facts straight.

You see, at many points in its history, Rome's policy on foreign religions up till then was to include them in the pantheon, or just tolerate them. When Christianity came, it suppressed or manipulated the former state religions AND the religions of other races in the empire.

I am sure I don't have to tell you what messing with the beliefs of people you annexed via war will do.

Although, the issue of religion as a part of the fall of Rome is in whole a minor one.

[papachulo10]

[quotepapachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.


You fucking what?

That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard since it was suggested malaria was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was one of the major contributing factors to the fall. You don't believe me? Ask any REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution, not one of those goddamn fundie Doctorate churning wankfests.]

papachulo10 wrote:
Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.


You fucking what?

That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard since it was suggested malaria was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was one of the major contributing factors to the fall. You don't believe me? Ask any REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution, not one of those goddamn fundie Doctorate churning wankfests.

First of all i must inform you that i get my information from books. Rarely do i use the internet as a source. Also i must say that all the books that i use are secular in nature. I adamantly refuse to use books that were written by a christian or islamic point of view. That said i must say all the books that i have read also state the fact that christianity was a bridge that brought MOST of the citizens of the empire together. The authors of these books are varied scholors with PHDs, i do NOT get my information from bible thumping fundamentalists.

I wonder where you get your information? Do not take this as an insult, i would like to read it. It offers an interesting view that i have not read about before. If you want a decent book try the Idiot's Guide to the Roman empire(this is not an insult, it really is a decent compiliation of roman history and the prose isn't that hard to read).

In my previous post I mentionted the fact that christianity was an effective crowd control device for the emperors. In my previous post i mentioned the fact that it bridge the ONE god in heaven and the ONE emperor on earth ideal, so i won't repeat everything. Lets just get one thing straight, i am not an atheist and i am not an avid church goer. I am just trying to establish some sort of middle ground.

[quote Here's an essay by me (so don't expect anything utterly remarkable) on the instituting of Christianity as a religion. [nb - this essay received a high credit- copyright yadda yadda yadda]

http://www.geocities.com/weemadnosh/constantine.doc]

The link doesn't work. Can you post it again so I can read it?

[quote I'm not saying that Christianity was the one and only cause of the decline and fall, I am saying that it was a major contributing factor.]

I aslo said that the fall of the empire wasn't directed to just one reason. YEt i must disagree that christianity was soley the purpose. I am not doubting the fact that the infighting of the christians (which was well documented by the pagans of the time) brought a measure of instability to the empire. Yet it wasn't the only one. I am quite sure the grabs for power that characterized the roman empire to its end (1453) were present also.

[quote By instituting Christianity as an official religion (not Constantine's doing, but that of one of his successors) and moving the capital to the East to escape the mainly pagan traditionalists who ran the Senate and Rome
they effectively split the Empire and exacerbated the problems that already existed.
These problems included communication and command, supply routes as well as the massive economic problems. The cost of building a new Imperial centre, not to mention creating a MASSIVE new bureaucracy placed such a drain on the economy that again, the Roman currency was devalued to an amazing level.
This is without going into the problems associated with massively increasing government size (two courts, one in Rome, one in Constantinople) and reducing the Senate to just another town council.]

The great move that constantine spearheaded was actually a wise move. I am not sure if you are jiving it or praising it by your praise. Yet one must look at the numbers. The east held the vast majority of the population. It had the better army. It was situated closer the persian empire. Constantinople was in a stratigic position that was envied even by the arabs right before its fall. So personally, and i also believe that a "REAL historian, one with a degree from a genuine institution" would agree with me. So really the senate in rome was basically impotent.

[quoteAll this served to make the Pagans in the West of the Empire uneasy and feel discriminated against due to the reduction in power of their traditional ruling bodies.
Later you have the problems of the Christians deciding to take vengeance on the Roman state for supressing them and destroying pagan temples and murdering many pagans (far more than the pagans ever did to the Christians). ]

LIke i said in my previous post, i don't doubt that christians fought among themselves and that they persecuted the pagans to an unimaginable extent. Yet i also can't agree with you when you say that christianity was one of the major contributing factor in the fall of the western empire. The west WAS DEAD. It had strip mined Egypt, Gaul, and spain. It was like a leper. The dead pieces were falling off to the barbarian invasions.

[quote Eventually through a combination of discontent and neglect (not mutually exclusive) the Western portion of the empire collapsed, while the East continued on. All this is due in part to Christianity. Yes, there were many other factors, but you cannot possibly argue that Christianity PROLONGED the life of the Roman Empire.]

The west was dying before the reign of constantine. HEll the empire layed the seeds of its own demise with the crowning of Augustus. Now before you bite my head off, i must explain this point carefully. Yet agustus and MOST of the suceeding empeors were good. Yet after marcus areilius things went to the crapper. Constant infighting, the enlargement of the lower class (slaves and the like), rising inflation (due to the fact that it was necessary to support a larger army), all happened before the reign of constantine. In a way constantine just inherited the problems that a predessor had.
Quote:
True the crusades were bad


Bad, bad? lets just put this in perspective.

In the first crusade, the chtristians sacked every city they entered, raping and pillaging, killing jews and eastern orthodox christians

When they took Jerusalem, they bruttaly butchered the ENTIRE MUSLIM AND JEWISH POPULATION, the blood running in rivers down the street was knee deep

All right i just wanted to avoid using sentence enhancers. I apologized if i didn't use a colorful enough synonym for you. OK it was fucked up. Yet like i said in my previous post i stated that the muslums did the same thing. THIS IS NOT A REASON TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS OF THE CRUSADERS. I just wanted to state the armies of Christiandom weren't the only ones to use conversion of the sword techniques. I also said in my previous posts that Pope Urban thought it would be wiser to kill muslums in Palestine than to continue slaughtering each other on the killing fields of europe. The raping and pillaging would have happened in europe. Urban just thought that the christians should do it to someone else than to each other.

One must understand the people who we are dealing with here. Both sides weren't the specticals of human character that many myths have show them to be. Chivalry was only used when it was prudent. Yet one must choose between the lesser of the two evils. I am not sure which one is "right."

[macman]

Do you think that if you are going to debate something you should at least spell it right..it is bible not bibel (unless you mean bibelot which refers to a small object of great beauty)..typeos happan to everyone but man it is hard to follow when running for the dictionary trying to figure out what you mean..

I think it is fair to admit that many terrible things have been done throughout the ages in the name of Christ but to condem all Christian because some political types use Gods name to justify acts that go against the very teaching of the bible (The crusades, torture, the whole Northern Ireland Thing) is no more right or wrong than the Arabs blowing up Jews, the genocide the muslims have carried out in their long history or numerous other incidents..it is like today many poeople equate Christian with right wing dumbies(my wife works for some) but that is not what the Bible teaches...people use it (and other religious works) to justify their evil behavior

[papachulo10]

lol i apologize for my typing. I am afraid that i have one of those keyboards that are split down the middle and they are a pain the butt sometimes.

Yet i will try to correct as much as i can.

[Darth Wong]

I think it is fair to admit that many terrible things have been done throughout the ages in the name of Christ but to condem all Christian because ...

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

Who ever said anything about blaming individual Christians for past atrocities? Why is it that we can't discuss the merits of a codified belief system without having people crawl out of the woodwork accusing us of hating everyone who subscribes to that belief system in name?

How many self-professed Christians have even read the entire Bible? Of those, how many agree with everything in it? If the answers to both questions are not 100%, then we are not condemning all Christians for the atrocities of Christianity or the evils of the Bible.

[macman]

Okay I have no idea what a strawmen is but I gather it is not good...

Sorry if I did a no no..I did not say you hated anybody I just was trying to make a point that the term Christian can be used many different ways (as both a political position or a group of individuals...

I will just go crawl back in the woodwork now....

[Alyrium Denryle]

A strawman is a logical fallacy. you misrepresent another persons claim, then attack the misrepresentation.

[macman]

A strawman is a logical fallacy. you misrepresent another persons claim, then attack the misrepresentation.

Sorry I will be more careful

[God Emperor]

I am a christian and during religion last week I ask the teacher, "If absolute power corupts absolutly wouldn't that make God corupt because he has absoulute power." In responce she said that coruption is a human chartaristic and can not be used to describe god, This to me is bull shit and has made me conceder renouncing my faith.

[Alyrium Denryle]

YAY!

Just take a look in the bible. The judeo-christian god is a vengful spitful ass-hole(killing small children and all that) assuming he exists, he is a very corrupt and evil super-being.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A strawman is a logical fallacy. you misrepresent another persons claim, then attack the misrepresentation.

Sorry I will be more careful

As well you should*cast nymbors stern reproof* *pain surges through your body, causing you to gasp fpr beath and spasm in agony*

[Durandal]

I am a christian and during religion last week I ask the teacher, "If absolute power corupts absolutly wouldn't that make God corupt because he has absoulute power." In responce she said that coruption is a human chartaristic and can not be used to describe god, This to me is bull shit and has made me conceder renouncing my faith.

Have you covered whether or not moral precepts of mass-genocide being wrong apply to God? I remember when we covered the Great Flood back in school.

"Is it murder if God does it? No, because he created us and has the right to destroy us if we don't honor him."

[Sir Sirius]

papachulo10 could please learn how to use the proper quote function, reading your posts as they are now is...eh...a bit stressfull.