Religion Muslims getting their kicks

[Denny Crane]

And shit, we can strike the Inquisitions out of the generalized christian atrocities too! Thanks Denny!!!! Boy do I love Denny Logic!

http://www.donquijote.org/culture/spain/history/spanish-inquisition

The political justification for the Spanish Inquisition was the existence of a threat to the monarchy. The Spanish Christians (Christianity was the most widespread faith) were outraged at the Jews for a variety of reasons, most of them religious, and saw the Spanish Inquisition as a means of controlling the Jewish population, removing the actual source of the problem.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Denny Crane]

You got it Denny. When they run society, you will be among the many missing from the welcome list.
Might be on another list though.

So both religions have derogatory terms for "non-believer."

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Denny Crane]

And shit, we can strike the Inquisitions out of the generalized christian atrocities too! Thanks Denny!!!! Boy do I love Denny Logic!

http://www.donquijote.org/culture/spain/history/spanish-inquisition

The political justification for the Spanish Inquisition was the existence of a threat to the monarchy. The Spanish Christians (Christianity was the most widespread faith) were outraged at the Jews for a variety of reasons, most of them religious, and saw the Spanish Inquisition as a means of controlling the Jewish population, removing the actual source of the problem.

In context:

While most historians point to a combination of political, economic and religious motives, the latter were certainly predominant.

The notorious hatred between Jews and Christians led the inquisitors to believe that their actions actually saved Jews from the hideous fate awaiting them in the underworld; since the Jews were dying at the hands of God's children, their spirits would be pervaded by the wisdom and knowledge of God's followers, and they would therefore be spared from hell and rise to heaven. Of course, this is unconceivable today, but 13th-century inquisitors who had only received a religious education were guided by blind faith.

I like the blind faith bit how true.

 

[MarAzul]

So both religions have derogatory terms for "non-believer."
Thanks for agreeing.

Oh Denny, you try so hard!

The word "heathen" used several times in the NT simply means pretty much as the dictionary informs us; "Not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam".

There are not dissertations on how to treat the heathen with despicable acts. Nothing like Take him in the right hand and cut through the vein of the neck...
So the usage of Infidel in the Koran and Heathen in the New Testament are not comparable at all. I am surprised by your lack of comprehension. Contrived I think, a business man is rarely so unperceptive.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh Denny, you try so hard!

The word "heathen" use several times in the NT simply means pretty much as the dictionary informs us; "Not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam".

There are not dissertations on how to treat the heathen with despicable acts. Nothing like Take him in the right hand and cut through the vein of the neck...
So the usage of Infidel in the Koran and Heathen in the New Testament are not comparable at all. I am surprised by your lack of comprehension. Contrived I think, a business man is rarely so unperceptive.

Except for the "beat him with a rod" and similar verses in the NT.

 

[magnifier661]

Fixed it for you.

So fucking what?!?! Most of the Communists were Atheists, especially those in power. All you are doing is proving my point.

 

[Denny Crane]

So fucking what?!?! Most of the Communists were Atheists, especially those in power. All you are doing is proving my point.

Your point is that atheists killed atheists?

 

[magnifier661]

In context:

While most historians point to a combination of political, economic and religious motives, the latter were certainly predominant.

The notorious hatred between Jews and Christians led the inquisitors to believe that their actions actually saved Jews from the hideous fate awaiting them in the underworld; since the Jews were dying at the hands of God's children, their spirits would be pervaded by the wisdom and knowledge of God's followers, and they would therefore be spared from hell and rise to heaven. Of course, this is unconceivable today, but 13th-century inquisitors who had only received a religious education were guided by blind faith.

I like the blind faith bit how true.

Again, so fucking what?!?! You argued that the acts of the communist government was a socialist act, but I clearly pointed out the Atheism used to do away with religion. This is no different than a religious power, using government to do away with what they believe is their "wall" as you've expressed earlier.

I will keep saying this until you get it through your thick skull. Doesn't matter if it's government, religion or atheism; all have had people in the ideology that have used their belief and abused its power.

 

[magnifier661]

Your point is that atheists killed atheists?

Well duh!!! You made a point with Inquisitions, when Catholics (Christians) were killing Protestants (Christians). But the fact remains, that millions of christians died in the name of the Atheist leaders in the communist movement.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, so fucking what?!?! You argued that the acts of the communist government was a socialist act, but I clearly pointed out the Atheism used to do away with religion. This is no different than a religious power, using government to do away with what they believe is their "wall" as you've expressed earlier.

I will keep saying this until you get it through your thick skull. Doesn't matter if it's government, religion or atheism; all have had people in the ideology that have used their belief and abused its power.

Well, by your logic, drinking milk is used to do away with religion. The relationship between milk and your rationale is equivalent.

If the Russians decided to kill the 10% poorest of their 100M population, a lot of them would be christians, but not related to their being christian. Thick skull indeed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well duh!!! You made a point with Inquisitions, when Catholics (Christians) were killing Protestants (Christians). But the fact remains, that millions of christians died in the name of the Atheist leaders in the communist movement.

Sure, religious zealots killing and torturing anyone not converted to their own faith. For religious reasons alone.

 

[MarAzul]

Except for the "beat him with a rod" and similar verses in the NT.

I assume you are referencing Proverbs 23:13.
I will make the following observation on this comment and then let it lay. Your lack of comprehension is not worthy of continuing.
The laying of the rod in Proverbs is about discipling the child. I do not agree with this approach but it has nothing to do with how to treat a heathen.
Proverbs in not in the New Testament so this again shows you have not begun to understand the teaching of Jesus.
You are pretty much unqualified to judge the differences between the religious teaching, so no point in continuing.

But at least Platypus persauded you to read the Bible, perhaps you could hire him to help you with comprehension.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, by your logic, drinking milk is used to do away with religion. The relationship between milk and your rationale is equivalent.

If the Russians decided to kill the 10% poorest of their 100M population, a lot of them would be christians, but not related to their being christian. Thick skull indeed.

No that is your logic. I'm just along for the ride. I do admire that you are finally seeing how idiotic that thinking is though.

But the Stalin movement wasn't just a "oh they are just the lower 10%". There was a conscious "anti-Christian murdering of their people. It wasn't an oops, they were Christians by chance moment here.

Kudos

 

[magnifier661]

Sure, religious zealots killing and torturing anyone not converted to their own faith. For religious reasons alone.

It's funny that you say this when many historians look at the inquisitions or crusades as ploys to gain power, land and money.

But don't let me stop your fantasy

 

[donkiez]

 

[Denny Crane]

It's funny that you say this when many historians look at the inquisitions or crusades as ploys to gain power, land and money.

But don't let me stop your fantasy

What possible political or power gain is there in sending your best warriors thousands of miles away to fight over a religious site?

 

[Denny Crane]

No that is your logic. I'm just along for the ride. I do admire that you are finally seeing how idiotic that thinking is though.

But the Stalin movement wasn't just a "oh they are just the lower 10%". There was a conscious "anti-Christian murdering of their people. It wasn't an oops, they were Christians by chance moment here.

Kudos

There was a conscious "let's get rid of enemies of the state" movement. If they wanted to kill all the christians, there'd have been a lot more mass murder and only a few Russians left. As it was,

There were ~190M Russians in the USSR in 1940.

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

They lost 26M in WW II just defending against Nazi invasion. The rest of the 34 to 49 million make up about 25% of their population, and you can only find ~100K killed having anything to do with religion or atheism.

Your thinking is the idiotic kind.

 

[magnifier661]

What possible political or power gain is there in sending your best warriors thousands of miles away to fight over a religious site?

I thought you actually read up on shit Denny?!?!

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/Ref...9095657&jsid=4a457e60f27cda06521b9794259c49f7

Reconstructing the motives of Crusaders and the founders of the Crusader States is a complex task. Two general theories that emerged are the Marxist-influenced materialist theory and an explanation that rests on religious idealism. Two important preliminary points need to be addressed. First, the desire for material gain and devotion to religious idealism are not mutually exclusive; they could and often did coexist, and they strengthened rather than weakened one another. Second, “crusaders” are referred to as the large assortment of people drawn from the entire spectrum of social backgrounds and economic standing. One cannot assume that what motivated priests and paupers inspired castellans (castle wardens) and dukes. For that matter, one cannot assume that what motivated one count necessarily motivated another count. Venetian motives most likely clashed with all of the above. Backgrounds and interests varied, and therefore motives for committing oneself to such a venture did as well.

The materialist argument used to be much more popular and influential. It sprang from a confluence of two trends: the Marxist approach, which saw the root for all historical causation as being centered on production and attempts to control it, and the positivist neo-Rankian approach, which distrusted the rhetorical explanations posterity left behind and attempted to pierce the veneer to get to “real” causes and issues. The materialist theory of the First Crusade (1096-1102) stressed the massive economic changes that were taking place in western Europe and the financial pinch they applied to all sectors of society. Primogeniture, a new approach to inheritance, began awarding property to the eldest son, leaving a mob of belligerent and land-hungry second sons to fend for themselves and to seek their fortunes. Conquest was the only real method by which the second sons could become landed, and thus the idea of staking claims in the East was attractive. The First Crusade was a “second son” venture that directed surplus members of the warrior aristocracy to the East. The position of the poor was even worse. Since the turn of the millennium western Europe had experienced rapid population growth, an escalation of trade, and increases in the circulation of money—all of which pressed upon and strained the earlier manorial structure. These forces created a new form of “poor,” a group of itinerant laborers who had no solid place in the feudal structure. The rapid response of the poor to the summons of a man such as Peter the Hermit is thus easy to explain. Pope Urban II mentioned the possibility of acquiring wealth while making his call for a Crusade at the Council of Clermont (1095), even if it was not the focus of his preaching campaign. That France was in the throes of crop failure and famine when the First Crusade was preached has been cited with approval and clinches the argument.

 

[magnifier661]

There was a conscious "let's get rid of enemies of the state" movement. If they wanted to kill all the christians, there'd have been a lot more mass murder and only a few Russians left. As it was,

There were ~190M Russians in the USSR in 1940.

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789



They lost 26M in WW II just defending against Nazi invasion. The rest of the 34 to 49 million make up about 25% of their population, and you can only find ~100K killed having anything to do with religion or atheism.

Your thinking is the idiotic kind.

You missed the point where 6,000 out of the 7,000 churches were burned to the ground and their members put to death or sent to concentration camps.

Does it really matter that 85,000 people out of a millions where killed in one year alone in the anti-Christian campaign? I guess you don't think the 3k killed in 911 doesn't matter much since it's only a fraction of the U.S. population as well?

But keep going...

 

[Denny Crane]

Too bad about the Churches. I wouldn't condone that sort of thing.

As I said, the intent was to make a perfect state, not establish atheism . The Church as an organization was deemed an enemy of a perfect state. No more or less.

Unlike burning heretics at the stake, which was entirely about forcing religion on someone. Or else.

Or the inquisition. Or the witch trials. Or recently, Bosnia. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

 

[barfo]

I guess you don't think the 3k killed in 911 doesn't matter much since it's only a fraction of the U.S. population as well?

It obviously mattered to the 3k, and all the people who knew/loved them.
But it didn't destroy the US. We were able to replace those 3k rather quickly. If we are good at anything, it's making babies. In terms of the balance of power, it didn't matter at all.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

It obviously mattered to the 3k, and all the people who knew/loved them.
But it didn't destroy the US. We were able to replace those 3k rather quickly. If we are good at anything, it's making babies. In terms of the balance of power, it didn't matter at all.

barfo

It mattered more than just those 3k and their families. The thousands of soldiers that died after in the Afghanistan and Iraq war would disagree. The fact that there is a new memorial on the very site that was blown down is another testament to what mattered.

We aren't talking about "the balance of power". We are talking about the morality of those innocent lives that were killed and the many Americans that were also deeply effected by that horrible act which brought us all together. Even the Democrats and Republicans joined together after that event.

What a damn silly thing to say.

 

[barfo]

It mattered more than just those 3k and their families. The thousands of soldiers that died after in the Afghanistan and Iraq war would disagree.

Ok, good point. The thousands who died in Iraq in particular certainly must be wondering (assuming your theism is correct, and they can wonder after death) what the fuck?

We aren't talking about "the balance of power". We are talking about the morality of those innocent lives that were killed and the many Americans that were also deeply effected by that horrible act which brought us all together. Even the Democrats and Republicans joined together after that event.

Okay, whatever you say. Didn't realize the question was morality. For the record: killing people is bad.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Ok, good point. The thousands who died in Iraq in particular certainly must be wondering (assuming your theism is correct, and they can wonder after death) what the fuck?



Okay, whatever you say. Didn't realize the question was morality. For the record: killing people is bad.

barfo

Good response!

 

[Further]

I'm just so tired of religions. They all suck. Some are worse. This world really needs more people to turn away from organized religions. Or, at least stop listening to, and giving power to, certain folk who the interprete scriptures for others, or represent a god.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm just so tired of religions. They all suck. Some are worse. This world really needs more people to turn away from organized religions. Or, at least stop listening to, and giving power to, certain folk who the interprete scriptures for others, or represent a god.

Yeah I'm so tired of ideology and politics too! Governments murdering millions of people because some other group doesn't believe in democracy or socialism! We should all be anarchists!!!!

 

[Further]

Yeah I'm so tired of ideology and politics too! Governments murdering millions of people because some other group doesn't believe in democracy or socialism! We should all be anarchists!!!!

I'm not saying people shouldn't be permitted to whatever religion they choose, just that I hope more people stop relying on priests, rabbis, clerics or any other flawed human to interpret what God wants. I think that's where so many problems lie. People, religious and atheist alike have their own motivations and given a ton of power (followers) will often abuse their original ideology for selfish cause.

If there is a God who gave us free thought, shouldn't we use it and not rely on others to form our thoughts?

This idea also extends to politics, government and business. They aren't bad things, but people need to use their own thought process and stop choosing sides based on the letter R or D, Apple or Microsoft, Fox or NBC.

A priest is ok, a political party is ok, a network is ok, but people need to stop just accepting whatever crap is fed to them by their side. Let's use our brains.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not saying people shouldn't be permitted to whatever religion they choose, just that I hope more people stop relying on priests, rabbis, clerics or any other flawed human to interpret what God wants. I think that's where so many problems lie. People, religious and atheist alike have their own motivations and given a ton of power (followers) will often abuse their original ideology for selfish cause.

If there is a God who gave us free thought, shouldn't we use it and not rely on others to form our thoughts?

This idea also extends to politics, government and business. They aren't bad things, but people need to use their own thought process and stop choosing sides based on the letter R or D, Apple or Microsoft, Fox or NBC.

A priest is ok, a political party is ok, a network is ok, but people need to stop just accepting whatever crap is fed to them by their side. Let's use our brains.

Well that makes more sense. I didn't take your "do away with silly religion" idea as an unbias pure argument. I think there are good religions, politics and ideologies around. Just because you think they are full of shit doesn't mean it's full of shit.

Basically, you are doing what you despise, wanting to influence people to believe what you believe in.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Further]

Well that makes more sense. I didn't take your "do away with silly religion" idea as an unbias pure argument. I think there are good religions, politics and ideologies around. Just because you think they are full of shit doesn't mean it's full of shit.

Basically, you are doing what you despise, wanting to influence people to believe what you believe in.

No, (in this case) I am not trying to get people to believe what I believe in. I don't believe there is a god, I'm not recommending people follow my lead and not believe in God. I'm saying that I hope more people will think for themselves and not take other people's opinions as fact without considering its veracity or possible motives behind interpretations.

If you think through a subject and come to the same conclusion as someone you respect, that's good. But don't skip the part where you critically analyze the opinion at hand.

Look at politics. There are hundreds of issues being discussed by our politicians. Why is it that on 95% of these issues all the Republicans choose one side and all the Democrats choose another side? In reality most issues have more than two sides. Also, there is no way everyone from one camp actually believes the same thing every damned time.

I tend to side more Dem, but an honest assessment by me illuminates quite a few areas where the Republicans are correct. And, even more areas where there is an alternate side or view that's more logical than what either the Dems or Repubs believe.

It's cause they all have some shitty faith that their leadership knows what's best and people aren't willing to think or act on their own.