| sapphi_snake said: @pizzahut451: Well, I'm only responding to you as you justly deserve. So am I. I said study the attitudes of Christiasn towards other religions THROUGHOUT TIME, in other word from a historical perspective. In other words buy a history book and see read about how Chrisitans have treated people of other religions throughout time. How did they treat them? Crusaders and corruptted church leaders dont make up for not even 10% of christians in the world, if thats your point. And besides, what religous side treated others kindly? Not one. Were muslims and jews kind to christians? Nope. In middle ages, war was connected to everything, and as much as you find it hard to believe, Christians arent responsible for every single war that happend in Middle Ages. Examples such as ottoman Empire and muslim invasion of Hispania prove so. A religion can only be judged by the behaviour of it's adherents, especially the attitudes of those who are in charge. It's not important what Jesus said. Most likely most of the things you think he said were actually said by the people claiming to be his followers. Jesus himself never wrote anything. What's important is how people interpret the teachings and how they act. That is bullshit on so many levels its hard to believe you really wrote something like that. lets say I start a religon and say the followers should fed the ppor, help the weak, respect eachother etc etc... and some of my followers do exact the oppiste. Yo're gonna blame my religion and say its bad, even though i said to my followers to do all the opposite? I think you know how bad and stupid your logic is here, you just would never ever admit you were wrong, especially not on this topic. Christianity is, I'll say it again, based on Christ's teachings, and if his eachings are good and rightus than Christianity could not possibly be evil, because the founder and the foundation of it is not. How people later used and twisted it is irrelevant to the moral status of christianity. Like i said, saying ''Christianity is opressive'' is not the same as saying ''Christians are opressive'', because if the followers of the religion dont actually follow the teachings of religion, they cant treally be called followers of that religion, thus they cant be called christians . And even if your incredibly flawed logic is to be considerd (it is not in any way) it would still be flawed for 2 reasons: 1) Those corrupted christians in Middle Ages make for very small minority of christians 2) all those opressing from the chistian church happend at hunderds and hundreds of years ago, so its extremly dumb to use them today to prove christianity is bad., even when judged by its followers...who are not even its real followers...who did the acts hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There are lots of Buddhists texts and scriptures. There's a whole section about that on Wikipedia. They also believe in a higer power, but it's not a theistic religion, so it's quite different from what you think religion is. Ask a Buddhist on this site if you can find one, or do some research yourself. Buddhism is more like a mixure of philisophy and spirituality rather than religion. Thats the definition of it. Most people don't like immigrants, for reasons that have less to do with religion. I'm sure people would love less immigrants going into their countries and stealing their jobs (as many of them put it), but Governments have the role of protecting human rights, not bending over to what the masses may want in their ignorance. That depends on what kind of imigrants. people dont like immigrants that come to another country, dont learn the language, dont have a job of any kind, get wellfare check and social help from the government, make over 8 childern per family with only 1-2 of them actually get pass schooll etc ect... Immigrants who come here and start working for themselfes, their family and THE COUNTRY that gives them shelter are NEVER hated by anyone (except for nazis and rednecks). But like you said, the hatred towards immigrants has little to do with religion. When they invent a time machine, I'll take you to the Middle Ages and show you how "civilized" European Christians were. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html ^^Just some example on these barberic people. But no, seriously, Europe was and IS the most advanced continent on the planet, to say people there were un civilized is rather...insane
Those Christians were actually Vizigoths who had stolen those lands from the Romans. And the Romans had stolen the lands from... etc. The Slavs (your ancestors) also were barbarians that came and stole lands from the Romans, lands that that did not belong to them. I agree. In fact all of Balkans should be brought back under turkish rule, because we obviously stole their land in 1912 and in mid-19th century. Also,Poland should be part of Germany, because Poles stole their land in 1945... And India should be part of England as well, those guys stole their english land.. Seriously, I thibk you are getting deprate, you should stop arguing about this. Stole it from romans???? Do you even know who romans were? They were THE FUCKING CONQUERS of the land, you cant steal something that you previously owned. Romans also invaded Hispannia, a land that didnt belong to them. If you take something that didnt belong to you and later you lose it, you cant say someone stole it from you because it was never yours, you just took it away. More education for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#Roman_Empire_and_the_Gothic_KingdomI'm not wrong in any way, plus that doesn't change the fact that the Christian invaders were much worse and cruel, and much more fanatical regarding religion, than the Moors ever were, which defeats the image of the "poor Christians" taking back the lands that the "big bad bloodthirsty muslims" stole from them. If you learn more about this, you'll actually find out that the Christian Vizigoths were so incompetent, that the Moors didn't have ti use that much violence to conquer the Iberian Peninsula. In many cases the Christians surrendered to the new rulers willingly, tired of their own incomeptent authorities. I see what you are trying to do here, the same thing i asked you not to in my last post...THIS WASNT PART of our discussion. You are simply trying to make christians look bad because of your enormous hate towards them, but I dont really care, because your arguments dont change or add up anything to the discussion because that was not what this debate is about. Im gonna put this in the most easiest way I can and please next time you quote me and start replaying to this whole Reconquista discussion, answer me on this statement and ONLY on this statement (which is a fact): Iberian Peninsula is ruled by christians, the muslims come and attack them ,took the land that didnt belonged to them, than christians attack muslims and took their land that was stolen from the by muslims. THE END. Either respond to this or dont try to respond at all There was no war before the Christians started it. The Christians who participated in the Reconquista had nothing to do with the Vizigoths who lost the peninsyula to the Moors. Also, in case you didn't know this, most of the Muslims that the Christians persecuted were actually ethnic spaniards, who had converted to Islam (most of the conquered Christians willingly converted to Islam, due to the advantages doing so brought), so the Christians were perecutting their own people, jsut because they had a different religion (then again there's not much more you can expect from religious fanatics). ^^See my point above It had lots to do with making sure that everyone practiced a certain form of Christianity (and people who weren't Christians were persecuted). Can you imagine how different Christianity would be today, if certain sects hadn't been wiped out by the Inquisition? Why did the Christians have to persecute "withces", and Muslims, and Jews, if they weren't afraid of them? Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point. I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power.I'll copy & paste this couple of more times so that you dont responed with the same answer for the 5th time Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point. I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power. Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point. I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power. Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point. I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power. |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
