What Religion Do You Follow?

[pizzahut451]

sapphi_snake said:

@pizzahut451:

I'm just presenting my opinion.

So if I say that atheists are pasty, overfed, underfucked, greasy, fat moms basement dwelwing a**holes I would be just expressing my opinnion no?

I know very well Christians persecuted eachother. The Middle Ages is a prime example. And the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages sure represented the Chrisitan message back then, as it does now. And MAritn Luther wasn't can't exactly be said to have been a figure of the Middle Ages.

If you think they presented the message of Christianity i suggest you read New testament, especially the the parts about Christ, and read it with no bullshit or bias. And you admited yourself that church killed christians who disagreed with them, which proves not everyone agreed with them, and that they were opressed and forced to listen to them.

But most of them, no?

well, I never said most of the didnt listen to them. But its worth to take into consideration that the church was the only one in possesion of Bible (because very few people could read back than) so they turend and twisted it how ever they wanted, becuse no one would really know if what they were saying were true or false, because very few people could could even red back than.

You just presented a good argument against organised religion in general.

Organised religion is only as good/ as bad as the people who run it. personally, I dont think a religion shouldnt have a ''leader'' (except for their God) becuase humans are sinful, and a sinful person cant guide another persons belief system. But of course that depends on religion itself.

The Protestant Refomration is a very important event, which greatly helped Western Europe evolve, I'll give it that.

Simple really. Someone goes to confession, the priest then reports of anyone admitted to any sentiments against the Communist regime. Lots of priests worked as agents of the Securitate, the Communist secret police that hunted the people who opposed the regime. Collaborating with Securitate offered great benefits.

Even if that were true (which I slightly doubt) that's not the fault of Orthodoxy (its strictly forbidden for a priest to talk about other people's confession, doesnt matter what chirstian you are), its the comunist regime and  the ''priest's'' fault. Not only do those people shouldnt be call priests, but not even believers at all. Do you have anything to support that claim.

We were talking about averege Christians in the Middle Ages, no?

it still would be false, for the reasons I mentioned before.

Well, maybe it was a little biased. But generally I always believe people should look at what goes on in their own backyard, not their neighbours'. Since I used to be a Christian, I feel more connected to the past actions of Christians, rather then those of Muslims, hence why I'm more critical of them. And you yourself are biased when talking about the "terrible" things Muslims did, when Christiands did the same, if not worst. In the end, all this finger pointing is useless. There are no innocents.

Well, you started defending Muslim actions, while attacking Christians, I was saying that you were biased for saying muslims wre innocent while christians are evil.I never said that Christians were crimeless, but you implied that Christians were the absolute bad guys in reconquista war But at least you admited it for real this time and I am glad I can end this Reconquista argument.

O_o. We were talking about the Romanian Orthodox Church earlier. What could've possibly make you think I was Hungarian? (my profile should've been the ultimate clue)

I always mix these two, because their capital cities sound alot alike.

Religion was used as a driving factor to encourage the Christians to commit those terible acts. If you'd go back in time and ask a Conquistador, he'd deffinately tell you he's doing what he is "in the name of God", and that those nasty Pagans deserve it. Catholic clergy actually considered themselves the soldiers of God, who were suppose to carry out his bidding, which was to Convert the whole world to Christianity. All the conversions that went out there were immoral (actually any coversions carried out by missionaries today are immoral, as the vicitms are poor ignorant people from 3rd world countries, who are lured into the religion by promises and food from missionaries).

No, it wasnt. Power, lust for money and wealth >>>>> religious influence. People went to SA for gold,slavery and land, religion was discussad after ost of people wer already inslaved and defeated. You'd think something like this would have been obvious. People didnt go there ''in the name of God'', they went there to get rich, and Christianity had little to do with it. Ask a HONEST conquisitador why is he in SA and I swear to God he would tell you that he is there for wealth, gold and land. As for missionaries TODAY, they are one of the best things in Christianity

In Romania there is separation between Chruch and state (don't know if it's in the Constitution, but it's still applied anyway). I could hardly call myself persecuted. Most Western countries are nice places to live, THANKS TO SECULARISM (though things aren't that great, as eveyone has to pay taxes to the Romanian Orthodox Chruch, regardless of their religion). An example of an opressive Christian country is Russia. Things are almost as bad there for non-Christians, as things are for non-Muslims in Islamic countries. In Russia there is no separation between Church and State, the Russian Orthodox Church actually participates in running the country. There are actually laws that prevent people from doing things that can be interpreted as "insulting for Christians". An artist over there was jailed and fined several times because he protested against the lack of religions freedom with his artowrk, and some priests vandalised his exposition, and they didn't get any punishment whatsoever. If it weren't for secularism, Christians would be persecuting everybody in the countries where they are the majority.

Actually, Russia has major problems with thier muslims rebels who always comitt crimes against russian state.The best example is Chechenya and thier terrorist. And if someone commits terororist acts against the country they are no longer treated with rights provided to the citizen of that country. You cant say ''An artist was arrested'' and say russia is opressing muslims based on only that example. You need alot ore evidence to support that claim. And there are lots of islamic secular states, but that doesnt mean the society wont condamn you for saying anything against their religion.  And like i mentioned before, its THE PEOPLE who choose what kind of political system will THEIR country have. And if majority of people in the country are christians who decided that their country should be a religon state and not secular, than they have full right to do so. Choice of people >>> Secularism. And i live in germany, a place filled with turkish, iragq and kurdish imigrants and let me tell you this and i swear o God its true, Germans have A LOT of tolerance for muslims here just like the rest of europe, despite the behaviour the majority of them shows.

I'm gonna be more polite, and assume you just don't pay attention, rather than intentionally ignore the parts of your link that refute your claims and support mine. According to your link the Treaty of Granada was signed in 1491. Also according to your link, in 1492, the King of Spain (an avid Chriustian) issued the Alhambra Decree, which revoked most of the protections that the Treaty of Granada offered to Jews and Muslims. The forced conversions, persecution and deportations that I said happened really did happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

Please read what you link more carefully.

Whoa, hold on there a second. This article is about the jews. we were talking about christian_muslim relations, I never mentioned Jews. That article is irrelevant to our discussion, and treaty of Granada had nothing to do with it. That link doesnt debunk the fact that Spanish gave muslims set of human rights after they retook Iberia. If we were talking about Jews, than you would be right, but we weren't

Actually the Middle Ages started in the 5th century, and the Ottoman Empire didn't exist 'till the end of the 13th century. 80% of the Middle Ages is actually Arabs, especially the European Moors. The Greels and the Romans were amazing, but we're taling about the MIDDLE AGES, not Antiquity. Europe (exception beint Muslims Spain) was one of the most primitive places in the world, where science and thinking was not encouraged, and the works of the Greek philosophers you acclaim were destroyed, as Christians thought they were dangerous (they also destroyed Roman Universities and discouraged learning). Heck, Christians even discouraged hygene, by destroying Roman bath houses, and scaring people by saying that washing was dangerous (this practice was continued by Chrisitans in Europe even after the Middle Ages were over).

Here are some better links on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_European_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_science

 

 

The Byzantines kept the Greek Philosophers writings, but they didn't use them that much (though I'm not sure about that, as I mostly learned about the Western Europeans). The Muslims also cherished the works of the Greek Philosophers when Christians burned them. They developed Philosophical works of theor own, they made progress in the field of mathematics (have you ever heard of arab numerlas?), astrology, medicine (a medieval Christian doctor would probably kill you, while surgical methods developed by arabs were used worldwide 'till the early 20th century) etc. If you'd jsut do a little research you'd find out just how amazing Muslims were back then (don't be fooled by the radicals of today), and how primitive Christians were (we're talking about the Middle Ages, Europe's lowest pointYes, you did prove you tend to cherry pick and to be biased on lots of points during this debate.).Without them Western Europe would've never had a Reneissance.

well, at least you admited you are wrong in the best way you could :)

I didn't admit I was wrong. I decided to reply anyways, as I was in the right state of mindNah, you would just never ever accept to lose a religious argument. You have not managed to support your pointsActually, I have posted more links to support my facts than you, and you cannot, because you're wrong (maybe not regarding the more subjective ones regarding who was right to invade etc.m''maybe'' lol... but definatelt regarding the historical points (the way Christians treated Muslims and Jews You are right on some points, I'll give you that, but you are also biased and one_eye blinded. You only choose the see that bad pd things christians did and choose to ignore the bad things muslims did trough history. the state of the Christian world and the Muslim world during the Middle AgesYou have to realize I am not arguing that Christians were superior and better in Middle ages, I am arguing they werent inferior and worse. etc.). Do some more research regarding the latter, and read carefully.