What Religion Do You Follow?

[sapphi_snake]

@pizzahut451:

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?

Would you be expressing someone else's opinion?

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.

I've heard Christians arguin that killing is OK, right on these message boards. I don't know what exactly all those religious writings wanted to say, but they should've been writtin in a more specific manner, as people seem to be interpreting them as they like.

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.

Yes, that could explain why Chrisitans decided to destroy education in the Medieval period.

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.

I agree with this. I'd actually go as far as to say that a god is as good as the people who worshipp it. I don't beleive in the existence of sin though.

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.

http://english.hotnews.ro/stiri-archive-1750740-candidates-for-top-job-romanian-orthodox-church-accused-collaboration-with-former-communist-secret-police.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_collaboration_with_Communist_secret_services#Romania

I could link you more, but lots of them are in Romanian. This is a well known thing over here in Romania.

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.

Well, in the case of the Reconquista the Christians were the bad guys. Doesn't mean that Muslims weren't bad guys in other situations.

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

Believe it or not, I get this a lot actually.

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

I'd say Christian missionaries are terrible and immoral with their behaviour. Obviously money and wealth were big incentives. But you can be surte that the Conquistadores were using the fact that the natives were pagans to make themselves feel better (and I doubt priests were discouraging them).

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.

I was using Russia as an example of what would happen if a Chrsitian majority country would no longer be secular. And what more proof do I need then the fact that the Chruch participates in the governing and there's a law that says it's illegal to insult "Christians"? Situations like these only exist in Islamic theocracies, countries where Christians like to complain that they're being persecuted. I'm starting to see that you're a hipocrite.

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.

In a democracy civil rights>>>choice of the people. And religous freedom is a civil right that can only be protected by secularism. Of course Russia's hardly the example of a democracy, but it's the closest thing to a Christian theocracy that we have (if you ignore the Vatican that is).

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.

Yes, because Germany is a democracy, and like any self respecting democracy tries to protect religious freedom, freedom of speech etc. Now personally I think there should be harsher immigration laws, and certain behaviours should lead to expulsion, but that's another issue. Still, making an insulting drawing of Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha whatever should not be illegal.

Here are some better links on the subject:

In the first link there were actually some Muslims from Spain mentioned.

In the second link it's important to note they say that in the Early Middle Ages the West was cut-off from the works of Greek philosophers, and that education was limited to strictly clergymen. Most people were illiterate and ignorant, and knowledge was certainly not enocuraged. The link actually awknoledges that there was a Reneissance in the High Middle Ages thanks to contact with the "more knowledgeable Muslim" Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century

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

And hen we're talking about who's superior and who's not, we should also talk about the whole society, not just some elite clergymen. Do you think the averege Chrsitian peasant had it better than the averege Muslim commoner? The Muslim commoner went to school, learned to read and write, while the Christian peasent couldn't even take a bath.

Watch the documentary I reccomended (like a million posts ago).

Nah, you would just never ever accept to lose a religious argument.

You'd have to genuenly prove me wrong, which you haven't.

Actually, I have posted more links to support my facts than you

Yes, but they don't really prove your points if you read them carefully. Plus I also reccomended a documentary and can reccomend books if I ever decide to ask my Uni professor (though I think I have a lsit of required reading for my class somewhere).

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.

I certainly don't think Muslims are that great now. And they certainly did do some bad things throughout history. But I dislike it when Chrisitans judge them, considering all they've done (and things like the Inquisition, what happened to the natives from teh Americas etc, are hard to beat)

You have to realize I am not arguing that Christians were superior and better in Middle ages, I am arguing they werent inferior and worse.

Overall Christian society<<<Muslims society back then.