sapphi_snake said:
@pizzahut451:
Probably not, though it's been so long I don't remember what exactly it was. 
You dissapoint me, spaphis snake...
Yeah, but the people are pretty much the religion.
No, the people can be the followers of religion. There are righteous ones and there are corrupted ones. But the ones who use it for diffrent corrupted goals do not represent it. There are bad people in every community and you cant judge the community based only on few of them. or in this case what the corrupted ones did 600 years ago...
What did I say? Was it not the same thing?
You said Christians were uneducated because Christianity forbidds freedom of thinking. I said, it was the corupted church that forbided it, beauseit feared someone might see the how wrong they interpret the Bible and with what kind of un justice they treat their people.
The religion itself depends on the people and how they choose to interpret it. I'm against organised religion myself though.
The religion itself depends on the message its delievering to the world, how many corrupted and evil people choose to twist it and use has nothing to do with thre religion itself. You'd think logic like that would have been obvious. How can Jesus Christ be responsible for the deeds evil people did in the name of his religion.
Considering that that Church has over 80% of Romania's population as followers, I don't see it gettign banned. And I wouldn't say the commies used the Church. The Romanian Orthodox Church would do anything to have some sort of political power.
Well, I was talking about the church in the time of communism. I dont beleivechurch in romania is doing those things now, when communism fell apart, do they
Their land was the land they had in the North.
Their land was Visgothic Kingdom that was take from them by violence, and they were fighting to retake it back from the invaders that took over Iberia(which was 100% thier homeland before it wa taken away by violence and fell to the invaders) Seriously I cant believe iIm still argueing this with you. Didnt you already admited you were wrong on this matter?
Ugh, you do know that Russia is a secular country, right? The religion has nothing to do with running the country of Russia. The Russian Christians are in general bit of un-tolerant at people of other beleifs (but they in no way, shape or form persecute them) but who could blame them, after what has atheist Stalin and the atheist state of Soviet Union did to Christians before USSR collapsed?
A secular country doesn't make blasphemy illegal, nor does it allow religious leaders to participate in the State's affairs.
Exactly, it doesnt. So the Christianity has no word over running the country of Russia. And blaspehy can be illegal when its considerd as a hate crime/speech in some cases.
In a democracy there are certain limits imposed by the Constitution, to keep it from becoming the tyranny of the majority. A state religion pretty much goes against the principle of freedom of religion.
Yet, there are secular countries in the world (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen...) and as far as I heard they dont persecute Christians or jews or anything.
Well, fear is not a good reason.
It might not be good reason, but its THE reason.
I don't think so. You're basing this on what? Your dislike for Muslims?
The simple well recognised historic fact that when another religous empire conquers your own, you are pretty much forced, one way or the other, to convert to the specific religion. And considering the Spanish were forced to convert to islam, there are high chances they were Europeans.
That sure doesn't make Christians look good, does it?
That doesnt make the Church and the people who only call themselfes christians, yet they did everything agisnt Christ's teachings look bad. Why are you so narrow minded and about this subject? Is it hatred for Christians or just ignorance?
Most Christians were illiterate, most Mulsims weren't.
Proof...? I higly doubt you can find it.
You started judging christians first, by mentioning stuff SOME of them did 600 years ago (Inquisition) than saying they were the bad guy for trying to reclaim thier land (Reconquista) and acuse thier belief system of somethingits not guilty of (The coolonisation of Americas)
How are they not guilty of the colonisation of the Americas?
I didnt say they werent responsible for colonisation of Americas, i said their religion, Christianity, had very little to nothing to do with it. Dont twist words
Not in the Middle Ages. And I was talking about the Moors.
Ugh, you are aware that Ottoman empire existed even in the Middle Ages, right? And you said ''muslims'# so I was assuming you were talking about muslims overall.
Also, what happend to my other points? Are you finally letting go of this debate? :)
|
