|
Post by vertigo on Mar 8, 2006 7:27:28 GMT -5
My point is that your Christianity is just one flavour. Think back to the crusades and the witch-hunts and you'll see what can happen. When the Pope tells people in Africa not to use condoms, that is like me telling people not to look left or right before crossing the street, surely you can see that is dangerous and will have negative effects. Particularly, it will cause suffering, but of course the church wants people to suffer because then they need the church.
Abortion is a great example. When church organisations counsel mothers who have had an abortion, they reinforce what a mistake it was, how only God/Jesus can forgive that sin, etc. They keep those people in a state of mourning and regret perpetually, for their own purposes, so as to further their own aims. That's why we here these myths like "you'll have to live with the regret for the rest of your life", etc. When abortion clinics are bombed and the perpetrators justify themselves with passages from Leviticus, something is drastically wrong with religion.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry6734 on Mar 8, 2006 11:21:10 GMT -5
Christianity is 'just one flavor'? But to say that Christianity is just one flavor, is an incomplete thought. It's a flavor of what Vertigo? No, it's a religion in of itself. I don't think you can deny that, however you've seemed to deny a lot of reasonable thoughts. I want you to address the teachings of Christ, for these prove that Christianity did not originate in such a violent state as the Crusades and become a modern moral authority untrue to its roots. Its roots are in Christ, and I have listed a lot of His teachings on behavor toward others. Tell me where Jesus said anything that would justify the Crusades? Historically I think you're ignorant of the causes of the war and the motivation. The Italian journalist, Vittorio Messori, provided his answers to these questions. "A simple review of history, along very general lines, confirms an obvious truth: Christianity is constantly on the defensive when it comes to Moslem aggression; this has been the case from the beginning until now. For example, in Africa there was a bloody offensive by the Moslems to convert ethnic groups that the heroic sacrifices of generations of missionaries had succeeded in baptizing. Admittedly, some in the course of history need to ask for forgiveness. But, in this instance, must it be Catholics who ask for forgiveness for actions in self-defense, and for keeping the road open for pilgrimage to Jesus' places, which was the reason for the Crusades?" But there is a question we must ask ourselves. In the context of more than a thousand years of Christian-Islamic relations, who has been the victim and who the aggressor? When Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem in 638, the city had been Christian for over three centuries. Soon after, the Prophet's disciples invaded and destroyed the glorious churches of Egypt, first, and then of North Africa, causing the extinction of Christianity in places that had had Bishops like St. Augustine. Later it was the turn of Spain, Sicily and Greece, and the land that would eventually become Turkey, where the communities founded by St. Paul himself were turned into ruins. In 1453, after seven centuries of siege, Constantinople, the second Rome, capitulated and became Islamic. The Islamic threat reached the Balkans but, miraculously, the onslaught was stopped and forced to turn back at Vienna's walls. If the Jerusalem massacre of 1099 is execrated, Mohammed II's action in Otranto [Italy] in 1480 must not be forgotten, a raw example of a bloody funeral procession of sufferings. At present, what Moslem country respects the civil rights and freedom of worship of any other than their own? Who is angered by the genocide of Armenians in the past, and of Sudanese Christians at present? According to the devotees of the Koran, is the world not divided between the 'Islamic territory' and the 'war territory' -- all those areas that must be converted to Islam, whether they like it or not? The theological innovation of the Crusades was the definition of warfare undertaken selflessly, in good faith, and in the service of Christ and His people as a penitential act. Although new, this was in keeping with other Christian principles such as the spiritually beneficial practice of pilgrimage and almsgiving. In the case of the Crusades, the warriors were undergoing extreme hardships (like a pilgrim) to save the lives of their neighbors oppressed by foreign conquerors. Salvation, therefore, was achieved by self-sacrifice and right intentions, not by violence, which the Church saw only as a necessary precursor to turning back Muslim conquests. So while Christ taught selflessness, and turning the other cheek, war, as Rousseau might have said, is between State and State, and not on the same level as man and man. For one State to organize itself against another military threat can be a just war. You need to study and contemplate how long these Moslem conquests were going on. Seven Centuries! This was not a just war to you because it ended in deaths? Was it a religiously motivated war in the first place? Or was it a military response? The aforementioned attacks were Moslem initially, it is certainly not people motivated by their God to go kill others who do not believe as they do. That is an fanciful history by ignorant atheists to make religion look bad. If you want to find the true origin and moral character of ONE religion, just one, READ THE GOSPELS. I don't have to TELL you AGAIN what these teachings are. Christ's greatest command was 'love one another.' He taught that laying one's life down for a friend is the greatest love, selfless love. So if you still cannot comprehend how Christ's teachings prove that Christianity is not dangerous and Crusades were not motivated soley on religious contention, I have no sympathy for you, but you are wrong in saying that 'religion is dangerous.' It is actually OPPOSITION to religion, as a principle, that causes wars and suffering. You talk some hate yourself against Christians and those that believe in God, saying that we must be 'fought' at every turn. Yet, you don't know how to refute that Christianity is obviously not dangerous. Your only argument is that it is 'just one flavor.' Pathetic response for a pathetic contention. Abortion. You have no clue what Church organizations do for women who have had abortions. One only needs to read their websites or literature to know that they maintain the sinfulness (as most Christians do) but emphasize again and again that GOD'S VERY NAME IS MERCY. Catholic help centers for women who have had abortions always emphazise the immensity of God's unabounding mercy and forgiveness. While abortion is a sin, 'God forgives.' It is no fact that 'they' keep 'those people' in a 'state of mourning and regret perpetually, for their own purposes, so as to further their own claims' and you'd be better off researching on your OWN these programs like outreach, or project Rachel. I assume you've never had an abortion and have been tormented by these hate-mongering Christians that want to keep you mourning for their own purposes (which you cannot articulate). It's just this endless deceit and dishonest ulterior motives of the Church, isn't it? Well, you have no proof, only stupid atheists that would rather believe what they want about Christians than what is evident. Something is drastically wrong with people, for you find that the interpretation of Leviticus is a MISINTERPRETATION don't you? That's what you seem to say. The problem is people NEVER religion.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry6734 on Mar 9, 2006 11:51:37 GMT -5
Why do I answer all your objections and you do nothing but cast different aspersions against the faith without answering my questions and objections? It is not dangerous for the Holy Father to advocate Natural Family Planning instead of condom use in Africa, and here’s why. First of all, simply, Natural Family Planning is effective and promotes human virtue and mutual respect for the human person and their sexuality. It is effective, it is NOT THE RHYTHM METHOD. In an article in the British Medical Journal, September 18th, 1993, a doctor reviews the evidence on Natural Family Planning and says it's more effective than the most effective contraceptive. More effective! He cites studies from, of all places, Calcutta. And you know who it is who was teaching Natural Family Planning in Calcutta? A diminutive Catholic nun. The author has found out that most of those whom she teaches are Muslims and Hindus. Natural family planning has what is called, a virtual zero pregnancy rate, .004 pregnancy rate. Do you recall the 1968 encyclical Humane Vitae by Pope Paul VI? It was a shock to the Church considering the attitude of some priests that contraception was okay. At the time, it was thought to be a good thing to be able to space the births of your children. This was the noble end of contraception, as seen by some bishops and clergy until Pope Paul’s encyclical. What is significant is that he made four predictions about what would happen to society if contraception became widespread. First, he said there would be a general lowering of morality in society. I don’t have to give much effort explaining the changes socially and morally since the 1950s, that there is widespread pornography and lowering of the bar for most television shows. Secondly, he predicted that there would be a general disregard for the physical and psychological wellbeing of females by males. There seems to be an enormous outbreak of sexual abuse of women. The statistics are just overwhelming for how many women have been sexually abused by someone in their household. Let us also consider the fact that 60% of poverty in the United States is accounted for by single women with children. Most of those living in poverty in the United States are single women with children. That seems to me to be clearly psychological and physical abuse of women. And how did it happen? How did we get all these single mothers with children? The third prediction was that governments would use family planning programs for coercive purposes once contraception became widely available. There are efforts by the UN to make all economic aid to these countries tied to aggressive population programs. These countries must have aggressive distribution of contraceptives, sterilization, and ready access to abortion if we are going to feed and take care of the poor. I don't know if you've seen this in the news, but it's been in the Catholic press, that women delegates to the UN are outraged at this. They find this insulting and demeaning. They feel like they're being treated like breed cows. What they want is better prenatal care. What they want is better medical care. What they want is more access to education and food for their children that's not tied to contraceptive programs. And some of you may be familiar with the work of Steven Mosher — it's very well documented — that there are forced abortions in China. In many areas of China, if a woman has more than one pregnancy, more than one baby, the second pregnancy will be forcibly aborted. Women are actually dragged out of fields late in a pregnancy and forcibly aborted. Do you hear or have you seen any sort of national outrage for what's gone on in China? Pope Paul VI's fourth prediction was that we would begin to treat our bodies as though they were machines. We would no longer have respect for the human person as an integral unity of body and soul, but the body would now be a machine that we can treat however we like. Now there is no greater evidence than that of our use of reproductive technologies, or surrogate motherhood, for instance, and many of the in vitro procedures. Some of you may have heard the story around Christmas time of a fifty-nine year old woman in England who conceived a child through in vitro fertilization. Now, any woman can buy a baby. Any woman can go to an in vitro clinic and simply buy herself some semen and get herself impregnated and get the kind of baby she wants. It gives a new meaning to the word “designer genes”. If you want a Nobel laureate, you go to Stanford. If you want a hot whiz kid from MIT, you go to a clinic outside of MIT. If you want an east coast, Ivy League whiz kid, you go outside of Harvard. Any woman — married, unmarried, homosexual, heterosexual — can buy herself a baby, any woman who has money. Tell me we are not treating our bodies like machines. These predictions seem more agreeable in retrospect now, but when he made them, secular society knew better, they thought it was the greatest thing, and still think it is, yet all these predictions came true. Why? It’s an abuse of the body. And it obscures what sex is for. I will not be surprised, and am in fact counting on your disagreeing that you think sex is for reproduction alone and that condemns are perfectly moral. But the fact is that the Church is aware, more than the rest of society, blindly following the trends, that humans have a nature, and when they act contrary to their nature, things will start to progress downward. It is not moral to abuse the body. This is a teaching of Christian respect for the human person, the whole human person, and not just the parts we wish to respect (i.e. excluding the parts of which we could derive the most pleasure). Natural Law and empirical proof says that things have a purpose and in order for things to prosper, they must be used in accord with that purpose. Take for example the liver, clearly it has many functions, but those functions all serve systems which in turn serve one purpose or another. Each cell, tissue, organ, organ system, has a function, a purpose. The reproductive organs have a purpose too: reproduction. I could go on about how semen contains nutrients for maintenance and growth of sperm cells, or how it contains a prostaglandin that causes contractions of the uterus to facilitate movement of sperm cells to the ovum. I could explain how the semen protects the sperm cells as a buffered fluid from the acidic environment of the vaginal tract. How does the male reproductive system pre-figure the female reproductive system? Seems to me this is good example of design. Yet, if it’s just the way things have worked themselves out, they worked themselves out in this possible way to achieve reproduction which still pre-figures a purpose. We do not have sex organs, we have reproductive organs. And since abuse is using something in a way contrary to its purpose, subverting the reproductive function of these organs constitutes an abuse of them. It is not dangerous to recognize this, it is only dangerous to continue to treat our bodies in this way, spread more disease and expect condemns will cover it up. The world doesn’t need more condemns it needs chastity, properly putting sex into perspective and seeing that life isn’t about sex. It is not ABSURD to suggest that couples abstain from sex for extended periods of time. You act as if the Holy Father is causing the AIDS problem by condemning artificial contraception use in Africa. That presupposes that prostitution needs to continue, that people need to live their licentious lives. If people need to live licentious lives, then the danger is NOT RESPECTING BODY! The AIDS epidemic was not caused by Christianity, thus the African people and the world needs to find a better solution to the spread of AIDS, one that takes a change of heart. Details on the numerous cases of prophylactic failure have been widely publicized elsewhere [1]. The truth is that for various reasons "prevention" has been equated with "the proper use of prophylactics", without their effectiveness in the HIV/AIDS epidemic having been statistically proved or -- really -- being provable, because of the multiple factors influencing the spread of the epidemic. This "decision of principle" has deliberately obscured what has been known for some time about the relative effectiveness of the prophylactic as a contraceptive [2]. In fact, statistics in this area indicate almost 15 failures per 100 sexual acts "protected" by condoms. We are asked to believe that the HIV virus, 450 times smaller than spermatozoa, can almost always be magically blocked by a condom, without taking into account that spermatozoa themselves can pass through the latex barrier in 15 out of 100 completed sexual acts. The only statistically valid study on the effectiveness of prophylactics in fighting HIV/AIDS is that of the "Groupe d'Etudes Europeen" [3]. However this study examines stable couples who are serodiscordant [4]. and free of genital infections, on the basis of the situation in Europe where, in any case, the sexual transmission of the virus is more than contained. Further statistics -- which should be prudently interpreted -- constantly show a failure rate of at least 10% (10 failures out of 100 prophylactics used) [5]. Lastly, according to recent information from several researchers at London's University College Medical School, [6] the publicity given to the condom in the fight against HIV/AIDS could have an effect contrary to what is desired inasmuch as such publicity might lead people to riskier sexual behaviour because of the sense of safety they feel when using a prophylactic. In any case, the Church's position on the prevention of HIV/AIDS is to the human and anthropological root of the problem, that is, to the level of respect for human sexuality, to the level of the values that determine the human growth of individual members of the human race. If the HIV/AIDS epidemic has assumed such proportions in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, it is because it has found favourable conditions for spreading in this way: unemployment, poverty, the condition of refugees, civil wars, the lack of political authority or health-care structures, corruption, the concentration of the poor in large urban areas, the growth of occasional or permanent prostitution. Moreover, the condition of women, who are subject to the will of their husbands on pain of rejection with the gravest social consequences, in a certain way explains why it is women who, in the various countries of sub-Saharan Africa, are today the worst hit by the HIV/AIDS infection (12-13 women for every 10 men) [7]. The recurrence of sexually transmitted diseases that lead to HIV in the female organism [8] explains the rest. The prevention of AIDS must act at this basic, social, value level, if it is to be effective [9] The most radical prevention of HIV/AIDS, the one which is absolutely effective and which no one can deny, is sexual abstinence for adolescents before marriage and conjugal chastity in marriage. This is the Church's message. Merely to ask adolescents to use prophylactics in their sexual experiences means continuing to feed the vicious cycle of sex which is at the root of the serious pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. It is an illusion to equate the effectiveness of the HIV/AIDS battle with the number of prophylactics distributed in a given population. [1] K. April, R. Koster, G. Fantacci, et al., "Qual e il grado effettivo di protezione dall'HIV del preservativo?", Medicina e Morale, 1994, 44 (5):903-905. R. Kirkman, "Condom Use and Failure", The Lancet, 1990, 336 (8721):1009. R. Kuss, H. Lestradet, "SIDA: communication, information et prevention", in Le SIDA, propagation et prevention, Rapports de la commission VII de l'Academie Nationale de Medecine, Editions de Paris, 1996, pp. 12-55. J. Suaudeau, "Le 'sexe sur' et le preservatif face au defi du Sida", Medicina e Morale, 1997 (4):689-726. [2] W. R. Grady. M. D. Hayward, J. Yagi, "Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from 1982 National Survey of Family Growth", Family Planning Perspectives, 1986,18 (5):200-209. S. Jejeebhoy, "Measuring Contraceptive Use-Failure and Continuation: An Overview of New Approaches, in Measuring the Dynamics of Contraceptive Use", United Nations, New York, 1991, pp. 21-51, tables 3, 5. D. M. Potts, G. I. M. Sawyer, "Effectiveness and Risks of Birth-Control Methods", British Medical Bulletin, 1970, 26 (1):26-32. E. F. Jones, J. D. Forrest, "Contraceptive Failure Rates Based on the 1988 NSFG [National Survey of Family Growth]", Family Planning Perspectives, 1992,24 (1):12-19. M. P. Vessey, M. Lawless, D. Yeates, "Efficacy of Different Contraceptive Methods, The Lancet, 1982, 1 (8276):841-842. World Health Organization, Communicating Family, Planning in Reproductive Health: Key Message for Communicators, WHO, 1997, p. 18. [3] I. De Vincenzi, "Comparison of Female to Male and Male to Female Transmission of HIV in 563 Stable Couples", British Medical Journal, 1992, 302:809-813. I. De Vincenzi, for the European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV, "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners", The New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 331 (6) :341-346. [4] In the situation of serodiscordant HIV couples, the most important factor affecting the transmission of HIV seems not to be the use or non-use of a condom, but the sexual behaviour of the partners and the presence or absence of sexually transmitted diseases. In his statistics for 1987, N. Padian showed that the risk of HIV contamination basically depends on the number of partners and the number of sexual acts with an infected partner. N. Padian, L. Marquis, D. P. Francis, et al., "Male-to-Female Transmission of Human lmunodeficiency Virus", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987,258 (6):788-790. [5] P. C. Gotzsche, M. Hording, "Condoms to Prevent HIV Transmission Do Not Imply Truly Safe Sex", Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1988, 20 (2), pp. 233-234. H. Hearst, S. Hulley, "Preventing the Heterosexual Spread of AIDS: Are We Giving Our Patient the Best Advice?", JAMA, 1988,259 (16):2428-2432. J. Kelly, "Using Condoms to Prevent Transmisison of HIV: Condoms Have an Appreciable Failure Rate", British Medical Journal, 1996, 312 (7044): 1478. J. A. Kelly, J. S. St. Lawrence, "Cautions about Condoms in Prevention of AIDS", The Lancet, 1987, 1 (8258):323. S. H. Vermund, Editorial "Casual Sex and HIV Transmission", American Journal of Public Health. 1995, 85 (11):1488-1489. J. T. Vessey, D. B, Larson, J. S. Lyons, et al„ "Condom Safety and HIV", Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 1994, 21 (1):59-60. S. Weller, "A Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV", Social Science Medicine, 1993,36 (12):1365-1644. [6] J. Richens, J. lmrie, A. Copas, "Condoms and Seat Belts: The Parallels and the Lessons", The Lancet, 2000, 355 (9201):400-403. [7] AIDS Epidemic Update: December 1999, UNAIDS, p. 16. [8] M. S. Cohen, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Enhance HIV Transmission: No Longer an Hypothesis", The Lancet, 1998, 351 (Suppl. Ill): SIII5-SIII7. [9] Studies in Mwanza, Tanzania (Grosskurth et al.), and, more recently, in the Rakai districts of Uganda (Waver et al.) have impressively shown that HIV infection can be controlled and prevented in populations by the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases alone, without other anti-HIV/AIDS measures. H. Grosskurth, F. Mosha, J. Todd, "Impact of Improved Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases on HIV Infection in Rural Tanzania", The Lancet, 1995, 346, pp. 530-536; The Lancet, 1997, 350, pp. 1805-1809. M. J. Waver, N. K. Sewankambo, D. Serwadda, et al., "Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases for AIDS Prevention in Uganda: A Randomized Community Trial", The Lancet, 1999, 353 (9152): 515-535.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry6734 on Mar 10, 2006 11:55:16 GMT -5
On your other comment that I don’t think I addressed as well, the Crusades. The history of the Crusades shows that it was a defensive war, and not so much a group of non-Christians who were not following the will of Christ, yet killed, ‘in the name of God.’ During the Middle Ages you could not find a Christian in Europe who did not believe that the Crusades were an act of highest good. Even the Muslims respected the ideals of the Crusades and the piety of the men who fought them. But that all changed with the Protestant Reformation. For Martin Luther, who had already jettisoned the Christian doctrines of papal authority and indulgences, the Crusades were nothing more than a ploy by a power-hungry papacy. Indeed, he argued that to fight the Muslims was to fight Christ himself, for it was he who had sent the Turks to punish Christendom for its faithlessness. When Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and his armies began to invade Austria, Luther changed his mind about the need to fight, but he stuck to his condemnation of the Crusades. During the next two centuries people tended to view the Crusades through a confessional lens: Protestants demonized them, Catholics extolled them. As for Suleiman and his successors, they were just glad to be rid of them.
It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born. Most of the philosophes, like Voltaire, believed that medieval Christianity was a vile superstition. For them the Crusades were a migration of barbarians led by fanaticism, greed, and lust. Sounds like your views Vertigo, just prejudice after the fact, without the facts. Since then, the Enlightenment take on the Crusades has gone in and out of fashion. The Crusades received good press as wars of nobility (although not religion) during the Romantic period and the early twentieth century. After the Second World War, however, opinion again turned decisively against the Crusades. In the wake of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, historians found war of ideology–any ideology –distasteful. This sentiment was summed up by Sir Steven Runciman in his three-volume work, A History of the Crusades (1951-54). For Runciman, the Crusades were morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God. The medieval men who took the cross and marched to the Middle East were either cynically evil, rapaciously greedy, or naively gullible. This beautifully written history soon became the standard. Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades. That modern view Vertigo, is yours. You accuse ‘theists’ of not being able to think for themselves; that necessarily, if you are a theist, you do not think for yourself. What a crock. Listen to you you arrogant hypocrite! Are you going to quote all of Runciman? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject? As Will Hunting said, ‘the sad thing about a guy like you is that in fifty years, you’re going to start doing some thinking on your own.’
Since the 1970s the Crusades have attracted many hundreds of scholars who have meticulously poked, prodded, and examined them. As a result, much more is known about Christianity’s holy wars than ever before. Yet the fruits of decades of scholarship have been slow to enter the popular mind. In part this is the fault of professional historians, who tend to publish studies that, by necessity, are technical and therefore not easily accessible outside of the academy. But it is also due to a clear reluctance among modern elites to let go of Runciman’s vision of the Crusades. And so modern popular books on the Crusades–desiring, after all, to be popular–tend to parrot Runciman. The same is true for other media, like the multi-part television documentary, The Crusades (1995), produced by BBC/A&E and starring Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. To give the latter an air of authority the producers spliced in a number of distinguished Crusade historians who gave their views on events. The problem was that the historians would not go along with Runciman’s ideas. No matter. The producers simply edited the taped interviews cleverly enough that the historians seemed to be agreeing with Runciman. As Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith quite vehemently told me, "They made me appear to say things that I do not believe!"
I thought this would be some good information to mention, although you seemed to give up with your idea that the Crusades prove that ‘religion is dangerous’ after my first response.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 11, 2006 8:29:21 GMT -5
Arguments should be judged on the truthfulness of what is said, not on the manner in which it is said. Unfortunately, historical arguments always come down to the credibility of those who are arguing. I don't want to conduct that type of discussion, a competition for credibility. I'm not in a competition with you.
People must make up their own minds. I maintain that adherence to unjustified faith (which is what religion is) is dangerous. I have argued the point as much as I care to, it's now for the reader to decide.
As for the crusades, it's not important. I say it was religiously motivated, you say it isn't, there's no point to continue. You turned to the history books, I don't plan to. I figure people can read the Wikipedia page if they are truly interested.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 12, 2006 8:52:25 GMT -5
the crusades werent religiously motivated?!?!!?!?!?! November 1095 pope urban the 2nd speaks to the church council in France calling for a holy war.......thats not very religiously motivated at all........not in the least bit...............jihad on the muslims anyone...... the funny thing is, the first battles of this "peoples crusade" were against christians! Some in Hungary (theres a great pun here) because the crusaders got hungry and started taking the Hungarian christians crops, so the holy crusaders killed around 4000 to convince them they better share with their brothers. while this other fellow "Peter the hermit"(a homely fellow by reports) and some other preachers, got about 100000 holy warriors together to go kill the infidel, but some byzantine christians got in the way, and his holy warriors were more common folk than hardened killers (aka "die like sheep led to the slaughter"), so after 10000 or so of peters troops preform their duties (die easily), the byzantine emperor gets a good laugh, peter does some pleading, they make peace (the emperor cant belive the fools are going to try to take on the muslims, and tells them to wait for the real troops....the other christians killing christians in Hungary). Then in a great gesture of holy fire and inspiration peter promptly sends his troops to go kill the infidel.....while he stays behind.....safely....inside nice big safe walls......anyways they die like sheep some more (hey, they're good it, gotta stick with what your good at.......at least they're killing or at least trying to kill muslims this time) and the byzantine emperor sends some ships to rescue their azzez and get them the hell outta there! wow! and this is just the begining this wasnt even an "official" one yet, they were busy killing christians in Hungary. this was just the religously motivated common folk doing gods will! .....oh wait did i say religously motivated........doh!!!
|
|
|
Post by porphyry6734 on Mar 22, 2006 1:04:41 GMT -5
The People's Crusade wasn't the point if we're discussing whether theology is dangerous. Who were these people? Do they fall into communico with the Catholic Church in their acts and in their words? In what they have done and what they have failed to do? Examples of people's conduct in history are hopless in advancing the thought that religion is dangerous when often their actions contradict their religion. How is religion dangerous? And Vertigo, I don't care what others think, they probably agree with me because you and one other person were the only one's with the nerve to respond, and Bare wasn't even agreeing with you. I just find it worth while to point out these things to narrow-minded atheists who mouth every lie about religion that is so far from the truth that they begin to think those who practice it really are the ones who are wrong. When it comes down to it, you didn't have much of a response to my counter arguments to your ideas that religion is dangerous, that the Crusades prove religion is dangerous, that the teachings of Christ, peaceful as they may be do not disprove the notion that religion is dangerous. You had no response to my argument against contraception use. Seems to me that you're so used to your little friends on this blog agreeing with you all the time that you don't believe anyone else out there can be religious and not fall into your categories which are insulting and deserving of swift refutation that leaves you fumbling around with responses like, 'well everyone can have their opinion.'
|
|