Religion - Good or Bad?

[The SysMan]

Sorry, I work for the competition.
He says "Nice try. Use more lotion"

[Hoopy Frood]

I'm not saying I agree with everything the crusaders did but those wars typically get painted with a very one sided brush by non-christians.

Except for the fact that it gets painted very similarly by Christians as well. Just ask all the various Orthodox Arabs and Greeks. My girlfriend finds your statement extremely laughable.

I'm not painting it that way at all. I just said I didn't agree with everything they did. There was even a group of christians a few years back that traveled the route of the crusades and stopped to apologize to the Jews and Muslims along the way for the actions of the crusaders.

However people tend to whitewash the actions of Muslims (Persian empire)  that helped to cause the crusades as well.

And is it just a given now that if I make any statement in the debate forum you are going to be a colossal troll and try to put words in my mouth?

What are you going on about? I wasn't even talking about you painting anything. You made a statement that non-Christians paint it with a very one-sided brush. I made a statement that there are many people with Orthodox backgrounds take the same view as those non-Christians. My girlfriend and her family for one. You do realize that Orthodoxy is Christian, right? The Catholic Church really didn't care what religion the Arabs were, they slaughtered and raped them both equally. After all, those Orthodox followers weren't "real" Christians in their views anyway. When they got sick of the Arabs, they proceeded to attack the Greeks and Slavs. After all, diplomacy had failed in getting the Orthodox Church back into the fold (though, it was the Roman Catholic Church that actually split off from Orthodoxy, thereby making all Christian denominations other than Orthodoxy rogue sects), so conquering them was the next best thing.

And why are you even bringing Persians into it? Nowhere in my post did I mention Persians. You are aware that Persians are not Arabs, right?

[Hoopy Frood]

Besides, Brug, if I wanted to refer to you, I wouldn't say "some Christians" I would address you directly like I'm doing now.

[Brugdor]

What are you going on about? I wasn't even talking about you painting anything. You made a statement that non-Christians paint it with a very one-sided brush. I made a statement that there are many people with Orthodox backgrounds take the same view as those non-Christians. My girlfriend and her family for one. You do realize that Orthodoxy is Christian, right? The Catholic Church really didn't care what religion the Arabs were, they slaughtered and raped them both equally. After all, those Orthodox followers weren't "real" Christians in their views anyway. When they got sick of the Arabs, they proceeded to attack the Greeks and Slavs. After all, diplomacy had failed in getting the Orthodox Church back into the fold (though, it was the Roman Catholic Church that actually split off from Orthodoxy, thereby making all Christian denominations other than Orthodoxy rogue sects), so conquering them was the next best thing.

And why are you even bringing Persians into it? Nowhere in my post did I mention Persians. You are aware that Persians are not Arabs, right?

Because basically here and in the other political thread you seem to be making a habit of taking something I say and twisting it to have a new meaning. Here you say your gf finds my statement laughable because she feels that christians paint the crusades with a one sided brush and yet in my statement I said I don't agree with everything the crusaders did.

As to why I brought up the Persians - from wikipedia

"The Seljuqs (also Seljuq Turks, Seldjuks, Seldjuqs, Seljuks; in Turkish Selçuklular; in Persian: سلجوقيان Ṣaljūqīyān; in Arabic سلجوق Saljūq, or السلاجقة al-Salājiqa) were a Sunni Muslim dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries. They set up an empire known as "Great Seljuk Empire" that stretched from Anatolia to Punjab and was the target of the First Crusade. The dynasty had its origins in the Turcoman tribal confederations of Central Asia and marked the beginning of Turkic power in the Middle East. They are the ethnic ancestors of the Western Turks, the present-day inhabitants of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, and they are remembered as great patrons of Persian culture, art, literature, and language.[1][2][3]"

These were the people that attacked the Byzantine empire which turned around and asked the EU christians for help thus setting in motion the first crusade.

[Hoopy Frood]

My girlfriend does not find your statement laughable because she feels Christians paint the Crusades with a one-side brush. She finds it laughable that you accuse the Muslims of tending to paint the Cursades with a one-sided brush when the Orthodox Christians share that one-sided view. I never disagreed with your statement that the Muslims view it that way. My point is that it's not only the Muslims! And many are fully in the right to view it one sided because the Arabs were for the most part not the aggressors. They pretty much kept to themselves. Particularly the Christian Arabs. Not that it helped them in any way when the Catholics decided to go a-warring.

I'm also fully aware of the role the Persians played. However:

1) I was not talking in any way about the Persians, so bringing them up in response to my point was irrelevant.

2) Why not bring up the Kurds and the Turks as well? They were just as guilty as the Persians. (When Egypt invaded Jerusalem it was being ruled by a Kurd.)

[Brugdor]

My girlfriend does not find your statement laughable because she feels Christians paint the Crusades with a one-side brush. She finds it laughable that you accuse the Muslims of tending to paint the Cursades with a one-sided brush when the Orthodox Christians share that one-sided view. I never disagreed with your statement that the Muslims view it that way. My point is that it's not only the Muslims! And many are fully in the right to view it one sided because the Arabs were for the most part not the aggressors. They pretty much kept to themselves. Particularly the Christian Arabs. Not that it helped them in any way when the Catholics decided to go a-warring.

I'm also fully aware of the role the Persians played. However:

1) I was not talking in any way about the Persians, so bringing them up in response to my point was irrelevant.

2) Why not bring up the Kurds and the Turks as well? They were just as guilty as the Persians. (When Egypt invaded Jerusalem it was being ruled by a Kurd.)

Except I wasn't specifically talking about Muslims in the post you were referencing. I said "non-christians" and I was aiming that comment mostly at Sweatpea since she's the one that brought up the point I was rebutting.

[Turjan]

Religion is irrelevant - it's spirituality that matters.

Religions are just different brand names for the same product. And what's really important is the product, not the wrapper. Throw the wrapper away I say.

[The SysMan]

And what's really important is the product, not the wrapper. Throw the wrapper away I say.

You heard it. Straight from Turjan, people.

Religion Sucks.   :nice:

[Sweetpea]

Turj, why is it you always get in there and say stuff i want to say before i get the chance?  stop reading my mind you evil genius!

and brug, i pointed out the crusades cause it was a religious war, which wasted a lot of time and caused a lot of suffering.  its like the Israelites in the OT, they went and massacred all the other nations cause they didn't worship their God but a lot of people don't see it for what it is cause 'God told them to'.  And the crusades also partly came about cause the knights back home got bored and didn't want to become obsolete. 

I have nothing against people with faith so don't feel like i'm trying to say you shouldn't believe in God cause i was faithful before i realised what I believed in wasn't actually an Almighty being but thats a story for another day.

But when religion is the reason given for invading a country and causing havoc I know people overlook it cause we've all been taught that religion has special rules and can't be criticised. 

they did an experiment with some elementary kids, I forget how old they were, old enough to be able to form an opinion anyways, where they told them the story of Joshua taking over that city they invaded.

about 60% said that Joshua did the right thing cause God had commanded it.
30% said that he should have kept some of the livestock for themselves
and only 10% said what he did was wrong.

they were then told the same story but in stead of Joshua, it was a Chinese General and some neighbouring tribe.

70% said what the Chinese general did was wrong
and i cant remember the rest of the figures.

point is, when taken out of a religious context, most people will be able to see that invading another country, killing everyone and taking all their stuff is bad and wrong.  its also morally wrong for people to stand back and not interfere when religious differences are cited as the reason for starting the war in the first place.   I just don't understand how the religious think its ok to force their ideas onto someone else, just cause its in the Bible doesn't make it right. 

and those christians that went through apologising to everyone?! how self-centred would they have to be to think what they did made the slightest bit of difference to anyone apart from themselves? 

i watched this programme about these american evangelists who went to russia to try and spread the word of god and came across these guys who were on their way to the market to sell their homemade vodka but had become trapped in the snow.

the christians REFUSED to help them get out of the snow because it was against their beliefs to drink which can lead to immoral acts.  IT WAS THEIR FUCKING LIVELIHOOD!!!! yeah, keep your morals but let the guy, the guy's wife and kids die of starvation.  the christians just gave them bibles and went on their merry way.  i know lots of christians like that and it sickens me that they think they are morally righteous and look down on anyone who don't fit into their idea of a perfect person, based on a book that they pick and choose bits to believe in and other bits to dismiss as allergories and symbols.  Abraham didn't really frighten the shit out of his kid by putting him on an alter, Job didn't really commit incest by sleeping with his daughters but jesus really was the son of god and he really did perform all those miracles! 

like turj said, its all about packaging and the sooner people realise that the better and let everyone else get on with things.

i realise this has turned into a bit of rant but so long as there are people out there, either on the small or large scale, who try to force others to live by their ideals then there's still work to be done to try and show them that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and so long as those opinions are not directly harming anyone else then we should leave them well alone.

i'm not just talking about religion, i'm talking about political views and anything else out there thats up for debate.

whatever gets me through the day might not be the same as you but so long as i'm not harming anyone, that doesn't make it wrong.

[Brugdor]

i watched this programme about these american evangelists who went to russia to try and spread the word of god and came across these guys who were on their way to the market to sell their homemade vodka but had become trapped in the snow.

the christians REFUSED to help them get out of the snow because it was against their beliefs to drink which can lead to immoral acts.  IT WAS THEIR FUCKING LIVELIHOOD!!!! yeah, keep your morals but let the guy, the guy's wife and kids die of starvation.  the christians just gave them bibles and went on their merry way.  i know lots of christians like that and it sickens me that they think they are morally righteous and look down on anyone who don't fit into their idea of a perfect person, based on a book that they pick and choose bits to believe in and other bits to dismiss as allergories and symbols.  Abraham didn't really frighten the shit out of his kid by putting him on an alter, Job didn't really commit incest by sleeping with his daughters but jesus really was the son of god and he really did perform all those miracles! 

Like any group of people we have people that claim to be part of our group and aren't and we have people in our group that are idiots. I've run into both. I don't drink and I would have helped those people to get out of there.

[Doombot]

the happiest little Atheist you'll ever meet.

Sounds like a Children's book. =)

In the land... over the sea... sat the girl The Happy Sweatpea...
Is the fields of high blowing wheat... sat the girl: the Happiest Atheist you'll ever meet.
With her dog that's she nursed... by the way dog is God in reverse!

[Sweetpea]

I like that poem 

I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully which is no one's fault by my own, the point that the problem with religion is that it enforces the idea that the more you mindlessly follow holy books the more virtuous you are. 

[The SysMan]

I tend to freak out the religious nuts out on the main road in the CBD.
They can't fathom why "I welcome the coming oblivion"

But in reality, it keeps them quiet long enough for me to make my getaway >.>

[Sweetpea]

or

'who cares about climate change when there's the 2nd coming.'

i actually know people who say stuff like this....and i used to get embarrassed for them cause they dont have the inclination to be embarrassed for themselves.  I dont talk to them anymore.

[TK]

My view of religion is that it has always been a form of social control,  when  handled properly it can been a fantastic way of communicating some high minded ideals of social order to the uneducated masses.  Unfortunately human nature tends to distort the tool organised religion can be.

Oh and: TJC FTW