Religion of peace

[BradleyHillman]

My childhood, identity, and sexual "normalcy" were stolen from me as the result of Christianity being inflicted upon me. As a "Christianity survivor," I can speak first hand as to the violence of Christianity. Feel free to ignore this data that conflicts with your conclusion on account of none of my blood was spilled.

 

Even if you could make the case that Christianity isn't violent present day, what would that prove? Make spousal abuse illegal and you just end up with more secretive and sophisticated abusers. You don't cure the abuse. I think you're just looking for a way to ignore the truth when it doesn't suit you.

 

Government is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. What a politician wants regarding the rights of others is unethical in theory as it would be immoral in practice. The point is that if it's rooted in irrationality, it is dangerous. It doesn't matter what you call the particular flavor of irrationality.

Easy, as a fellow "Christianity survivor" I can speak first hand too and neither of our experiences count to prove a point anyone with any debate experience should know about how much value anecdotal evidence holds.  I'm not trying to "ban" Islam, I'm not trying to make it illegal, so the spousal abuse comparison is just completely out there and misses the entire message of what I said.  The last lines there again, have absolutely nothing to do with this topic, as no one was advocating using government for anything.  Once again "dangerous"  institutions are not all equal.  Jihad is not a "symptom" of religion.  It's a symptom of Islam.  Europeans and White Americans who want to address the problem of radical Islam are tired of kebab apologists and people like you trying to derail the conversation with unrelated comparisons to other religions who haven't nearly as much blood on their hands especially in modern times. 

 

As far as "a symptom of irrational thought" goes that once again shows a complete lack of nuance and pragmatism on your part.  We don't need to focus on all schools of "irrational thought" equally.

 

• A side by side comparison of Christianity and Islam.
  • Also comparison of Jesus and Muhammad.
  • Historical comparison between Jihads and Crusades.
  • Comparison between KKK/Spanish Inquisition to Jihad.
  • Islamic terrorist attacks compared to next to no terrorism from the other “big 4″ (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism)
    • full list
  • How do Muslims view terrorist groups?
  • How do Muslims view attacks on Western troops?
  • Muslims are permitted to lie to you to defend Islam.  It’s called “hiding in plain sight”.  This is called “Taqiya” in Islam.
  • The “refugee” crisis falls under the category of Taqiya for many Jihadists.  This isn’t a “refugee crisis” it’s a great replacement.
  • The myth of Moderate Islam.

 

83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans

42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans

41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans

38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans

32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans

[Source]

A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans: Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%   

42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified.

35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified

29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.

26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.

22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.

 

[Source]

 

Islam is a specific violent ideology that is very politically by nature.  It requires a specific response.  I've had enough of people derailing conversations with unenlightened nonsense about other religions and claims of "islamophobia".  If you can demonstrate to me how the other religions are as dangerous or violent as Islam then we can discuss how "irrational thought" is the real problem here.  Europe cannot be expected to continue this racial replacement.  This isn't the time to flex your philosopher muscles with your unproven claims about the root cause.  We need a practical solution to the problem Islamic radicalism and this "refugee crisis" pose to Western civilization.

 

@whoever it was who said the link in the blue bubble graphic is broken, here's an archived reddit post with more information about where the info came from and it goes over criticism of the infographic and etc.

[regevdl]

I too get annoyed by the 'religion of peace', regardless of which religion claims it.  I will say this.  If we look at the geopolitical canvas and the US foreign policy, you and I see that subjectively, from 'within'.  We have a lot of the caveats and contexts and objections etc regarding these policies and actions.  How does the Muslim 'religion of peace see it?  Well it IS an important question because they are on the receiving/working end of our foreign policy.  

 

They don't see US Military.  They see Christian-nation supporting a Christian president supporting a Christian military.  Because they live in religious-states they only see the world as a religious spectrum.  I JUST had this conversation with someone this morning, so it's interesting you posted this.  Anyway, Christians speak about peace and the more you follow the bible in Christianity the more peaceful you become and the more you follow the bible in Islam the more violent you becomes, etc.  I am sure there is truth to that but again, in geo political terms, if you look at our forieign policy and how the 'outside word' receives it, it looks VERY violent, of course.  And the same with Muslims.  To them, preaching to their own choir is a lot of peaceful, bonding, tribal stuff. but on the outside there is a lot of deadly bloodshed.  So it'sa matter of how much people are willing to hold their nose or look away. 

 

I think my compassion in the Muslim plight comes with their own hopelessness of the situation.  As someone pointed out it's death if they leave their religion.  Can I really judge someone for not taking the 'leap of faith' when literally their life is at stake?  I get it...in our history many DID take that leap and each death moved the needle closer to religious freedom and there are those who have sacraficed their life in Islam (not bombers) who stood up for human rights, etc.  But If I am going to hold each Muslim accountable for not risking death then I too need to hold myself accountable on what I am willing to sacrafice for what is right.  I mean, getting into philosophy and such has done a lot of good but it's not life threatening.  It has caused some discomforts along the way the quickly turned into rewards in the long run.  But what in the world can I do that would putmyself at EQUAL risk with less  immediate results as a Muslim would have to go through to leave and outright denounce their religion etc.  

 

Again, this doesn't mean they should get a free pass.  I put pressure on Muslims all of the time (I live in the Middle East and connect with people around the world on these topics) But I think the quicker we remove the 'religous' element when violent acts occur (you forfeit your religion, depsite what you claim, as soon as you commit a violent crime against another) the quicker we can sort this out.  It's a step towards ostriscism. 

 

In Palestine a man was getting into extremism and was ostracised by his Mosque and Muslim community.  After they tossed him out he committed a terror act that killed some jews.  Who acted more Muslim in that scenario?  The Mosque community or the terrorists?

[Donnadogsoth]

.

[Donnadogsoth]

Woops, double post, scratch that video, thanks.

[dsayers]

Easy, as a fellow "Christianity survivor" I can speak first hand too and neither of our experiences count to prove a point anyone with any debate experience should know about how much value anecdotal evidence holds.

Logically, if you can find one example that contradicts an absolute claim, that claim is false.

 

Yes, anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but why? Two reasons. The first being if one were to use their experience as the only form of proof, they are potentially rejecting their own capacity for error. Which I do not. Secondly, because you cannot derive a universal from an instance. Which I was not, although the instance I referenced did serve as an example of the universal. What universal is that? How does Christianity or any religion propagate?

 

Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force.

 

In other words, the very method by which religions are transmitted IS the initiation of the use of force.

[Jer]

+1 to Dsayers' posts. I am confident that being raised in a fundamentalist Christian home was detrimental to my development.

[Will Torbald]

I read a post somewhere else about Islam that really sums up the Religion of Peace nonsense. It said "If Islam were a religion of peace then Islamist extremists should be extremely peaceful". The evidence is clear that the opposite is what happens.

[neeeel]

I read a post somewhere else about Islam that really sums up the Religion of Peace nonsense. It said "If Islam were a religion of peace then Islamist extremists should be extremely peaceful". The evidence is clear that the opposite is what happens.

 

If islam was a religion of violence, then wouldnt all , or most, muslims be violent? My brother is a muslim, and he isnt a violent jihadist( not a disproof, for sure) 

 

There is something else going on. I am not sure exactly what. but a book, in and of itself, cant do all this. perhaps it is just a clash between 2 incompatible cultures or belief systems, that can only end with the destruction of 1. 

 

I have also heard theories of how, as the world gets smaller, and ideas are communicated more easily, beliefs have to get more extreme in order to survive, to appear attractive , to grab people, to motivate them. Perhaps this is what we are seeing. As it becomes easier to challenge beliefs and ideologies, people have to hold on more tightly, and scream louder. 

 

But to just go "well, its a violent religion, isnt it" seems too simple, to me. 

[Will Torbald]

If islam was a religion of violence, then wouldnt all , or most, muslims be violent? My brother is a muslim, and he isnt a violent jihadist( not a disproof, for sure)

 

There is something else going on. I am not sure exactly what. but a book, in and of itself, cant do all this. perhaps it is just a clash between 2 incompatible cultures or belief systems, that can only end with the destruction of 1.

 

I have also heard theories of how, as the world gets smaller, and ideas are communicated more easily, beliefs have to get more extreme in order to survive, to appear attractive , to grab people, to motivate them. Perhaps this is what we are seeing. As it becomes easier to challenge beliefs and ideologies, people have to hold on more tightly, and scream louder.

 

But to just go "well, its a violent religion, isnt it" seems too simple, to me.

"My brother eats candy, but he is not diabetic. My uncle eats bacon, but he doesn't have heart disease. My father smokes, but he doesn't have lung cancer"

 

I specifically said "extremism". The logic is that when taken to the extreme the results are destructive, as the examples I have above illustrate.

 

There is no such thing as a religion without violence, only degrees of violence. And if you were to reply with Jainism or Buddhism, let me remind you that they believe in karma, which is the superstition that if they were to harm someone it would follow the same violence back to them. So their pacifism is nothing more than about form of fear of punishment and divine justice. Violent in fundamentals.

[neeeel]

I did state that saying my brother is a non violent muslim wasnt proof of anything

 

The extremists are extreme, not because of the koran, but because they are fucked up. 

 

I am not sure a religion can be violent.A religion isnt a thing in the same way that state isnt. People in general are violent.

 

I can see that I am not explaining my point well, or perhaps its just a bad point. I will leave it there.

[Jer]

 

The extremists are extreme, not because of the koran, but because they are fucked up.

Are you saying there isn't violence encouraged or commanded by Allah in the Islamic scripture?

[neeeel]

Are you saying there isn't violence encouraged or commanded by Allah in the Islamic scripture?

 

 

I dont know about commanded by allah. I havent read the koran, but I would guess there is some violent stuff in there. What I am saying is, extremists goin to extreme, if there wasnt the koran, there would be something else. Its not like they read the words and it turned them into a blood crazed maniac. 

[dsayers]

If islam was a religion of violence, then wouldnt all , or most, muslims be violent?

This doesn't follow. We live in a world where non-institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder have consequences. Therefore those who are of a mind that such things are valid options will find lesser forms of abuses and/or ways to not get caught. I covered this earlier when I said "Make spousal abuse illegal and you just end up with more secretive and sophisticated abusers. You don't cure the abuse." For example, the person who thinks rape is a valid option doesn't just go and take their victim. They may try to woo them first, in order to better fit in with the world around them. They will still likely manipulate and verbally/mentally abuse their victim, which doesn't show up in the news. The problem here is that viewing rape as an option severely limits how much personal investment they will put in. Meaning that once resistance is enough, they'll just rape.

 

Mizzou is a good example of one way you can engage in terrorism without shooting/bombing. We know of almost none of those people's names because many of those people are regarded by the public at large as having been "peaceful."

 

I am not sure a religion can be violent.

I've made arguments and an entire case for that right here. In order to maintain this position, you'd have to point out where I have erred.

[Jer]

I dont know about commanded by allah. I havent read the koran, but I would guess there is some violent stuff in there. What I am saying is, extremists goin to extreme, if there wasnt the koran, there would be something else. Its not like they read the words and it turned them into a blood crazed maniac. 

Do you think if these entire cultures weren't indoctrinated to believe the Islamic scripture from childhood but instead taught UPB, logic, reason and critical thinking skills that they would have the same amount of extremists?

[neeeel]

Do you think if these entire cultures weren't indoctrinated to believe the Islamic scripture from childhood but instead taught UPB, logic, reason and critical thinking skills that they would have the same amount of extremists?

 

thats like saying, if everyone was nice, then would everyone be nice? Im not disputing that they are illogical or uncritical thinkers. I am disputing that the koran, and islam, is the cause of their violence and extremism.

[dsayers]

I am disputing that the koran, and islam, is the cause of their violence and extremism.

Actually, that's not what you said. I agree with this quote here. In fact, in my first post here, I said "If one of them doesn't initiate the use of force, what difference does it make if some entity tells him to? Likewise, if one does initiate the use of force, what difference does it make what their motivation was? The aggression is the problem."

 

There's a difference between claiming that a book or religion is not the cause of their violence and saying that religion cannot be violent. You sort of moved the goalposts there. Also, if you accept that a child needs to be traumatized in order to speak the language of dysfunction/aggression/violence, then I could argue that a book or religion could very well be the cause of violence.

 

Imagine a pair of parents who for the most part possess self-knowledge, are rational, and very much in a healthy, bonded relationship. They get pregnant and do not expose the carrying mother to stress or potentially damaging drugs. The child is born and they don't mutilate its genitals. They provide a loving home, with lots of contact and interaction. They don't abandon them to daycare or government schools. They do everything right they possibly could... except they also regard a fictitious book as not only factual, but a template for how to live life. This is all the trauma a developing being needs to have the capacity for aggression later in life. I know that some of the aggression I've engaged in in my life was in defiance of being mentally caged by having a religion inflicted upon me.

 

I think you undervalue the damaging potential of anti-rationality. I wish you would address it. To not makes it look like you have a prejudice/bigotry that you will not alter were you to learn it doesn't accurately describe the real world.

[Anuojat]

In the Koran the old text is supplemented by the new ones which are more violent and agressive. Also Many muslims use Hadith as guide and traditional reading.

 

Which btw is so henious reading that even muhammed in several of its pages is disturbed by his followers.... but only for short while ofcourse.

[Mister Mister]

How is Christianity, today, violent, shirgall?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

[Donnadogsoth]

A Neocon puppet.  America is not a theocracy.

[Mister Mister]

A Neocon puppet.  America is not a theocracy.

A Neocon whose violence was supported by most American Christians

[Donnadogsoth]

A Neocon whose violence was supported by most American Christians

 

And were they supporting him because Christianity says bomb the Iraqis,  or because they were told lies that the Iraqis were planning on bombing them?

thats like saying, if everyone was nice, then would everyone be nice? Im not disputing that they are illogical or uncritical thinkers. I am disputing that the koran, and islam, is the cause of their violence and extremism.

 

If Islam does not encourage violence, then why aren't all religions equally violent?

[Mister Mister]

And were they supporting him because Christianity says bomb the Iraqis,  or because they were told lies that the Iraqis were planning on bombing them?

Christianity doesn't say anything, it's a concept.  If you mean the Bible, then there are plenty of justifications for war, particularly in the Old Testament.  But I take your point.  Nonetheless, why did the Christian upbringing that most of the Republican voters and the soldiers, not protect them intellectually against the lies and manipulations of Bush?  Either there is something wrong with the foundational belief system of Christianity, or maybe these people are not "real Christians" in your eyes?

[neeeel]

 

 

If Islam does not encourage violence, then why aren't all religions equally violent?

 

They were. Christianity, at least, had no problem with fighting and wars, and christian nations spent hundreds of years fighting each other , or going abroad to fight others. Just because they arent like that now doesnt mean anything. 

Actually, that's not what you said. I agree with this quote here. In fact, in my first post here, I said "If one of them doesn't initiate the use of force, what difference does it make if some entity tells him to? Likewise, if one does initiate the use of force, what difference does it make what their motivation was? The aggression is the problem."

 

There's a difference between claiming that a book or religion is not the cause of their violence and saying that religion cannot be violent. You sort of moved the goalposts there. Also, if you accept that a child needs to be traumatized in order to speak the language of dysfunction/aggression/violence, then I could argue that a book or religion could very well be the cause of violence.

 

Imagine a pair of parents who for the most part possess self-knowledge, are rational, and very much in a healthy, bonded relationship. They get pregnant and do not expose the carrying mother to stress or potentially damaging drugs. The child is born and they don't mutilate its genitals. They provide a loving home, with lots of contact and interaction. They don't abandon them to daycare or government schools. They do everything right they possibly could... except they also regard a fictitious book as not only factual, but a template for how to live life. This is all the trauma a developing being needs to have the capacity for aggression later in life. I know that some of the aggression I've engaged in in my life was in defiance of being mentally caged by having a religion inflicted upon me.

 

 

 

 

yes, my wording was probably imprecise, but that is what I meant, that I am disputing that the koran, or religion , is the cause of the violence. I am arguing that, lacking religion, peoples irrationality and violence would find outlets in other beliefs and activities. perhaps you could argue that religions are part of a large web of causes, and I might agree with that. 

 

 

Imagine a pair of parents who for the most part possess self-knowledge, are rational, and very much in a healthy, bonded relationship. They get pregnant and do not expose the carrying mother to stress or potentially damaging drugs. The child is born and they don't mutilate its genitals. They provide a loving home, with lots of contact and interaction. They don't abandon them to daycare or government schools. They do everything right they possibly could... except they also regard a fictitious book as not only factual, but a template for how to live life

 

 

 

As stef sometimes points outs in calls, I am not sure something like this is possible. I dont think you can put a bit of irrationality off in a corner of your life. If you are irrational it keeps popping out in strange places, like whack a mole.

 

 

I think you undervalue the damaging potential of anti-rationality. I wish you would address it. To not makes it look like you have a prejudice/bigotry that you will not alter were you to learn it doesn't accurately describe the real world.

 

 

 

I am not sure I do undervalue it. Its clear to me that beliefs in general, and particularly false beliefs, are the cause of pretty much all of the suffering and damage that happens today. 

[dsayers]

As stef sometimes points outs in calls, I am not sure something like this is possible. I dont think you can put a bit of irrationality off in a corner of your life. If you are irrational it keeps popping out in strange places, like whack a mole.

I totally agree. My example wasn't realistic. It was meant to be hyperbole. Being off-course is much easier to see at a distance than at the origin.

 

Not to talk about somebody as if they're not right there, but Donnadogsoth is a fantastic example of why this is problematic. So much time arguing this irrationality is not as bad as that irrationality. How much time could they save by processing that survival is dependent upon identifying your environment and calling things by not their proper names can lead to dangerous behaviors? Addressing the problem is far more efficient than addressing the symptom.

[shirgall]

I totally agree. My example wasn't realistic. It was meant to be hyperbole. Being off-course is much easier to see at a distance than at the origin.

 

Not to talk about somebody as if they're not right there, but Donnadogsoth is a fantastic example of why this is problematic. So much time arguing this irrationality is not as bad as that irrationality. How much time could they save by processing that survival is dependent upon identifying your environment and calling things by not their proper names can lead to dangerous behaviors? Addressing the problem is far more efficient than addressing the symptom.

 

I don't know what it is that sometimes gives me hope in that same regard, but I feed the trolls far too much of my time.

[Donnadogsoth]

They were. Christianity, at least, had no problem with fighting and wars, and christian nations spent hundreds of years fighting each other , or going abroad to fight others. Just because they arent like that now doesnt mean anything.

 

Strangely, it was only Christianity who produced human rights, democracy, and, even if you discount those two things as undesireable, anarcho-capitalism.  Or was there an anarcho-capitalist movement in Byzantium, or Africa, or Medieval China?

 

That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight.  Have we discovered countries that don't fight?  That Christians fought abroad in the Crusades was a very good thing, beating back the Islamic hordes who had previously conquered Christian Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa and who long salivated over the prospect of dining on Europe proper.

 

These Christian countries may not have been as Christian as possible, and that's a problem, but the simple fact they fought does not impugn Christianity, which maintains the concept of the just war, which is a just concept.

Christianity doesn't say anything, it's a concept.  If you mean the Bible, then there are plenty of justifications for war, particularly in the Old Testament.  But I take your point.  Nonetheless, why did the Christian upbringing that most of the Republican voters and the soldiers, not protect them intellectually against the lies and manipulations of Bush?  Either there is something wrong with the foundational belief system of Christianity, or maybe these people are not "real Christians" in your eyes?

 

They're Christians but they are not good Christians, because they have not developed their God-given minds sufficiently to see through the lies of the politicians.  People can be made stupid by endlessly chanting the same hymns and praying more than they ought and thinking that suffices, or even worse, by relying on the hymn-singing and prayers of others as an excuse to think nothing and do nothing themselves.  But the failures here are the failures of men and not the failures of Christianity.

[shirgall]

Strangely, it was only Christianity who produced human rights, democracy, and, even if you discount those two things as undesireable, anarcho-capitalism.  Or was there an anarcho-capitalist movement in Byzantium, or Africa, or Medieval China?

 

That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight.  Have we discovered countries that don't fight?  That Christians fought abroad in the Crusades was a very good thing, beating back the Islamic hordes who had previously conquered Christian Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa and who long salivated over the prospect of dining on Europe proper.

 

These Christian countries may not have been as Christian as possible, and that's a problem, but the simple fact they fought does not impugn Christianity, which maintains the concept of the just war, which is a just concept.

 

The Athenian Greeks practiced democracy--and invented the term--long before Christ and the "Cyrus Cylinder"--the first human rights document--is from 539 BC.

[dsayers]

Strangely, it was only Christianity who produced human rights, democracy, and, even if you discount those two things as undesireable, anarcho-capitalism.  Or was there an anarcho-capitalist movement in Byzantium, or Africa, or Medieval China?

 

That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight.  Have we discovered countries that don't fight?

What would your first point here matter? I've heard claims that the internet was invented by the government. But so what? Does that mean the government is benevolent? How can you reject instances of Christian aggression, but poise yourself atop instances of what you refer to as Christian benevolence?

 

As for your second point, if it had any bearing, it would mean that after separation of church and state, Christians would no longer be responsible for faith-derived aggression, which is demonstrably false.

[Donnadogsoth]

What would your first point here matter? I've heard claims that the internet was invented by the government. But so what? Does that mean the government is benevolent? How can you reject instances of Christian aggression, but poise yourself atop instances of what you refer to as Christian benevolence?

 

As for your second point, if it had any bearing, it would mean that after separation of church and state, Christians would no longer be responsible for faith-derived aggression, which is demonstrably false.

 

No, dsayers, Christian civilisation invented the Internet.  Christianity is uniquely aligned with the way the universe is and how man is to exist within it and therefore is uniquely fruitful.  That man fails and falters--often as a result of being deliberately misled by evil men--including those who try to equalise the religions and say that Islam is no more dangerous than anything else, in hysterical defiance of 1,400 years of history to the contrary--is unfortunate.

 

A truly Christian country would fight only in self-defense, and not aggression.  Why shouldn't Christian countries defend themselves from Islam and other aggressors?

The Athenian Greeks practiced democracy--and invented the term--long before Christ and the "Cyrus Cylinder"--the first human rights document--is from 539 BC.

 

Athenian democracy was halfway between modern democracy and aristocracy.  But I'll concede your point since it is where modern democracy got the notion--with the caveat that it took Christian civilisation to universalise the franchise..

 

What rights did the Cyrus Cylinder grant?

 

Also, other than Christiandom and its predecessor Israel, what other civilisations were founded on the concept of man being made in the image of God?

[Mister Mister]

They're Christians but they are not good Christians, because they have not developed their God-given minds sufficiently to see through the lies of the politicians.  People can be made stupid by endlessly chanting the same hymns and praying more than they ought and thinking that suffices, or even worse, by relying on the hymn-singing and prayers of others as an excuse to think nothing and do nothing themselves.  But the failures here are the failures of men and not the failures of Christianity.

 

Not sure I totally agree with this analysis.  It is not simply a "lack" of development of their minds, but a deliberate and systematic brutalizing and propagandizing of the human mind's innate skepticism and autonomy, that is necessary to produce a person who will murder and terrorize others so long as they are following orders.  This particular process of breaking children is integral to what many people consider a "Christian upbringing", and does lead to violence.  Certainly it's not consistent with the message of the New Testament, but I don't care about the scriptures so much as the actual culture.  In the same way, it is not specifically anything in the Quran that is concerning about Islam, but the culture in the Muslim world which largely doesn't accept things like the freedom of speech, due process, womens' rights, separation of church and state, and so on.

[shirgall]

What rights did the Cyrus Cylinder grant?

 

As in all human rights declarations, the cylinder conceded certain things so the ruler could keep his head. Quite literally it described freeing the residents from a tyrannical king and ensuring their safety ("freeing their bonds" and "soothing their weariness"). It's not exactly the Declaration of Independence. What did you expect?

[dsayers]

No, dsayers, Christian civilisation invented the Internet.  Christianity is uniquely aligned with the way the universe is

This tells me that you only see things in terms of religion, have a bigoted view of Christianity, and therefore will not be receptive to any information to the contrary.

[AccuTron]

Strangely, it was only Christianity who produced human rights, democracy, and, even if you discount those two things as undesireable, anarcho-capitalism.  Or was there an anarcho-capitalist movement in Byzantium, or Africa, or Medieval China?

 

That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight.  Have we discovered countries that don't fight?  That Christians fought abroad in the Crusades was a very good thing, beating back the Islamic hordes who had previously conquered Christian Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa and who long salivated over the prospect of dining on Europe proper.

...

They're Christians but they are not good Christians, because they have not developed their God-given minds sufficiently to see through the lies of the politicians.  People can be made stupid by endlessly chanting the same hymns and praying more than they ought and thinking that suffices, or even worse, by relying on the hymn-singing and prayers of others as an excuse to think nothing and do nothing themselves.  But the failures here are the failures of men and not the failures of Christianity.

 

--ancient Greece => democracy.  

--Good points re Christian armies vs Muslim in Europe, and glad it's true.

--thanks for that rebuttal to the Bush propaganda question; the problem derives from mass mental laziness.

[Donnadogsoth]

As in all human rights declarations, the cylinder conceded certain things so the ruler could keep his head. Quite literally it described freeing the residents from a tyrannical king and ensuring their safety ("freeing their bonds" and "soothing their weariness"). It's not exactly the Declaration of Independence. What did you expect?

 

Well, that's something, but did it go anywhere?  Did it influence Western civilisation the way Genesis of the Jews did, or the way the republic of Solon did?

This tells me that you only see things in terms of religion, have a bigoted view of Christianity, and therefore will not be receptive to any information to the contrary.

 

I have a patriotic view of Christianity, and I take it on good counsel that Christian civilisation is superior scientifically, artistically, and morally, by virtue of its elaboration of the implications of Genesis 1:26.  Nothing shall move me from this because nothing shall dethrone man from his place in Creation without annihilating the latter outright as consequence, such as by a sustained thermonuclear exchange.

 

--ancient Greece => democracy.  

--Good points re Christian armies vs Muslim in Europe, and glad it's true.

--thanks for that rebuttal to the Bush propaganda question; the problem derives from mass mental laziness.

 

 

Thanks, AccuTron.  You're welcome.

[neeeel]

 

 

That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight.  Have we discovered countries that don't fight?  That Christians fought abroad in the Crusades was a very good thing, beating back the Islamic hordes who had previously conquered Christian Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa and who long salivated over the prospect of dining on Europe proper.

 

 

no, you dont get to claim 1 thing for islam, and then dodge the same thing for christianity. You dont get to go its islam when islam is violent, but its countries when christians fight.