timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

People will be bad with or without religion. Religion makes most people better. But unfortunately there are those who twist Religion in ways to rationalize more evil behavior. Just blindly casting all religion as the root of evil is just wrong and very simple-minded trash.

jon, your statement "religion makes most people better" is highly debatable. Are you asserting that this is true throughout all human history?

It is not really that debatable. It is not true when religion is used by governments or groups for wars or terrorism or even to force their beliefs on others. But in most cases, people reflect upon their religion to do the right thing, whereas in the absence of religion they just might not care.

All religious people care about doing the right thing? I seem to remember Eichmann being a catholic. But wait, he was just following orders...

Where did I come close to saying anything near that? Not even close.

Why not mention that people without religion also could have a moral compass also?

Would it be because it completely undermined your point?

 

[msommer]

But in most cases, people reflect upon their religion to do the right thing, whereas in the absence of religion they just might not care use their intellect and respect for their fellow human beings to do the right thing, instead of doing it out of fear of punishment from a man in the clouds.

Fixed.

You really trust the intellect and respect of people? I think your utopia society is resting on awful shaky ground.

About as shaky as yours, but not quite

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But in most cases, people reflect upon their religion to do the right thing, whereas in the absence of religion they just might not care use their intellect and respect for their fellow human beings to do the right thing, instead of doing it out of fear of punishment from a man in the clouds.

Fixed.

You really trust the intellect and respect of people? I think your utopia society is resting on awful shaky ground.

As I said, since I'm pretty certain people created the religion that you are using as your moral compass, I'd argue that we are both on the same ground. I just think its clear that one is better than the other. One has evolved over time, the other is, to varying degrees, frozen in time.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

 

[Gawain]

or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

What religion was this? Sounds like it's more my speed than erstwhile Presbyterian.

 

[otello]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5

 

[Jayrod]

I'm not sure why, but this thread reminds me of this classic video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0o2P_JLnQ

Should be pinned really or at least put in the FFA FAQ.

Oh. My. Goodness.



Dying in the office right now trying not to get noticed by my boss. Funniest thing I've seen maybe ever.

 

[shader]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.

On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

MODERN Christians don't slaughter people. But again that's because of the Enlightnment. Or are you suggesting that the Bible teaches that slaughter is evil?

 

[timschochet]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5

c6

 

[timschochet]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

bostonfred I don't disagree with you but I think you may be making a straw argument here. Nobody is going around saying that the basic ethics of Islam are bad or inferior to Christianity. My contention is that the practice of modern Islam is inferior to the practice of modern Christianity in secular matters (i.e., running a government, handling political or cultural conflict, etc.)

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.

On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

Just like present-day, moderate Muslims say that ISIS is not real Islam. When you have a multitude of sects and interpretations, and you do within both Christianity and Islam, who is to say what is the right interpretation???

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

...

First of all it's sad if people think they can't ask their questions freely on this board.

Secondly, I keep hearing this argument over and over again and it always occures to me the person asking is suggesting that Christianity is no better than islam in this regard but at the same time is saying that islam is really hundreds of years behind Christianity. Seems to be the same thing here.

 

[timschochet]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

 

[Jayrod]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.

On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

The Christians of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions and taking over the New World were people who used the organization of the church as a source of influence to gain power and did things in the name of the religion rather than as part of the religion. Followers of Christ do not kill others who don't believe as they do. Followers of Christ lay down their lives for one another. Someone saying they are Christian but not following Christ's teaching are, by definition, not actually Christian.

Not sure how that lines up with Islam.

 

[bostonfred]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

Say it on youtube for an easy ten bucks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

Honestly I don't think anyone should be run out of dodge for their beliefs, but that's just me. Personal attacks and insults and phishing on the level of abuse, yes.

 

[timschochet]

I once heard a Los Angeles based Catholic priest admit to using his church as s sanctuary for hiding newly arrived illegal immigrants. When asked why, he said "it would be unChristian of me not to help these people."

Now I'm sure that there are some Christians that would agree with him and many more that would not. Which only suggests that the practice and interpretation of Christian morality is not as uniform as Shader and others might suggest.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I once heard a Los Angeles based Catholic priest admit to using his church as s sanctuary for hiding newly arrived illegal immigrants. When asked why, he said "it would be unChristian of me not to help these people."

Now I'm sure that there are some Christians that would agree with him and many more that would not. Which only suggests that the practice and interpretation of Christian morality is not as uniform as Shader and others might suggest.

I think all Christians would say it was the moral thing to do to protect those in need or suffering, so would muslims and I think that's typically one of the great muslim mores, but a lot of Christians would also say they don't put being Christian ultimately first in their lives, same is true of other religions as well.

 

[timschochet]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

Honestly I don't think anyone should be run out of dodge for their beliefs, but that's just me. Personal attacks and insults and phishing on the level of abuse, yes.

ypu mean run out of the FFA? Or are you mAking a larger statement?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

Honestly I don't think anyone should be run out of dodge for their beliefs, but that's just me. Personal attacks and insults and phishing on the level of abuse, yes.

ypu mean run out of the FFA? Or are you mAking a larger statement?

Yes, FFA or any forum real or virtual.

 

[timschochet]

I wouldnt have thrown eminence out either based on what I know, but I can understand why it's good policy to throw racists out. This forum is a free addition of a business which is trying to make money. Why should they tolerate anything that might threaten to give them a bad name?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wouldnt have thrown eminence out either based on what I know, but I can understand why it's good policy to throw racists out. This forum is a free addition of a business which is trying to make money. Why should they tolerate anything that might threaten to give them a bad name?

I honestly don't know a thing about that situation, so I can't comment on it. But to me a public forum is "public" and speech is best served when unfettered. And when the word "Free" appears in the name even moreso.

 

[timschochet]

"Free For All" in this context means this forum is open to any subject matter. It doesn't imply that anyone is free to write down anything they want. There are certain rules.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"Free For All" in this context means this forum is open to any subject matter. It doesn't imply that anyone is free to write down anything they want. There are certain rules.

He has a history here that goes way past that, so I don't even want to discuss it. I was just speaking to the post you made about the guy who was too scared to pose a question here.

 

[Two Deep]

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with denigrating somebody else's beliefs if they deserve it. A guy like eminence deserves to be denigrated IMO. If a whole group of people thought like he did then they would all deserve to be denigrated.

Interesting choice of words.

 

[ScottNorwood]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5

c6

Do you really want to counter the Englishman's Flaunt with a Siberian Gambit?

 

[timschochet]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5

c6

Do you really want to counter the Englishman's Flaunt with a Siberian Gambit?

i considered the Manchurian Attack here but went with Shlomorikoff Defense instead.

 

[ScottNorwood]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5

c6

Do you really want to counter the Englishman's Flaunt with a Siberian Gambit?

i considered the Manchurian Attack here but went with Shlomorikoff Defense instead.

I can only see 2 possible plays from here. Either the Sicilian Concave or Bukowski's Torn Underpinnings

 

[timschochet]

Itzak Shlomorikoff (1727-1854) was a noted Polish Jewish scholar, playwright, and chessplayer. Actually he only played one referenced game of chess in his lifetime, at the age of 97. There is an apocryphal story that he ate some spoiled gefitle fish a few hours before the game, but whatever the reason, at move 20, Itzhak stood up, opened his mouth to speak, and proceeded to vomit all over the chessboard. His opponent, Mikhail Finklestein, arose in disgust and walked away refusing to return, thereby offering his resignation. Ever since, this has been known as the "Shlomorikoff Defense", and it is often recommended in desperate situations as a final desperate gambit.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

If we can have a face off between TIM and EMINENCE with the winner having money deposited into the charity of their choice I AM IN!

GO!

 

[Thorn]

People will be bad with or without religion. Religion makes most people better. But unfortunately there are those who twist Religion in ways to rationalize more evil behavior. Just blindly casting all religion as the root of evil is just wrong and very simple-minded trash.

jon, your statement "religion makes most people better" is highly debatable. Are you asserting that this is true throughout all human history?

It is not really that debatable. It is not true when religion is used by governments or groups for wars or terrorism or even to force their beliefs on others. But in most cases, people reflect upon their religion to do the right thing, whereas in the absence of religion they just might not care.

Religion doesn't make people more moral

 

[tonydead]

Religious using the humans need religion in order to be moral argument is the worst.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Tim, can I get your thoughts on the 2009 Peruvian political crisis?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, can I get your thoughts on the 2009 Peruvian political crisis?

Yes.

 

[Slapdash]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.

On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

The Christians of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions and taking over the New World were people who used the organization of the church as a source of influence to gain power and did things in the name of the religion rather than as part of the religion. Followers of Christ do not kill others who don't believe as they do. Followers of Christ lay down their lives for one another. Someone saying they are Christian but not following Christ's teaching are, by definition, not actually Christian.Not sure how that lines up with Islam.

They probably aren't actually Scottish either

 

[timschochet]

Shader, the weakness in your argument is this: you don't believe in the concept of Hell. That puts you at odds with the vast majority of religious Christians, who do believe in Hell which is designated for people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior, irrelevant of whatever good or bad works they perform while living.

Now, if I were a religious Christian back in the Middle Ages, and I believed that those who did not and would not accept Christ were doomed to Hellfire everlasting, why then, logically, should I care if they lived or died? And furthermore, why shouldn't I be in favor of their deaths if that served to benefit my fellow Christians? Especially if the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, contains example after example of God encouraging the mass slaughter of unbelievers in order to pave the way for His people?

So I don't see how you can call them (the Crusaders) non-Christian. You're choosing to adopt a morality that was developed after 1500 years AFTER Christianity, and trying to apply it to Christianity.

 

[bostonfred]

Tim, can I get your thoughts on the 2009 Peruvian political crisis?

I applaud your bravery asking this in the thread instead of by pm

 

[shader]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

MODERN Christians don't slaughter people. But again that's because of the Enlightnment. Or are you suggesting that the Bible teaches that slaughter is evil?

I see your point, and from your point of view I totally understand. In your opinion, Christians have been slaughtering people for quite some time now. These people identify as christians, so you call them that. I get that.

I did preface it from "on a personal level". I personally don't feel those christians engaging in the crusades were actually being applauded by God or doing God's will.

 

[shader]

Good morning.

Last night, a longtime poster sent me a PM with a question in it. The person didn't want to ask the question openly in this thread for fear of being vilified. Here is the question:

Why do Christians take the high horse on terrorism in current day when Christians were willing to slaughter Pagans 1,300 - 900 years ago? The current killings really aren't that different.

In a nutshell, there are, IMO, several reasons for Christians in general to take the "high horse" as this person puts it:

1. The morality of Christianity is very different from the morality of Christianity 900 years ago, or even 500 years ago. The Enlightenment basically changed western thought, and it's ideas were absorbed by Christianity. Among many other things, the typical Christian today would not be able to morally accept the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

2. Islam, unfortunately, has far too many people willing to accept this sort of slaughter. Now I still happen to believe that, among Muslims, only a minority actually approve of terrorist activity, and only a very small minority approve of the sort of thing the Taliban did the other day (let's hope.) But even so, these percentages are much higher than any other religion around the world, and that includes Christianity. As Bill Maher correctly points out, we have to get past political correctness and acknowledge that Islam is more tied to terrorism and horrific acts than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religious belief, and that the difference is significant.

3. In addition to terrorism, the majority of Muslim governed countries around the world have laws that we in the west find shocking and repugnant- laws that mistreat women and gays for example, with extreme punishments.

4. In conclusion, as a western atheist, I have to say that I would far prefer to live today in a Christian run society, such as this one, than in any Muslim society. I believe this is true of most atheists, and Jews I have met, and I would not be surprised to discover that it was also true of most Muslims who live here as well. In short, Christians take the high horse because they have a right to do so, because they ARE, by western standards, morally superior.

Hope that answers.

I would assume a Christian today wouldn't associate themselves with Christians from 1,000 years ago. Whether that's right or wrong that's how most people get around it.

On a personal level, I don't feel that people that the crusaders were real Christians....christians don't slaughter people.

The Christians of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions and taking over the New World were people who used the organization of the church as a source of influence to gain power and did things in the name of the religion rather than as part of the religion. Followers of Christ do not kill others who don't believe as they do. Followers of Christ lay down their lives for one another. Someone saying they are Christian but not following Christ's teaching are, by definition, not actually Christian.

Not sure how that lines up with Islam.

I agree. But how do you explain all the wars in the 20th century where "followers of christ" were killing "followers of christ"?

 

[shader]

Shader, the weakness in your argument is this: you don't believe in the concept of Hell. That puts you at odds with the vast majority of religious Christians, who do believe in Hell which is designated for people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior, irrelevant of whatever good or bad works they perform while living.

Now, if I were a religious Christian back in the Middle Ages, and I believed that those who did not and would not accept Christ were doomed to Hellfire everlasting, why then, logically, should I care if they lived or died? And furthermore, why shouldn't I be in favor of their deaths if that served to benefit my fellow Christians? Especially if the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, contains example after example of God encouraging the mass slaughter of unbelievers in order to pave the way for His people?

So I don't see how you can call them (the Crusaders) non-Christian. You're choosing to adopt a morality that was developed after 1500 years AFTER Christianity, and trying to apply it to Christianity.

Tim,

A closer study of the teachings of christianity would easily answer those questions. I'm not talking about a study of what Christians believed in over time, but I'm talking about what the bible actually says. Those Christians such as Paul and the other apostles were peaceable, weren't involved in wars, fighting, politics, but were heavily devoted to their worship.

I think it's safe to say that Christianity became a shell of itself a thousand years later. It's pretty clear that the religion was adopted by political movements and became something completely different than it was when it started.

So I'm not talking about a morality that developed later, but a morality that existed BEFORE the crusades.

The Old Testament warfare is quite a bit different, and it would make for a really good discussion that we can have someday, probably on page 50 at the rate this thread is going.

 

[jon_mx]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

bfred limericks

Incredible.

 

[timschochet]

1971 was the greatest year ever in popular music. Consider these albums, which I list in no particular order:

Carole King- Tapestry

Jethro Tull- Aqualung

Humble Pie- Rock On

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young- 4 Way Street

The Doors- L.A. Woman

The Rolling Stones- Sticky Fingers

Marvin Gaye- What's Going On

Rod Stewart- Every Picture Tells A Story

Joni Mitchell- Blue

The Allman Brothers- At Fillmore East

Funkadelic- Maggot Brain

The Who- Who's Next

John Lennon- Imagine

Cat Stevens- Teaser and the Firecat

Don McLean- American Pie

Van Morrison- Tupelo Honey

Elton John- Madman Across the Water

Led Zeppelin- Led Zeppelin IV

Sly & The Family Stone- There's A Riot Going On

Traffic- The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys

Badfinger- Straight Up

David Bowie- Hunky Dory

 

[timschochet]

Speaking of David Bowie, I keep debating this in my mind: Hunky Dory or The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars?

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

I'm not sure why, but this thread reminds me of this classic video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0o2P_JLnQ

Should be pinned really or at least put in the FFA FAQ.

Crying. Hilarious.

 

[jon_mx]

1971 was the greatest year ever in popular music. Consider these albums, which I list in no particular order:

Carole King- Tapestry

Jethro Tull- Aqualung

Humble Pie- Rock On

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young- 4 Way Street

The Doors- L.A. Woman

The Rolling Stones- Sticky Fingers

Marvin Gaye- What's Going On

Rod Stewart- Every Picture Tells A Story

Joni Mitchell- Blue

The Allman Brothers- At Fillmore East

Funkadelic- Maggot Brain

The Who- Who's Next

John Lennon- Imagine

Cat Stevens- Teaser and the Firecat

Don McLean- American Pie

Van Morrison- Tupelo Honey

Elton John- Madman Across the Water

Led Zeppelin- Led Zeppelin IV

Sly & The Family Stone- There's A Riot Going On

Traffic- The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys

Badfinger- Straight Up

David Bowie- Hunky Dory

Although it never it never quite hit the Top 40, Locomotive Breath by Tull is a great song too.

 

[timschochet]

Here are the results of this week's ABC Washington Post poll for the GOP nomination for President:

Bush 14%

Ryan 11%

Paul 10%

Carson 8%

Cruz 8%

Christie 7%

Huckabee 7%

Rubio 7%

Perry 5%

Jindal 3%

Kasich 2%

This is the most wide open nomination I can recall in my lifetime. Going into 2011, Romney already had 25-30% of GOP support with his his opponents all in single digits. Eight years ago, Giuliani was the favorite going into 2007 with around 20%, McCain was at 15% and dropping, and none of the other candidates had any support at all.

The fact that the leading guy here has only 14%, based almost entirely on name recognition, is just shocking to me. There are NO favorites this time around.

 

[timschochet]

Meanwhile...

Clinton 62%

Warren 12%

Biden 9.8%

Sanders 3.4% *

Cuomo 1.3%

Webb 1.3%

O'Malley 1.0%

* Bernie Sanders is registered as an independent, so he would have to switch over if he even wants to get into debates with Hillary (unless for some reason they just let him in.)

Conversely, these have got to be the most lopsided numbers ever for a candidate who is not currently the President- not even the Vice-President!