Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > too much god
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: too much god Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Feb 10th, 2003 01:48 PM
slavemason
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Close enough.
Speaking of "Close Enough". it doesn't count in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades. If you come close to getting a ringer, it's worth 1 point not 5. If you come close to killing me with a hand grenade, I could still shoot you in the head. I wonder if I'll come close to going to heaven.
Feb 9th, 2003 10:21 PM
AChimp Close enough.
Feb 9th, 2003 10:19 PM
Royal Tenenbaum
Quote:
posted by Achimp:
"Actually, the newbie has a valid point.

Religion has always, always, always turned into a source of power for the people in charge. If it didn't, there would never have been any conflict between the Catholic and Protestant churches when Luther came up with his new concept of Christianity while in the throes of agony brought on by chronic constipation.

Europe in the Middle Ages might as well have been a theocracy. Egyptian pharoahs were considered to be actual gods and had the ultimate level of power over absolutely everything. It's also been shown that the Sumerian priests had very strict control over their entire civilization.

EDIT: This actually reminds me of a quote some of my friends told me about. I think it's by William Blake:

"Your vision of Christ doth be my vision's greatest enemy.""
No offense, but that is the shittiest fucking mis-quote I have ever witnessed in my life. The quote is, "The vision of Chirst that you doth see, is my vision's greatest enemy," by William Blake. Don't fucking quote shit you don't know; to quote the Big Lebowski, you are completely "out of your element." So very fucking bin.
Feb 6th, 2003 03:54 PM
The_Rorschach
Heheh

My Grandmother used to read us stories by YB Yeats (I believe it was Yeats anyway) which portrayed Ireland as haven for intellectuals and philosophers. As I got older and learned a bit more of the histories, I began to assume it was just so much bullshit.

Mind if I ask your source there Blanco? Never bothered looking into it too deeply myself, but it'd be nice to know for certain one way or the other.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:52 PM
El Blanco I would just like to add that during the Dark Ages in Europe, the Irish monks also kept most of the Classical World on record. It was reintroduced shortly before the Crusades. Of course, the English did a great job of wiping out the progress and institutions the Irish built so well.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:48 PM
ItalianStereotype I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU ARE OFFENDED

MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO TAKE A SHIT
Feb 5th, 2003 08:46 PM
AChimp I AM OFFENDED.

edit: And so is the little black kid inside me.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:38 PM
ItalianStereotype
Re: Heheh

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Mmm, lately we have had an 'apologist' movement here on campus where it seems people feel the need to atone for the fact they are white. I can neither understand nor condone it. I realize there is much in European and American history which is ugly in its own right and many of us would be happy to forget, but I think we would be making a great mistake in assuming the villainification of Europeans simply because of the fact they are European, or for Americans either.
i have noticed the same thing ror. hell, i even wrote a paper about it....it got a failing grade because my prof. thought that i was deliberately insensitive. :/

you should read "the death of the west" it talks about what you are saying and it helped me understand it a lot more.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:35 PM
The_Rorschach
Heheh

Mmm, lately we have had an 'apologist' movement here on campus where it seems people feel the need to atone for the fact they are white. I can neither understand nor condone it. I realize there is much in European and American history which is ugly in its own right and many of us would be happy to forget, but I think we would be making a great mistake in assuming the villainification of Europeans simply because of the fact they are European, or for Americans either.

The contracted war between Byzantine and the Moslems lasted long enough for it to be considered uncontroversial fact. Due to this, I feel confident in assuming that blame does not lie solely with the Europeans in this conflict.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:28 PM
AChimp A lot of the classical knowledge was lost to Europe during the Middle Ages. I'm not saying that Muslim-garnered knowledge is better than anywhere else, but without them, it would have most likely disappeared forever.

The Chinese were probably just as advanced as the Muslims, but it would be a few centuries before Europeans travelled there enough for oriental ideas to impact on Europe in a substantial way.

All I wanted to say was that the Muslims were living in huge cities and intricate palaces while the stupid white man was mucking around in muddy fields.
Feb 5th, 2003 08:18 PM
The_Rorschach
Eh

Wish I had seen this earlier. There were a number of Crusades, some more negligable than others, but only one truly successful one, and two partially sucessful.


Chimp: It was actually destroyed twice. The first time by the Babylonians circa 400 BC and then by the Romans in either 70 AD or 70 BC (one of those).

70 A.D.

Chimp: Yeah, but as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." I recall seeing a TLC program about the Crusades that said the Pope wanted to solidify his authority in Europe and expand his influence to all Christians. We probably will never know all the reasons.

As I understand it, the first Crusade was motivated primarily by the threat the Moslem's represented against Europe. The war between Byzantine and the Moslems was an odd mix of religious fervitude and imperialistic dynasty building, and lasted for some three hundred years before the Moslems finally triumphed over them. it was at that point the Pope, and many European leaders as well, became aware of how great the threat to their own security truly was. The Pope's only real action to encourage the conflict during the period was to promise that any Moslem slain by European hands would not be considered a sin as they were striking out of their own self defense. However, after proving sucessful in the early stages of the war, they decided to take that as a sign of God's favour and hence decided to go down into the Middle East and liberate Jerusalem - An odd reflection of America's actions of late, but thats neither here nor there.



Chimp: It still boils down to the fact that the raids started after the Crusades began. The Europeans were considered to be foreign invaders.

Indeed, as was the United States when MacArthur pushed the Chinese-supported North Koreans all the way back into lower China in the fifties. The Moslems had been fighting offensively for such an extended period of time, they had not expected for any counter offensive measures - And who could blame them? There had been no previous precedent for such action from the docile Europeans.


Chimp: The fact of the matter is, though, that the Muslims were centuries ahead of Europe. The only reason why European scholars had copies of classical literature to study and imitate during the Renaissance is mostly because Arabs were big fans of Greek and Roman stuff and made hundreds of copies.

Hmmm, this is one of those statements I dislike arguing with because it's rather arbitrary. It was the Turks who invented the idea of true hospitols, 'western' medication and institutionalized places of learning (i.e. schools as we know them now). Arabians offered astrology (which was drastically inferior to some of the knowledge known in lower China at the time) and Algebra (which is only one facet of higher mathematics), and while these are great improvements, what qualifies them as better than what we learned from the Romans (tactics, government, physics), the Greeks (philosophy, art, theory, govenrment) Europeans (science, astronomy, physics) or any other existing culture?
Feb 5th, 2003 08:02 PM
ItalianStereotype i suppose it depends. i dont recall what i was thinking when i posted that...civilization is in the eye of the beholder.

who knows what chimp thinks is civilized...they fling their own shit for christs sake.
Feb 5th, 2003 07:57 PM
Helm
Quote:
nobody was very civilized in the era we are talking about
And by civilized I take it you mean more AChimp hygene moronity or something else?
Feb 5th, 2003 07:55 PM
ItalianStereotype i doubt that we will ever agree about what started the crusades or the reasons for the military orders or a lot of what actually happened during the campaigns...

i do agree that the crusades were beneficial for western europe and helped usher in the renaissance. i also think we went above and beyond anything the muslims would have done had they continued in their upward trends.
Feb 5th, 2003 07:49 PM
AChimp
Quote:
the temple of solomon would have been destroyed during the lifetime of jesus...i honestly dont know if that is true
It was actually destroyed twice. The first time by the Babylonians circa 400 BC and then by the Romans in either 70 AD or 70 BC (one of those).

You are right about it being rebuilt by all those civilizations. It's Muslim tradition to build their holy sites on the holy sites of other religions.

Quote:
the pope didnt need to increase his power. he was the most powerful man in europe at the time of the crusades.
Yeah, but as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." I recall seeing a TLC program about the Crusades that said the Pope wanted to solidify his authority in Europe and expand his influence to all Christians. We probably will never know all the reasons. :/

Quote:
and the raiders were not trying to take back the lands they had lost. these were seljuk raiders in anatolia, which never left muslim hands.
It still boils down to the fact that the raids started after the Crusades began. The Europeans were considered to be foreign invaders.

I read an interesting piece in a book I used in a history project in junior high that the only reason that the Europeans succeeded in taking Jeruselam was that a) the Muslims had just had a fairly protracted civil war, if not bloody, and there was a lot of confusion and b) they were all like "WTF?" when the European knights showed up one day and started attacking. It took them a while to realize that people would travel that far to actually pick a fight.

Quote:
i am trying to dispell the image you have of them being some kind of gentleman race desperately trying to defend themselves from the bloodthirsty crusaders.
I'm not saying they were gentlemanly; all humans are equally capable of violence. In fact, Saladin's army once set fire to a grass plain and basically burned a Crusader army to death while they were sleeping. To this day, they still use their religion as justification for a lot of things that Christianity learned to distance itself from or was never associated with.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the Muslims were centuries ahead of Europe. The only reason why European scholars had copies of classical literature to study and imitate during the Renaissance is mostly because Arabs were big fans of Greek and Roman stuff and made hundreds of copies.

They also made great advances in science, particularly medicine, astronomy and math. The Crusades were actually beneficial for Europeans in a way, because it brought back countless new ideas and commodities when soldiers started coming home.
Feb 5th, 2003 07:21 PM
womanwithballs OOPS! I neglected to give the website where I got all the info. It wasn't MY words and I didn't intend to take credit for them. I saved the website on my daughter's computer this morning at her house just before I rushed to work. I'll get it for you asap (whomever is interested). And as I said before, it was my professor that made the claim... I simply repeated what he said. I'm no religious scholar. You guys have a better understanding of the history than I do. So, this woman with nuts was wrong to not add in the website, not wrong in her copying and pasting technique. :/ I'll get that website for you, Italian... and YOU can argue with the sources.

I do understand that witches were treated badly by all religions. I don't hate the catholic faith. It's no more oppressive and/or ridiculous than all the rest of them. I also know it's not a wise idea to assume things about people you know precious little about.


Here's one website with a little comparative analysis:

http://godisnowhere.org/Articles/cachristislam.htm
Feb 5th, 2003 07:15 PM
ItalianStereotype
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Dude, I said a temple in Bethlehem, not the Temple of Solomon in Jeruselem. It had already been destroyed for over 1000 years with JEWISH (not Christian) temples being built/torn down/rebuilt during that time.
ok, i didnt see that you were talking about bethlehem. by your timeline, the temple of solomon would have been destroyed during the lifetime of jesus...i honestly dont know if that is true :/

i DO know that it had been rebuilt by the jews, byzantine christians, and muslims over a period of however many years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
And, yes, I know that it wasn't the sole cause of the Crusades. It was, however, one of the excuses that the Pope needed to convince everyone run off and at the same time, inconspicuously increase his power.
the pope didnt need to increase his power. he was the most powerful man in europe at the time of the crusades. the reasons i stated were the causes of the crusades, maybe yours helped fuel it, i dont know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Muslims DID tolerate other religions, as long as those others recognized that they were infidels (which is still the case today). They didn't prohibit other religions in anyway, however. The Knights Templar weren't formed until AFTER the first Crusade was over, and of course the "raiders" would be attacking pilgrims and people travelling around; they were soldiers trying to take back the land that they had been kicked out of.
yes i know that the muslims didnt forcibly convert the christians, but you should re-read what i wrote earlier. they were not tolerant of any faith besides their own, they allowed it because they didnt want rebellion. saladin himself said this. the knights templar were technically formed DURING the first crusade (1119) and the raiders were not trying to take back the lands they had lost. these were seljuk raiders in anatolia, which never left muslim hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
You seem to think that the Muslims were barbarians, when in reality they were much more civilized and advanced, both culturally and technologically, than Europe.
nobody was very civilized in the era we are talking about, but i am not trying to make them out to be barbarians. i am trying to dispell the image you have of them being some kind of gentleman race desperately trying to defend themselves from the bloodthirsty crusaders.
Feb 5th, 2003 06:52 PM
AChimp You know, stuff like "washing makes you clean, and therefore you won't get sick as much."
Feb 5th, 2003 06:45 PM
Helm Cultural advancement is a silly notion. Advancement using what scale?
Feb 5th, 2003 06:38 PM
AChimp Dude, I said a temple in Bethlehem, not the Temple of Solomon in Jeruselem. It had already been destroyed for over 1000 years with JEWISH (not Christian) temples being built/torn down/rebuilt during that time.

And, yes, I know that it wasn't the sole cause of the Crusades. It was, however, one of the excuses that the Pope needed to convince everyone run off and at the same time, inconspicuously increase his power.

Muslims DID tolerate other religions, as long as those others recognized that they were infidels (which is still the case today). They didn't prohibit other religions in anyway, however. The Knights Templar weren't formed until AFTER the first Crusade was over, and of course the "raiders" would be attacking pilgrims and people travelling around; they were soldiers trying to take back the land that they had been kicked out of.

You seem to think that the Muslims were barbarians, when in reality they were much more civilized and advanced, both culturally and technologically, than Europe.
Feb 5th, 2003 06:37 PM
Helm To the best of my historic knowledge, Stereotype is mostly right.
Feb 5th, 2003 05:09 PM
ItalianStereotype NEED ANOTHER HISTORY LESSON CHIMP? YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THE LAST ONE

they WERE more violent chimp. the idea of islam at the time was that aside from the treasures of the afterlife, you got what you could take in your earthly life. this is how saladin and mohammed were able to hold the islamic hordes together, promise of booty of both types

"the temple" was rebuilt countless times during the crusades and was burned and desecrated by the saracens every time thy got into the city. "the temple" was made the hq of the knights templars during the occupation of jerusalem. the temple of solomon was many things, but it wasnt the cause of the crusades. if anything it was the overly zealous pope urban II, the pressure of the seljuk turks on the byzantines, and a deep-seated resentment of islam in iberia. eventually it became a war to liberate the holy lands.

they were NOT perfectly happy to allow christians to come and go as they please. that is the whole reason the knights of the temple of solomon (templar knights) and the knights of the hospital of st. john were formed. to protect pilgrims from SARACEN RAIDERS. plus, subjected christians in muslim lands were second class citizens at best, slaves at worst.



but none of this takes away from the fact that the woman with nuts was wrong.
Feb 5th, 2003 04:50 PM
AChimp
Quote:
aside from a few notables like Richard of Champagne, the saracen muslims were twice as violent as the crusaders.
Not entirely true. They only seemed more violent because pretty much any crime that you could commit had a punishment that involved execution or amputation.

The Muslims conquered the Holy Land, but they were perfectly happy to allow Christians to come and go as they pleased and even allowed the Christians to continue practicing their religion. It wasn't until some crazy Muslim governor decided to burn down that temple in Bethlehem (I forget what it was called. ) that the Christians in Europe got all fired up and ran off to "liberate" the Holy Land.

As it turned out, the Crusaders ended up killing more people than the Muslims did, and "liberating" included looting, pillaging and killing the peasants (including large numbers of Christians).

History also seems to forget that the Muslims rebuilt the temple that the crazy guy ordered burnt down, too. :/
Feb 5th, 2003 02:30 PM
ItalianStereotype
Re: sampling of christianity deaths

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Hitler was a christian...

Early History
Although it is often argued that violence during Christian history is simply an aberration which results from people who twisted the original Christian message, that may not be entirely true. Violent inclinations in Christianity are apparent right from the beginning.
incorrect. early christianity didnt have the strength to be a violent religion. certain christians were violent, such as the nords, but not in the name of christianity. besides, violence was THE way of life in the day.

Hitler didnt do what he did in the name of christianity, he did it for the germanic peoples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Crusades
One of the most famous examples of religious violence in the Middle Ages is of course the Crusades - attempts by European Christians to impose their vision of religion upon Jews, Orthodox Christians, heretics, Muslims, and just about anyone else who happened to get in the way.
incorrect. the crusades were established to defend the holy land from the saracens who conquered it from the jews. aside from a few notables like Richard of Champagne, the saracen muslims were twice as violent as the crusaders. ex: slaughtering the woman and children of acre as an example to the christian pilgrims, or the burning alive of the surrendered knights templar. with the saracens, if you couldnt pay ransom, you died. this was not the case with the christians, check your sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Inquistion
Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231, and burning was quickly decided upon as the official Christian punishment. Administrators and Inquisitors were all answerable directly to the Pope - which essentially made him directly responsible for their actions.
unfortunately you have the right of this. while it was not a catastrophic murder spree, this IS one of the worst moments of christian history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Reformation
The Reformation was supposed to restore a more original and more pure form of Christianity. One of the results was the death of millions upon millions of Europeans during decades almost unprecedented religious violence.
you are referring to the violence against the protestants? such as the huguenots in france? the very ones who were rebelling and demanding the overthrow of the catholic king? what would you do if you were a medieval king facing a civil war? you would capture or kill the rebels, which is exactly what happened. besides, there werent MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people in europe at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Witches
Witches have long been feared and hated in Christian circles. Even today, pagans and Wiccans remain a target of Christian persecution and violence - even in America. It seems that they long ago took on an identity which reached far beyond their own existence and became a symbol for Christians - but a symbol of what?
you dont seem to understand that witches were shunned by ALL religions. today if you asked the average christian they will tell you that they dont believe in witches. you have a very archaic view of christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Bible Wars
One sad bit of American and Christian history which few (if any) manage to learn about are the "Bible Wars" between Catholics and Protestants in the latter half of the 19th century. This is especially unfortunate because is remarkably resembles some of the issues which face us today with regards to having religion in public school. If it could lead to violence and death then, we should be wary today.
i havent heard of these. you would think that any religious topic that caused a wave of death wouldnt have escaped all the european history classes i have taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Holocaust
Was the Nazi Holocaust religious or was it secular? A bit of both, actually. Nazi oppression and massacres against political opponents and gypsies were obviously secular in nature - but the determination to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth cannot possibly be understood without the background of centuries of persistent and violent Christian anti-semitism, generally encouraged by religious authorities.
SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR

HITLER WAS NOT A PRACTICING CATHOLIC, THAT IS JUST USED TO JUSTIFY HATRED OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Northern Ireland
The terrible combination of nationalism, politics and religion has had deadly consequences for the people living in Northern Ireland. Catholics and Protestants have been vilifying, attacking, torturing and killing each other in a seemingly endless cycle. What role does Christianity play in all of this violence?
once again this is a secular matter. the problems with northern ireland come more from the irish desire to be completely autonomous. after years of bad blood between them, it is more about this than christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Modern America
America in the 20th century has suffered from many violent incidents which can be traced back to Christianity. Some have been organized, others not so organized, but all the result of specifically violent or dangerous doctrines promoted in Christian churches.
thats nice and vague.

Quote:
Originally Posted by womanwithballs
Jonesboro & Paducah
Commentary on the school violence which occurred in Jonesboro and Paducah. Would more religion in the schools have prevented the violent outbursts, as some religious leaders claim?
now this goes against your original point.
Feb 5th, 2003 02:21 PM
george how do these things always turn anti christian? ALL RELIGON IS FRAUD. all of it. every one of them.


i started this because i am sick of the media pushing god as the solution to answers and i am sick of it.

in fifty words or less, without using the word FAITH or Belief. give me a reason to take God seriously.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:45 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.