|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Israel was a theocray where everyone vowed to follow the Law and repeated the penalty for breaking the Law.
I agree. I'm just saying the Law was God's bidding. Killing and plundering and stoning in the name of God.Quote:
It is the job of the government to punish evil, not the job of individuals.
I agree. What if your personal religious belifs are contrary to your government's bidding? I understand there is a difference between "murder" and "kill", but I'm referring to your earlier statement:Quote:
The New Testament has no provision that allows Christians to torture, punish, or kill sinners for their sin.
Can an executioner be Christian?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not the law itself, or the support of the law, that makes the law right or wrong, in my opinion. The problem is the lack of ability to choose to not be part of the law, the community and the society (the government), without having to move from ones home. I believe the very same problem still exists today.
Sorry, Israel was a theocracy. Everyone there vowed to follow the law and repeated the penalties for breaking the Law. The land of Israel was set apart for the people of God by God. If you did not want to be a follower of God you could go anywhere else in the whole world.
Quote:
Quote:
It is the job of the government to punish evil, not the job of individuals.
But how can one differ between those two (underlined)?
Isn't a government not just a bunch of people who for various reasons can decide the faith of others?
The difference is I can't see a murderer and say, "Oh, I'm going to kill him because I know for a fact he murdered Bob and escaped from prison yesterday."
Instead I call the law enforcement and they come and arrest Bob. Later, at the appointed time, Bob is put to death by the governement as the jury decreed the sentence would be."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree. I'm just saying the Law was God's bidding. Killing and plundering and stoning in the name of God.
God set what the punishment the goverment of Israel would carry out for various crimes. So?
Quote:
Quote:
It is the job of the government to punish evil, not the job of individuals
.
I agree. What if your personal religious belifs are contrary to your government's bidding? I understand there is a difference between "murder" and "kill", but I'm referring to your earlier statement:
If the government tells me to bow down and worship Obama or die then I will die.
Quote:
Quote:
The New Testament has no provision that allows Christians to torture, punish, or kill sinners for their sin.
Can an executioner be Christian?
Yes, a Christian can be a member of the government and can carry out executions as a member of the government.
____________
Revelation
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Instead I call the law enforcement and they come and arrest Bob. Later, at the appointed time, Bob is put to death by the governement as the jury decreed the sentence would be."
Then I'd like to tell the fictive tale of Bob and Elisa.
Bob have you already introduced, Elisa is the girl who finds out about Bob and contact the authorities (in this case her authorities, as it's a subjective term).
Now everything happens as you say, would you be satisfied with such a conclusion?
If after many years, the author makes a second part of said story, where a new person, Johnny, brother of Bob, finds out that Elisa is part of an organized crime gang, and she gave Bob away to the mafia who executed him by the very same processes as you described, shouldn't this crime gang not be held to court for having killed Bob?
Quote:
If the government tells me to bow down and worship Obama or die then I will die.
1) Would you also find it just, because the law says so?
2) What if the law said you were to worship Obama without the choice of dying?
3) What if the law also gave you the ability to choose to move away?
4) What if the law gave you the ability to actually choose if you would want to be part of that society, without the government claiming rights upon your property upon doing so?
In my opinion, only 4) is right, and 1-3 are ways of oppression of different degrees.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 09:19 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:19, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Instead I call the law enforcement and they come and arrest Bob. Later, at the appointed time, Bob is put to death by the governement as the jury decreed the sentence would be."
Then I'd like to tell the fictive tale of Bob and Elisa.
Bob have you already introduced, Elisa is the girl who finds out about Bob and contact the authorities (in this case her authorities, as it's a subjective term).
Now everything happens as you say, would you be satisfied with such a conclusion?
If she is living in the US she would be contacting a law enforcement agency. Yes, it would be appropriate for any person to turn in a murderer to a law enforcement agency.
Quote:
Ifwhere a new person, Johnny, brother of Bob, finds out that Elisa is part of an organized crime gang, and she gave Bob away to the mafia who executed him by the very same processes as you described, shouldn't this crime gang not be held to court for having killed Bob? after many years, the author makes a second part of said story,
Your tales seem contradictory unless you are saying the mafia was Elisa's authority. In that case the mafia is not the government. The mafia is a criminal organization and has no authority to carry out executions.
Elisa and the crime gang would be complicit in murder and tried by tghe government.
Quote:
Quote:
If the government tells me to bow down and worship Obama or die then I will die.
1) Would you also find it just, because the law says so?
2) What if the law said you were to worship Obama without the choice of dying?
3) What if the law also gave you the ability to choose to move away?
4) What if the law gave you the ability to actually choose if you would want to be part of that society, without the government claiming rights upon your property upon doing so?
1) Human law is not necessarily just, and in many cases is not. A law requring me to worship Obama would be unjust and against the commandments of God.
2) I would not worship Obmaa.
3) I would move if the tyranical government could not be overthrown. The US Constitution says citizens have the right to overthrow the governemnt if it becomes tyranical.
4) Your question makes no sense. Either the governemnt requires me to worship Obama or it does not.
If it does not require me to worship Obama even though the majority of the citizens do then I would continue living there but not worship Obama.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Show me studies from a reputable source such as gallup that Baptists are hostile to Methodists, Episcopals are hostiale to Pentecostals, ect. And explain why America is not a bloody battlezone with so many differnt denominations all existing together in peace.
Ask yourself this, if we started behaving like back in the dark ages we would have been thrown into prison quite fast, no?
You did not answer the question. I asked for proof of the sttment that the various Christian denominations are hostile to each other as someone claimed they are.
Also I asked for an explaination as to why if the different Christian denominations are hostile to each other America is not a bloodbath.
I gave examples of myself being friends with people of different denominations and never having experienced this alleged hostility of Christians of differing denominations.
The painting of Christianity as being composed of denominations that are hostile to each other is quite simply false.
I think you then asked the wrong question. Christianity itself is hostile to other parts, but these days it is no longer an issue as PEOPLE got enough power and wisdom to make it impossible to do anymore. But fanatics still declare war on other religions, condemn random people, and are arses??
Well, image we are in a age where the nobles just got enough power to supress the peasants regardless, where the holy religion has ingrained itself to the point where you throw stones at anybody who disagrees with the holy texts no matter how much you would agree with it if you thought about it, image this place to be filled without any form of communication medium. There is no civil laws.
Now image a bunch of the teenagers disagree with the holy word, and start a branch. They will either run away, or get lynched on the spot.
Now image if 2 branches who have some major differences which are noticeable(different opening prayers, other holy signs, other way of doing artifacts, etc) but they are still the same religion? It would be disasterous for either part depending on who is the stranger.
No law, just the mobs, no idea of wisdom, nobody can stand alone, and the local dictator sweeps down on anybody that disagrees for no apparent reason(taking the fellow down? Armed guards against untrained starved peasants).
Now what if you go to Northern Ireland? We do have a major hostility between the Catholics and the Protestants do we? Image a less civilized world, the differences would not even have to be that big for there to be blood sheed and heads flying.
So ask yourself this: If your country had demoted down in a spiral and gotten into dark age'ish soceity, do you think there would have been peace? Anything that even looks like hints of racisme would flicker up like hells infernos and the only place where it is possible to do something between 2 who are minorly different would be in the banner of not knowing and being told so, and trade(for the greater profit!)..................
We are quite lucky to live in a civilized world where heads don't fly randomly because somebody decided to break of the main branch, a world where we can have MAJOR contrasts and disagreements and still talk it over in a civilly way.
Is this special for any religion? It would be special to have a religion who does not suffer from this.
____________
|
|
mvassilev 
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 10:19 PM |
|
|
Elodin, let me ask you this. Okay, Israel had to follow God's laws because it was a theocracy, etc. But why did God make such ridiculous laws in the first place? (And don't say anything like, "The Jews were free to leave if they wanted to", because that's not answering the question.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 11:20 PM |
|
|
Elodin...
heres a challenge, which I dare you to accept.
Tell me, from the time of conception, how christianity has benevolently direct society to where we are now.
if you do that, then I will tell you three other religions that have done more.
and if I do, you, if you have the balls, admit you are wrong in something. It's not necessarily a world ender to admit you are wrong once in a while, Egalitarianism is what drives the academic world.
However, I doubt you will, as your intellectually dishonest and will gladly edit history in order to prove yourself right.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you then asked the wrong question.
I'm not asking the wrong question. The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another. I asked for proof of the claim.
The claim is false and I have provided evidence that it is false. Now, you show me a study from a reputable source that Christians of each denomination are hostile towards each other denomination.
Then explain why America is not a bloodbath considering that so many differnt denominatinos coexist peacefully in one nation.
Quote:
But fanatics still declare war on other religions, condemn random people, and are arses??
Show me CNN footage of Baptist armies, Methodist armies, Episcopalian armies, Pentecostal armies, ect, going around the world in conquest.
No, Christianity is not about condemning others. Christians are to address sin. We love the sinner but hat the sin. Christians teach that we must all repent of (forsake) our sins.
Christians are not perfect and can act like jerks at times but I think that can be said of everyone. And especially more of certain groups like anti-theists who attack everyone who believes in a deity.
Quote:
Now what if you go to Northern Ireland? We do have a major hostility between the Catholics and the Protestants do we?
The conflict has not been religious but an ethnic/class conflict between those who consider themself English/British and those who consider themselves to be Irish.
Quote:
Elodin, let me ask you this. Okay, Israel had to follow God's laws because it was a theocracy, etc. But why did God make such ridiculous laws in the first place? (And don't say anything like, "The Jews were free to leave if they wanted to", because that's not answering the question.)
On waht basis do you claim any of the laws of Israel were rediculous?
Israel was to be a nation set apart to serve God and live holy lives.
@Bixie
Quote:
However, I doubt you will, as your intellectually dishonest and will gladly edit history in order to prove yourself right.
Perhaps you could present your arguments more with greater civility.
Quote:
Tell me, from the time of conception, how christianity has benevolently direct society to where we are now.
Your question is not clear. Are you asking how Christianity has benefited society?
oh, let's see, here are some:
o Christians present spiritual truth
o transformation of a great number of human lives for the better
o elimination of pagnan practices of human sacrifice
0 great art, literature, architecture, and music
o hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizastions
o modern science
o The foundation of the political ideas of individual rights to life, liberty, equality, exercise of conscience, equality of all before the law. That an individual's rights exist apart from any dictates of the State.
0 the ending of slavery
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 04:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
On waht basis do you claim any of the laws of Israel were rediculous?
Not being allowed to wear clothing made of two materials.
Killing a man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law.
Killing people for homosexuality.
etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 07:42 AM |
|
|
I really don't like to interrupt the little chit-chat here, especially since I've learned, that it makes no difference what I write or not write and whom I talk to and whom not, in the end what I say will be garbled and maimed and brutalized anyway, but before someone is pushing himself up into a fit of righteous indignation and starts banging his head against the wall and gnashing his teeth, it may make a modicum of sense to check, what is claimed I said, and what I actually said.
Claim:Quote:
The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another.
Reality: Quote:
Isn't it STRANGE, that not so long ago, that I couldn't remember anymore, friendship between Catholics and Protestants (especially) were frowned upon and marriage an anathema in Germany?
How is that possible? How can a religion that is supposed to advertise universal love produce so much enmity withthin the ranks of their own supporters?...
I repeat the point. It's not Christianity that is under siege here - it's more the fact that there basically IS NO Christianity, only a plethora of factions, supposedly all believing the same thing, but in such a radically different way that they frown upon each other...
Can you really believe in ANY official version of a religion that at its core suggests to love even your enemies, when the followers of that religion are split into an uncounted number of rivalling groupings which may even be hostile against each other?
I may have a fetish with language and the exact meaning of words and sentences, still it's bewildering in its very own way, that someone who is so fastidious, when it comes to distinctions like kill/murder or the exact phrasing of Bible passages and their correct interpretation and meaning is so God-forsakenly sloppy when it comes to reading and interpreting what others say.
Now, don't let yourself interrupt further and go on.
Thanks for your attention.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 08:32 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:36, 08 Apr 2010.
|
@JJ
Quote:
but before someone is pushing himself up into a fit of righteous indignation and starts banging his head against the wall and gnashing his teeth, it may make a modicum of sense to check, what is claimed I said, and what I actually said.
Your insulting rhetoric is unwarrented.
Yes, let us look at some of the false statements you made and if you indeed said the Christian denominations are hostile to each other:
Quote:
Take for example Catholicism, one of my favorites when it comes to religion and their sorry consequences. You can make a plethora of points against actual Catholicism and its highest representants, a lot of them serious and damning, but the simple people who ARE Catholics are - in my eyes - just victims.
The fact that there ARE so many different (and partly RADICALLY different) "versions" of Christianity is damning enough for the religion as a whole.
With the general decline of importance of religion in the Western World it has stopped to become a major issue, but isn't it STRANGE, that not so long ago, that I couldn't remember anymore, friendship between Catholics and Protestants (especially) were frowned upon and marriage an anathema in Germany?
How is that possible? How can a religion that is supposed to advertise universal love produce so much enmity withthin the ranks of their own supporters?And before you start with, "that's the human factor", nope. You see, as there are certain crimes that every "straight" criminal frowns upon, there's this thing called "heresy" which seems to be the worst thing possible. It has more to do with the fact that religion in general doesn't come with "facts", and when it comes with what is supposed to be "facts", like manuscripts", these stuff is naturally open to interpretation.
The interesting thing is, that you will NEVER EVER see serious enmity on a large scale for differing interpretations of scientific "facts". Can someone imagine people called "Big-Bangers" and "Steady-Staters", hating each other, warring against each other...? After all, we can't really know, can we?
Quote:
there basically IS NO Christianity, only a plethora of factions, supposedly all believing the same thing, but in such a radically different way that they frown upon each other.
Quote:
Can you really believe in ANY official version of a religion that at its core suggests to love even your enemies, when the followers of that religion are split into an uncounted number of rivalling groupings which may even be hostile against each other?
I only want to point out the words enmity and hate and hostile. You made false statments against Christainity. I ask you to produce studies that show the various denominations are all frown upoon, have enemity towards or hate each other or stop you slanderous accusations against Christianity.
Oh, I also asked you to produce official teachings of the Catholic Church and various denominatinos that back your claim that friendship between Catholics and Protestants is frowned upon. I poiunted out that I have been friends with Catholics throughout my life, and one of them is a Catholic priest. Good look finding such official teachings because they don't exist.
Oh yeah, I corrected you on what the Catholic church actually teaches about marriage between a Catholic and Protestant in the previous post as well.
You need to do a better job of researching what the different denominations teach because so far you are pretty much batting 0 with your charges against them.
@mvassilev
Quote:
Not being allowed to wear clothing made of two materials.
Killing a man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law.
Killing people for homosexuality.
etc.
Not being allowed to wear clothing of mixed material was part of the ceremonial law. It was symbolic of remaining pure in all things.
God takes sin seriously and the punishment for sexual sins may not be to your liking but they show how serious sin is.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 08:36 AM |
|
|
God defines what sin is. So why wouldn't he define it as something that actually harms other people?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 09:06 AM |
|
|
The sexual sins are not harmless if that is what you are refering to. You may or may not see what is harmful about them but that does not mean there ia no harm.
Man and woman were designed for a one-on-one relationship. God intended marriage to be a man and a woman. All sex outside the marriage relationship is sin. God did not intend sex to a casual thing in a chance encounter.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 09:12 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 09:20 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you are behaving like the people who deny that there have been Jews killed in Auschwitz. I think, you are making a fool of yourself.
Moreover, I didn't know that you quote texts, by underlining specific words or phrases that appear in text, and then putting them together every way you like. A text is not a construction kit. Would you want people to quote from the Bible this way?
Right, so cut the crap, please.
You may want to read this fine article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy
I direct your attention especially to the last paragraph.
If I'm not wrong, you are oh so proud of the US constitution, granting freedom of religion; what the snow do you think that passus exists? Why the snow do you think many of your forefather emigrated from Europe. What the snow do you think the so-called 30-years war was? Maybe the names Albigenser or Waldenser or Templer mean something to you?
Let's not forget: there has only been ONE church and ONE official Christian belief up to the schisma in the 11th century when the two parts of the Roman Empire were divided into the Roman-Catholic and the Greek-Orthodox Church.
But since they did a lot of things Christians simply don't do, I suppose there were no Christians up to then, except, that the Protestants SPLIT from the Roman-Catholics...
By the way, this is another intersting page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
And before you start, yes, protestants had their part in it, too.
Calvin, you should know this name, wasin favor of this, arguing wih Exodus 22:18, God wanted als Witches to be killed...
No further discussion here.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 10:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, I doubt you will, as your intellectually dishonest and will gladly edit history in order to prove yourself right.
Perhaps you could present your arguments more with greater civility.
a strongly worded argument never hurt anyone... except those who refused to admit it's merits.
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me, from the time of conception, how christianity has benevolently direct society to where we are now.
Your question is not clear. Are you asking how Christianity has benefited society?
oh, let's see, here are some:
o Christians present spiritual truth
thats purely a personal matter, so we can discount that as having a societial effect.
Quote:
o transformation of a great number of human lives for the better
not really. the roman empire, before accepting christianity, had a higher standard of living per person (yes, including slaves).
Quote:
o elimination of pagnan practices of human sacrifice
that was rubbish written by roman historians. Looking at the sights at where pagan practices took place, we see no human bones anywhere. animal bones, certainly, but human sacrifice is a myth invented by the romans, and later doctored into christian dogma.
Quote:
0 great art, literature, architecture, and music
Not really. if we think about it specifically, most of the art and architecture was pinched from the romans and the greeks. It's fairly obvious if you go to rome, you can clearly see the greeco-influences when it comes to something like St Peters cathedral. it hasn't so much created art and architecture on it's own, as preserved it. I suppose that gothic cathedrals would count, but none of them are particularly impressive compared to their classical cousins.
Literature is debatable on personal tastes, as it music. Personally, I think Mozart's Canon in D, a completely secular peice, is actually better than Beethovens hallejulah chorus, and that Philipp pullman's dark materials is a better book series than C.S lewis chronicles of narnia.
many more great books have been written completely apart from any religious scripture. Moby dick, Mortal engines, Black beauty, Watership down, The count of monte cristo, All of these, and many more, have been written as completely secular stories, with no relation to god whatsoever. Even pagan literature is better, as I think Euripedes's Trojan women has superior plot and language to the nativity.
I will give you literature, because some of the canterbury tales, by jeffrey chaucer (Read them!) are brilliant fun, and is written in direct relation to a christian pilgrimage to canterbury cathedral.
Quote:
o hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizastions
Any religion does that. In fact, I would have to say that alot of pagan societies were more charitable than christianity was. The Celts organised so that everyone, at the point of need, would receive medical attention, that children whose parents died in battle will be fostered by adults who were still alive.
the muslims also had orphanages during their empire in the 1200's, and also had an organisation to help beggars off the street. This lead to mosques being open at all hours, not just at the time of prayer, and to act as food stores and shelter for beggars when they had no-where to go, provided that they either train to become imams, or began searching for work. Again, no less than christian organisations do.
Quote:
o modern science
this is pretty much dead wrong. the bases of modern science that we know of today come from Greek studies. Archimedes's is a brilliant example, not only developing water based mechanism to defend the city of Syracause from the romans, but historians and scientist beleive that he even theorised the possiblity of some kind of heat ray.
Galileo is another example, theorising that the earth went around the sun, and was excommunicated from the church. He's called the father of modern physics, by the way.
the real rise in science, were we get great thinkers like Darwin, Einstein and so on, comes during the enlightenment, which was a secular movement, not a christian one.
Quote:
o The foundation of the political ideas of individual rights to life, liberty, equality, exercise of conscience, equality of all before the law. That an individual's rights exist apart from any dictates of the State.
Plato's republic.
the bases of what we would consider western thinking. In it, Plato describes that in order for a society to function, all members of the society must have the right to life, the freedom to choose, and be equal before the court of law.
when you think of the western rights we all share, you are thinking of Greek thinking, not christian. In fact, Christianity has been somewhat oppressive of a certain right to freedom of religion.
Quote:
0 the ending of slavery
possibly...
quiet appart from the fact that the southern slave holders used the bible as a means to justify slaver (as it mentions the treatment of slaves in it), the reason why the north stopped using slavery was not solely a religious reason. Economics were just as important, due to most northern industrialists realising that slavery was a self-destructive institution.
so, out of the whole of christianity, you could only find... two ways in which christianity has benevolenty guided society to where we are today. that of great literature, of which there is only one real example off, and helping in the end of slavery, as well as the preservation of latin.
where do I begin.
Paganism:
1.the founders of the bases of modern science, particularly in greece.
2.the founders of wester ideals and thinking, mainly done in greece.
3.the creaters of modern ship building techniques, responsible for the development of sails and the use of wind powered technology, done in greece, sweden, rome, spain and britian.
4.builders of modern transport systems, roads, river ways, and so on. famously done by the romans, but recent discoveries say that the celts built roads around their lands.
5.Collective familial benefits, in that what is good for the whole of society, rather than just the leaders. mainly found in the celts and the vikings.
6.creators of a much more free society, including equal treatment of women, found in the celts and the vikings.
7.creators of the calender, arguably the most important discovery of the ancient world, which was done by the ancient egyptians.
8.the building of trully impressive buildings, some of which are still standing today. Egyptians, Romans and greeks.
Islam:
1. preserved the thinking of the greeks, including science and mathematics.
2. brought about the creation of the numerical system of numbers, as opposed to the greek alphabetic bases system.
3. increased our understanding of medicine, including the treatment of sores. some texts in the Ankara national library reveal that some muslim doctors theorised that exposing a person to a weaken form of infection might boost a persons immune system, a peice of modern science that has lead to the development of the injection. this was never tests, as they probably couldn't dilute the infection enought.
4. the mapping of the heavens as we know them today. Saladin was known to keep thosands of astronomers near him, and it was them who began to document the constellations as we know them today.
5. divorce laws. before the fundementalist rule of the muslims that took place after the crusades, divorce law was already in muslim court. a woman could divorce her husband if he beat her, raped her, or was adultrous, and if she did that, she got a portion of the husbands total wealth. there are records of the sultana sofia (1127-1167) of the central turkish province who divorced her husband, the sultan Ahmed III, and got half the kingdom.
Hindus (this information was provided by a dear friend of mine, Abdul Churesh, history student, studying at Bombay University. Thanks Abs, the download tickets are in the mail.)
1. comprehesive study of the human body. this includes the study of the tailbone, which, according to indian philosophers of the late 1600's, that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. this gets rather shot to bits when they attribute it to the monkey god, hanuman, but they were on the cusp of making a revolutionary scientific breakthrough.
2. the use of gunpowder, particularly in two feilds: mining and warfare. the hindus used blasting charges for mining long before westerners, which was mainly how they managed to get enough stone to build their great temples. Warfare was the development of explosive arrows, particularly with balista bolts.
3. the creation of a multi-party democracy. it might have been based on land ownership, but the indian parliament in the early 1800's was revolutionary when it developed multiple parties for its members to vote for.
4. the use of coded messages. This is probably the most interesting, as it's the for-runner to the enigma machine. Coded messages would be sent to captured soldiers within the enemy army, often under the guise of letters from loved ones. these contained clear instructions when to break out and attack the enemy from the rear. this was known as the "snake in the fruits," tactic, and was extremely effective.
5. modern diplomacy. the Indian empire was the first country to establish embassies for foreign dignitries. This was used both as a way to welcome, but also as control, as it is used today.
There you are. I have probably left loads of stuff out, but, there you go. in the grand shaping of our society, Christianity has done very little in a benefactory way.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 12:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you then asked the wrong question.
I'm not asking the wrong question. The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another. I asked for proof of the claim.
The claim is false and I have provided evidence that it is false. Now, you show me a study from a reputable source that Christians of each denomination are hostile towards each other denomination.
Then explain why America is not a bloodbath considering that so many differnt denominatinos coexist peacefully in one nation.
SO read what i wrote, please. Tell me why i am wrong, or what i have written poorly. Your argument is already covered in my explaination.
Or to use your manner of words: The counterclaim is false as it does not work against the argument.
Quote:
Quote:
But fanatics still declare war on other religions, condemn random people, and are arses??
Show me CNN footage of Baptist armies, Methodist armies, Episcopalian armies, Pentecostal armies, ect, going around the world in conquest.
xD Good luck
Quote:
oh, let's see, here are some:
o Christians present spiritual truth
o transformation of a great number of human lives for the better
o elimination of pagnan practices of human sacrifice
0 great art, literature, architecture, and music
o hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizastions
o modern science
o The foundation of the political ideas of individual rights to life, liberty, equality, exercise of conscience, equality of all before the law. That an individual's rights exist apart from any dictates of the State.
0 the ending of slavery
1. So does everybody else, so that is a negative
2. So did everyone else
3. True, but they eliminated a small splintergroup of the pageons too. Besides they did only sacrifice their enemies and slaves regardless, like just everyone else
4. So would everyone else have done
5. That one is still questionanle
6. Dark ages.... *cough*, and the muslims did a better job
7. Fallancy, so would everyone else after getting rid of slavery(may or may not)
8. It was also a Christian practice, which negates the argument.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, you are behaving like the people who deny that there have been Jews killed in Auschwitz. I think, you are making a fool of yourself.
You continue your slander and insults of me. I have asked you to stop such.
Quote:
Moreover, I didn't know that you quote texts, by underlining specific words or phrases that appear in text, and then putting them together every way you like. A text is not a construction kit. Would you want people to quote from the Bible this way?
I underlined the words because you enied you said it. I did not alter word order.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy
I direct your attention especially to the last paragraph.
So? I already knew Catholics asy Protestants are heretics. All that mean is they think Protestants have incorrect doctrine. That does not back up your false claims taht Catholics and Protestants have enmity towards each other.
Quote:
Let's not forget: there has only been ONE church and ONE official Christian belief up to the schisma in the 11th century when the two parts of the Roman Empire were divided into the Roman-Catholic and the Greek-Orthodox Church.
I'm sorry, but that is quite simply false. The Catholic church was not the original church.
Quote:
But since they did a lot of things Christians simply don't do, I suppose there were no Christians up to then, except, that the Protestants SPLIT from the Roman-Catholics...
Some of the corrupt leadership did ungodly things that proved them not to be Christians.
Quote:
By the way, this is another intersting page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
And before you start, yes, protestants had their part in it, too.
I already proved from the Bible Chrsitians don't have the authority to punish any sin so I don't really know aht you are trying to.
Quote:
No further discussion here.
And have not backed up your claims arout enmity between Christian denominations.
Quote:
a strongly worded argument never hurt anyone... except those who refused to admit it's merits.
Personal insults have nothing to do with arguments.
Quote:
so, out of the whole of christianity, you could only find... two ways in which christianity has benevolenty guided society to where we are today. that of great literature, of which there is only one real example off, and helping in the end of slavery, as well as the preservation of latin.
False.
There is no reason for me to respond to the reast of your text.
@del_diablo
Quote:
SO read what i wrote, please
.
I read what you wrote and you porvided no proof of your claim that the different "parts" of Christianity are hostile to each ohter.
Quote:
Can you explain what is harmful about them?
Below is a portion of a length article.
Clicky
Quote:
It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is fysically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that “Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper, Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have [intercourse] with men. 'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe [intercourse]' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ...” Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that
- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen.
The harm posed by homosexual practices to quality and length of life is indeed broad and all-encompassing: Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday." Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan comments on this data that, “judging by the number of years at risk, homosexual activity is up to three times deadlier than smoking.” Furthermore, homosexuals serve to transmit venereal diseases at alarming rates. According to Glenn, “The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have [intercourse] with men ‘have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs,’ the CDC warns… Another CDC study ‘confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to women.’" If we might look back to the 1980s, and wonder how AIDS, which had first been known predominantly as a “gay cancer,” was spread to the general population, we will find the culprit: the misguided behaviors exhibited by bisexuals. A modicum of self-restraint and repression of such attitudes would certainly have mitigated the proliferation of this disease.
Furthermore, the very nature of the human organism as an entity whose properties have evolved over time will point to the harms of homosexuality. Evolution, as postulated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, The Origin of Species, entails a natural selection of those traits best suited to an organism’s reproductive fitness, or the ability to pass on its genes. Through millions of years of natural selection in favor of organisms with the capacity to reproduce heterosexually, the mechanisms of heterosexual reproduction have become effectively safe, of course, when not taking into account environmental factors such as STDs. As Mr. Firehammer writes, “The natural function of the genitals… is their use by one man and one woman for sexual intercourse. Physiologically, those organs have the exact characteristics required for carrying out that act successfully, including the fact that it is simultaneously beneficial, enjoyable, and harmless.” Evolution has not made the same provisions for homosexual intercourse, since it is irrelevant, if not deleterious, to reproductive fitness. States Mr. Firehammer, “The only way the genitals can be used outside the heterosexual context is in some way that contradicts their natural function and is both dangerous and harmful. For an explicit example: the walls of [a certain female organ] are several cells thick, ‘designed’ for sexual intercourse. On the contrary, in a common practice of male homosexuals, [an organ] is involved whose walls are only one cell thick, and easily damaged. This is not a sexual organ and has one specific natural function, the dispelling of waste. Intercourse involving [this organ] is an opposite, contradictory, and harmful use of it, and a totally abnormal use of the male [genitalia.]” It is, moreover, a practice guaranteed to be evolutionally selected against, resulting in shortened lifespans and immense suffering for those undertaking it.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Clicky
"A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed..."
"Homosexuality is, furthermore, morally damaging because it substitutes hedonism and the pursuit of carnal gratification for reason, prudence, and calculated judgment."
Oh wow. Homophobia on Heroes Community? Seriously? We've come a long way.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
