God created Evil

[bahman]

Even Christian kill each other. Look at the first and second world wars.

Those are 100% secular wars. Not a single person -- not even the Jews -- were killed for their religion in WW1 or 2.

The Jewish People themselves can tell you that -- converting to Lutheranism, Catholicism or Atheism did not protect a single one of them from the Nazis. You can see that: they were killed for their race, not their religion.

So your example is a powerful one against your point.

I see your point but those people believed that murdering is wrong (they were Christian (they should even love their enemy)). War is nothing than murdering for a reason, X, Y, whatever...

[Hobbes' Choice]

Even Christian kill each other. Look at the first and second world wars.

Those are 100% secular wars. Not a single person -- not even the Jews -- were killed for their religion in WW1 or 2.
t.

What utter rot.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... fa3582.jpg



http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B481RP/events- ... B481RP.jpg


Your ignorance is legendary.

[Immanuel Can]

I see your point but those people believed that murdering is wrong (they were Christian (they should even love their enemy)). War is nothing than murdering for a reason, X, Y, whatever...

Oh, I see. You don't understand the difference between Christianity and some other religions. Got it. Would you mind if I explained?

Christianity is a belief, a faith, not an ethnic identity. You can't be "born a Christian" the way you can be, say, born Jewish. It's not even like being "Islamic," where you're born into a particular location, and are thereby forced to become one. For Christianity, if you don't personally believe it, you aren't one. Period.

You can see this in practice in Western democracies. Many people have many different religions in them, and are allowed to do so. This is because in Christianity you literally must not compel anyone to believe -- you can (and should) persuade, discuss, proselytize, educate, and so on...but to force someone to say they believe is totally counterproductive to Christianity. Anyone who did it would not understand Christianity at all, and would actually be doing something profoundly anti-Christian. Without faith, there is no Christianity.

You can see the truth of this easily. Ask yourself why in, say, the US, people are not forced to believe anything. Ask yourself why debates about religion are so public, vociferous and unapologetic. Ask why the political process and the educational systems are secular. Ask why nobody is compelled to go to religious service, and why it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. If the US were "Christian," and "Christian" meant "enforcing belief," there's no way this would be the way it was.

If I go to Saudi Arabia and draw a cartoon of Mohammed, guess what happens to me? If I go to India and harm a cow, guess what follows? But if I am an Atheist artist in the US, and I immerse a crucifix in urine and present it as "art," nothing happens to me at all, save perhaps a protest. Now, why would that be?

Or take South Korea, which is the most per-capita Christian nation on the planet. If you go there, will you be forcibly converted to Christianity? If you're born there, are you automatically a Christian? Are their no Buddhists or animists left in South Korea? And if the Koreans will not force me to convert, ask yourself why not.

The cause of WW 1 and 2 was nothing Christian. No one was converted by force, no new state churches were set up, nobody was deprived of their private convictions as a result of the war. In fact, to my knowledge no historian has ever advanced a credible theory that WW1 or 2 were religious, let alone "Christian." No such thing is being done in scholarly literature, anyway.

But perhaps you're mistaking the word "Western" for "Christian." Maybe this clears that up.

[Immanuel Can]

Even Christian kill each other. Look at the first and second world wars.

Those are 100% secular wars. Not a single person -- not even the Jews -- were killed for their religion in WW1 or 2.
t.

What utter rot.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... fa3582.jpg



http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B481RP/events- ... B481RP.jpg

So you can't tell the difference between "using religiously-worded propaganda to justify war" and creating a war for religious reasons? If you can't, then I probably can't explain it too you, because that's awfully, awfully simple.

[bahman]

I see your point but those people believed that murdering is wrong (they were Christian (they should even love their enemy)). War is nothing than murdering for a reason, X, Y, whatever...

Oh, I see. You don't understand the difference between Christianity and some other religions. Got it. Would you mind if I explained?

Christianity is a belief, a faith, not an ethnic identity. You can't be "born a Christian" the way you can be, say, born Jewish. It's not even like being "Islamic," where you're born into a particular location, and are thereby forced to become one. For Christianity, if you don't personally believe it, you aren't one. Period.

You can see this in practice in Western democracies. Many people have many different religions in them, and are allowed to do so. This is because in Christianity you literally must not compel anyone to believe -- you can (and should) persuade, discuss, proselytize, educate, and so on...but to force someone to say they believe is totally counterproductive to Christianity. Anyone who did it would not understand Christianity at all, and would actually be doing something profoundly anti-Christian. Without faith, there is no Christianity.

You can see the truth of this easily. Ask yourself why in, say, the US, people are not forced to believe anything. Ask yourself why debates about religion are so public, vociferous and unapologetic. Ask why the political process and the educational systems are secular. Ask why nobody is compelled to go to religious service, and why it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. If the US were "Christian," and "Christian" meant "enforcing belief," there's no way this would be the way it was.

If I go to Saudi Arabia and draw a cartoon of Mohammed, guess what happens to me? If I go to India and harm a cow, guess what follows? But if I am an Atheist artist in the US, and I immerse a crucifix in urine and present it as "art," nothing happens to me at all, save perhaps a protest. Now, why would that be?

Or take South Korea, which is the most per-capita Christian nation on the planet. If you go there, will you be forcibly converted to Christianity? If you're born there, are you automatically a Christian? Are their no Buddhists or animists left in South Korea? And if the Koreans will not force me to convert, ask yourself why not.

The cause of WW 1 and 2 was nothing Christian. No one was converted by force, no new state churches were set up, nobody was deprived of their private convictions as a result of the war. In fact, to my knowledge no historian has ever advanced a credible theory that WW1 or 2 were religious, let alone "Christian." No such thing is being done in scholarly literature, anyway.

But perhaps you're mistaking the word "Western" for "Christian." Maybe this clears that up.

What about crusade?

[Immanuel Can]

What about crusade?

Catholic.

I don't advocate what the Catholics did, and it certainly wasn't in any sense "Christian" that they did it -- so please don't think me to be excusing them. But when people indict the Catholic crusades it's interesting that they usually fail to mention that they happened in response to much larger, longer, more violent and more invasive Islamic crusades. The omission is always interesting, and suggests the possibility of bias.

For me, the bottom line is this: unless Jesus (or His twelve disciples, perhaps) told the Catholics: "Storm Jerusalem and kill the invaders," (hint: they did not) then we can see that no Christian rationale exists for what the Catholics did. In fact, what Jesus said was "Love your enemies, and do good to those who treat you badly." How anyone can get "Kill" from that, I'll never know. I think they're on their own for that.

We cannot, therefore, call the Crusades in any sense "Christian."

[bahman]

What about crusade?

Catholic.

I don't advocate what the Catholics did, and it certainly wasn't in any sense "Christian" that they did it -- so please don't think me to be excusing them. But when people indict the Catholic crusades it's interesting that they usually fail to mention that they happened in response to much larger, longer, more violent and more invasive Islamic crusades. The omission is always interesting, and suggests the possibility of bias.

For me, the bottom line is this: unless Jesus (or His twelve disciples, perhaps) told the Catholics: "Storm Jerusalem and kill the invaders," (hint: they did not) then we can see that no Christian rationale exists for what the Catholics did. In fact, what Jesus said was "Love your enemies, and do good to those who treat you badly." How anyone can get "Kill" from that, I'll never know. I think they're on their own for that.

We cannot, therefore, call the Crusades in any sense "Christian."

So I think we can agree on the fact that Jesus teaching was wrong since you simply vanish if you love your enemy. What is the use of his suffering if there is no Christianity?

[Immanuel Can]

So I think we can agree on the fact that Jesus teaching was wrong since you simply vanish if you love your enemy. What is the use of his suffering if there is no Christianity?

Absolutely not. Jesus Christ was quite right. But as He said, "My kingdom is not of this world..." What happened in the case of the Crusades is that the Catholic Church forgot or ignored that. (Of course, the Muslims never believed it at all.)

This may surprise you, but I think anytime any kind of "religious" cause gets linked up with politics, it's bad. Jesus Christ told us not to do it. It's when we forget it -- and, in the case of the Crusades, ignore Christian ethics altogether -- that we get into trouble.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Those are 100% secular wars. Not a single person -- not even the Jews -- were killed for their religion in WW1 or 2.
t.

What utter rot.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... fa3582.jpg



http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B481RP/events- ... B481RP.jpg

So you can't tell the difference between "using religiously-worded propaganda to justify war" and creating a war for religious reasons? If you can't, then I probably can't explain it too you, because that's awfully, awfully simple.

If you yourself were not so stupid you'd know that is is exactly the same thing, and that is what Islamic fundamentalists suffer from.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We cannot, therefore, call the Crusades in any sense "Christian."

Duh. By exactly the same token millions of Muslims are saying exactly the same thing.

[Immanuel Can]

If you yourself were not so stupid you'd know that is is exactly the same thing, and that is what Islamic fundamentalists suffer from.

Rubbish.

You're just not thinking. It's not the same thing at all. You can go and kill people in the name of "freedom" or "world peace" or "doing the right thing": that won't make it the right thing. It just means you're propagandizing.

[Immanuel Can]

By exactly the same token millions of Muslims are saying exactly the same thing.

Rubbish again. It's empirically untrue.

"Kill the infidels" means "kill the infidels." "Love your neighbour" does not mean "kill the infidels."

I actually can't believe you actually don't get that. In fact, I think you actually do. I think the rest of the bluster, insults and rudeness are all just parts of a posture. You just like to troll, I think; because you're a much nicer and more perceptive person in personal conversation than you ever are here. Only one of those two people -- the intelligent, responsive and thoughtful person, or the shallow, blind, hectoring troll -- is the real you. And I can only be bothered talking to a real person, not a posture. I prefer to think of you as the former, not the latter.

So I think I won't bother responding to you publicly anymore, Hobbes. In the public posts, it's not you, it's just a phony persona you put on for public consumption. I can't be bothered with that. My life's too short.

Take care of yourself.

[sthitapragya]

We cannot, therefore, call the Crusades in any sense "Christian."

Duh. By exactly the same token millions of Muslims are saying exactly the same thing.

Of course. A shia is not a muslim to a sunni. That is why I maintain all theists are athiests when it comes to other religions.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you yourself were not so stupid you'd know that is is exactly the same thing, and that is what Islamic fundamentalists suffer from.

Rubbish.

You're just not thinking. It's not the same thing at all. You can go and kill people in the name of "freedom" or "world peace" or "doing the right thing": that won't make it the right thing. It just means you're propagandizing.

More Muslims have died at the hands of Christians than the other way round. By a factor of a thousand. This is how you get people angry.
You are just in denial about the evil of your own culture.

[Hobbes' Choice]

By exactly the same token millions of Muslims are saying exactly the same thing.

Rubbish again. It's empirically untrue.

"Kill the infidels" means "kill the infidels." "Love your neighbour" does not mean "kill the infidels."

Kill the rag-heads, kill the rag-heads.