NationStates Jolt Archive

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.

Some parts of them continue to make mistakes and do stupid actions. That's part of why the past keeps being brought up: Not everyone has learned from it yet.

But they don't learn from them when they mention them. They mention them in order to insult and degrade religions they don't belong to.

I've heard people say how Judaism condones killing Infidels and they cite the killing Ba'als priests as evidence.

I've heard people say that Christianity inherenty hates all Arabs, and uses the Crusades as evidence.

I've heard people say that all Muslims are sadistic and violent, and use the practice of punishing criminals as their evidence.

They don't look at their own religions and say "Wow, we did that? I'm so sorry, I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again." they look at other religions and say "See! Look what you guys did back then! Everybody like you is evil because of that! Come join us, we're much better!"

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.
Actually, people in charge of these religions have done bad things. A religion can't hurt you unless you believe in it; however, occasionally a believer of a religion can let the aerate your tires, house, or lungs if you and he don't see eye to eye.
Anyways, using your definition (if a death can somehow be attributed to a practice or worshipper of a religion, than it has been caused by said religion) no religion's history is pure, no institution's history is pure, no nation's history is pure.

But they don't learn from them when they mention them. They mention them in order to insult and degrade religions they don't belong to.

I've noticed that a lot as well, but chose to gloss over it so you could get this excellent point in. Good job.

I've heard people say how Judaism condones killing Infidels and they cite the killing Ba'als priests as evidence.

I've heard people say that Christianity inherenty hates all Arabs, and uses the Crusades as evidence.

I've heard people say that all Muslims are sadistic and violent, and use the practice of punishing criminals as their evidence.

You know, I'm tempted to post a topic on using history as an arguement just for the fun of it. Really dig down and manage to insult everyone. Maybe then they'll get the hint that they are not better.

They don't look at their own religions and say "Wow, we did that? I'm so sorry, I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again." they look at other religions and say "See! Look what you guys did back then! Everybody like you is evil because of that! Come join us, we're much better!"

And the other side makes the same reply. Pretty much standard human interaction. Despite thousands of years of existence, we're still a group of tribal monkeys who are afraid of what we don't know, barely more intelligent on average than the average PC in most homes, and intolerant others simply because they are different.

Exactly, just about every country and religion has done bad things, some are now, some have in the past and some will in the future. This cannot be argued with.

Actually, people in charge of these religions have done bad things. A religion can't hurt you unless you believe in it; however, occasionally a believer of a religion can let the aerate your tires, house, or lungs if you and he don't see eye to eye.

That doesn't even require religion.

Anyways, using your definition (if a death can somehow be attributed to a practice or worshipper of a religion, than it has been caused by said religion) no religion's history is pure, no institution's history is pure, no nation's history is pure.

Welcome to the reality of the situation.

There are a few that are pure, but they are usually extremely young religions who are either too disorganized to be a threat or too apathetic to bother trying. Maybe Buddhism can be included as a historically pure religion, but I don't know enough about it to say.

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.

Islam is not Judeo-Christian (which literaly means Judaism and Christianity). Also, the Quakers, a Christian sect, have no history of violence. Quite the opposite, the Society of Friends (Quakers) were in the forefront of the American and British slavery abolitionist movements and were the earliest proponents of equal rights for women and fair treatment of Native Americans.

Perhaps it is your anti-historical attitude ("that was then this is now" therefore nothing in the past is important) that has resulted in your failure to understand the basic information about your post, such as what Judeo-Christianity means.

The term Judeo-Christian is used to refer to any religion which is based of the Jewish montheistic faith. I do not know if that is the literal definition (according to you it isn't) but it is the way it is commonly used and, as I wanted to reach the majority of NS players, I used a term used by the majority.

Islam is not Judeo-Christian (which literaly means Judaism and Christianity).

Correct, it is one of the Abrahamic Religions, which I assume is what the original poster ment.

A religion can't hurt you unless you believe in it; however, occasionally a believer of a religion can let the aerate your tires, house, or lungs if you and he don't see eye to eye

Let the air out of your house? What, do you live in a bouncy castle or something... ;)

Islam is not Judeo-Christian (which literaly means Judaism and Christianity).

Actually, it is part of that family. Want evidence? Try comparing the Old Testament and Koran sometime. Islam broke off from Christianity, iirc, early on, developped a mixture of Judaic and Christian beliefs, then went its own way.

Edit: A clarification:

There are two sects to that family: The Judeo-Christian sect and the Abrahamic Sect. They are still the same family, but Judaism and Christianity are in the first sect while Islam is in the second.

If you want to be absolutely technical, as one person was in a reply, they are all Abrahamic religions and the above is useless.

Also, the Quakers, a Christian sect, have no history of violence. Quite the opposite, the Society of Friends (Quakers) were in the forefront of the American and British slavery abolitionist movements and were the earliest proponents of equal rights for women and fair treatment of Native Americans.

I'm trying to pull up by history resources, but I'm pretty sure I read something that disputes that.

That doesn't even require religion.
No, but I was pointing out that a religion itself is merely ones belief regarding the existence of god(s, ess, esses). Therefore, it can only hurt you if, for some reason, you should beleive it to the point where it deprives you of life.

There are a few that are pure, but they are usually extremely young religions who are either too disorganized to be a threat or too apathetic to bother trying. Maybe Buddhism can be included as a historically pure religion, but I don't know enough about it to say.
Ah, but under that broad heading of harm, the buddhistic monk who set himself on fire to protest Vietnam was iaded along by his religious convictions, thus spreading his blood upon the altar of the fat prophet.

No, but I was pointing out that a religion itself is merely ones belief regarding the existence of god(s, ess, esses). Therefore, it can only hurt you if, for some reason, you should beleive it to the point where it deprives you of life.

And I was pointing out that religion is not needed for stupidity.

Ah, but under that broad heading of harm, the buddhistic monk who set himself on fire to protest Vietnam was iaded along by his religious convictions, thus spreading his blood upon the altar of the fat prophet.

Meh. I told you I don't know that much about it.

Actually, it is part of that family. Want evidence? Try comparing the Old Testament and Koran sometime. Islam broke off from Christianity, iirc, early on, developped a mixture of Judaic and Christian beliefs, then went its own way.

I'm trying to pull up by history resources, but I'm pretty sure I read something that disputes that.

I didn't say they weren't related - they most certainly are. As a previous post mentioned they are all three Abrahamic religions. I merely stated the term was used incorrectly. My point was to emphasis that knowing history is important, not only to get your terminology correct, but to understand that religions, as well as people, governments, and nations are all products of their history. The anti-historical belief that we should "just get over it" denies this fact.

For Abolitionist Quakers see: Benjamin Lundy, William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Stanton, James Mott, Theodore Dwight Weld, and the poet John Greenleaf Whittier.

For Quakers who started the women's movement: Lucy Strong, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony.

I'm trying to pull up by history resources, but I'm pretty sure I read something that disputes that.
richard nixon doesnt count

richard nixon doesnt count


LOL :)

I'll give you that one. Tricky Dick is a stain on the Quakers.

richard nixon doesnt count

Please do not ever mention that name in association with Quakers again.

And what, other than Watergate, did Nixon do that was so bad? I thought he was a damn good President, a lot better than Johnson, Ford, Carter, or Clinton.

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.
It is not just those religions (or members) that have screwed up, but I would venture to say that any religion has done something wrong. I would also venture to say that most of those wrongs had little to do with the actual religion, and only used religion as an excuse.

Need I remind everyone that Hitler, Stalin, etc...they were Atheist, not Judeo-Christian in any way.

AND I would remind you that not everyone who says they follow a particular religion actually follows it.

Go Buddhists :p

Yes, but regardless, I believe that my thread "Exposing the hypocrisy of Christianity" elucidates the argument against Christianity so well that it is impossible to disagree. I recommend everyone read it thoroughly.

What about the Amish or the Hutterites. They have no history of violence whatsoever, despite their history.

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.


All three are barbaric idolators.

God is the idol they all worship, with christianity having an additional idol in jesus.

Also, all three worship as an idol the laws of their respective books, and the books themselves.

But they don't learn from them when they mention them. They mention them in order to insult and degrade religions they don't belong to.

I've heard people say how Judaism condones killing Infidels and they cite the killing Ba'als priests as evidence.

I've heard people say that Christianity inherenty hates all Arabs, and uses the Crusades as evidence.

I've heard people say that all Muslims are sadistic and violent, and use the practice of punishing criminals as their evidence.

They don't look at their own religions and say "Wow, we did that? I'm so sorry, I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again." they look at other religions and say "See! Look what you guys did back then! Everybody like you is evil because of that! Come join us, we're much better!"

You assume too much. People analyze their own religions all the time. Stop being frustrated that your religion isn't perfect and deal with it.

You people have really missed the point of this thread. I'm saying how none of the three is any better or any worse. I'm trying to say that people need to stop having pointless arguments over religious history and need to stat looking at the religions now. The past is important and needs to be remembered, but it should not take precedence over the present.

You people have really missed the point of this thread. I'm saying how none of the three is any better or any worse. I'm trying to say that people need to stop having pointless arguments over religious history and need to stat looking at the religions now. The past is important and needs to be remembered, but it should not take precedence over the present.
Understood...I was trying to show that all religions have bloody pasts, not just judeo-christian.

And, i was trying to show that it is not Christianity that did it, it was Christians. Christianity is not the problem, its followers are, which can't be blamed on Christianity, because all religions have "members" that misinterpret the religion, purposely or accidentally, or even people who do not follow it at all, but only claim to for various reasons.

And what, other than Watergate, did Nixon do that was so bad? I thought he was a damn good President, a lot better than Johnson, Ford, Carter, or Clinton.


LOL. This is like saying, "Other than the LaBianca-Tate murders what did Manson do that was so bad.

Nixon disgraced and dishonored the American Constitution. That was bad enough.

LOL. This is like saying, "Other than the LaBianca-Tate murders what did Manson do that was so bad.

Quick question for you: how many people did Charles Manson kill?

This thread as a comic (http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=15208).

And, [ur;=http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html]the resource I got it from,[/url] which has a few truly brilliant ones near the beginning, but unfortunately require you to watch a massive ad to get to.

People just keep missing the point, God-man.

Quick question for you: how many people did Charles Manson kill?

And how many hotels did nixon break into?

Nice comic, Mycon.

Klonor, I was confused about the purpose of this thread, thank you for tha clarification.

And what, other than Watergate, did Nixon do that was so bad?

Actually, what was so bad about watergate? He tapped the phone lines, so what? Kennedy did the same thing.


On a side note, I'm a Mormon, and I do believe that we would qualify as a Christian sect that doesn't have a bloody history. We were just persecuted until the US annexed Utah.

Quick question for you: how many people did Charles Manson kill?

Beautiful and elegant point. Charles Manson never personally killed anyone.

Anyways, using your definition (if a death can somehow be attributed to a practice or worshipper of a religion, than it has been caused by said religion) no religion's history is pure, no institution's history is pure, no nation's history is pure.

Daoism?

Beautiful and elegant point. Charles Manson never personally killed anyone.

And Nixon didn't personally break into the Watergate, which is why the analogy works.

And Nixon didn't personally break into the Watergate, which is why the analogy works.

However, Charles Manson is still serving time in prison, while Nixon was pardoned for his crimes...

On a side note, I'm a Mormon, and I do believe that we would qualify as a Christian sect that doesn't have a bloody history. We were just persecuted until the US annexed Utah.

*cough* Mountain Meadow *cough*

Actually, people in charge of these religions have done bad things. A religion can't hurt you unless you believe in it....

There is a great quote from Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale touching on the history of Christian purification of unbelievers through fire:

"It is heretic which makes the fire, not she who burns in it."

The same applies to Muslims who blow up school children in the name of Allah, Hindu extremist in Gudjurat raping and killing Muslim women, Christians assasinating abortion doctors, or Orthodox Jewish yeshiva students in Jerusalem spiting on Christians on their way to service.

The problem is usually not religion, but rather adherents who refuse to comprehend the central teachings of their faith.

They do. Just shut up about it. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they have all comitted atrocities. It's not news. Stop arguing so much about. That was then, this is now. They have all made mistakes, none has a perfect record. Give it up.

What part of this simple statement escapes your brain cell. Muslims do not condemn suicide (by their own children) as a main weapon in a war that they cannot win. (Table-cloths will never be sold as hats in WalMart.)

What part of this simple statement escapes your brain cell. Muslims do not condemn suicide (by their own children) as a main weapon in a war that they cannot win. (Table-cloths will never be sold as hats in WalMart.)


Google: +muslim + suicide +condemned

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3059365.stm

"Cleric condemns suicide attacks: One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars."

Amongst many other similar reports.

Ahem. Atheism has a bloody history as well. Socialism does. Capitalism does. EVERYTHING does! Get over it - try to learn from the past, instead of raging over it.

If all Christians were truly Christian, it wouldn't have a bloodied history.

But humans are weak and foolish. Me included, and you.

Ahem. Atheism has a bloody history as well. Socialism does. Capitalism does. EVERYTHING does!


Pacifism?

Judaism: a warlike Abrahamite religion the forbids the worship of other gods and the representation of G-d or gods in idol form, enforcing this with execution, and that keeps itself seperate from the rest of the world and only conquers when attacked.

Original Christianity: a pacifist sect of Judaism that goes into the world to convince people to convert but does not seek to force them to follow it.

Roman Paganism: a warlike Polytheist religion that allowed most other religions to practice their faiths but requires all people under its power to follow its practices and worship its idols, enforcing this with execution, and that goes into the world to conquer it by force.

Historic Christianity: a fusion of the above three that goes into theworld to convert people, often by force, and that forbids the worship of gods other than the Abrahamite G-d, and the representation of gods other than G-d in idol form, and requires all people under its power to follow its practices and worship its idols of G-d, enforcing these things with execution.

Modern Christianity: a religion at the stage of moving from Historical Christianity back to Original Christianity.

Just thought I'd throw out that, knowing how confused people can be here around here. ;)

Pacifism?

Yes. It's just usually the Pacifists' blood. :(

Ahem. Atheism has a bloody history as well. Socialism does. Capitalism does. EVERYTHING does! Get over it - try to learn from the past, instead of raging over it.

If all Christians were truly Christian, it wouldn't have a bloodied history.

But humans are weak and foolish. Me included, and you.

Buddhism?

Ahem. Atheism has a bloody history as well. Socialism does. Capitalism does. EVERYTHING does! Get over it - try to learn from the past, instead of raging over it.

If all Christians were truly Christian, it wouldn't have a bloodied history.

But humans are weak and foolish. Me included, and you.

Church of the Subgenius?