NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

No, no, no. The Christian religion, and the bastards thereof, have caused all the trouble. I know many Christians who are good people, like my friend Mike. Blame the establishment, blame the Man, blame God.

No, no, no. The Christian religion, and the bastards thereof, have caused all the trouble. I know many Christians who are good people, like my friend Mike. Blame the establishment, blame the Man, blame God.

Blame the fanatics, I might add.

No, no, no. The Christian religion, and the bastards thereof, have caused all the trouble. I know many Christians who are good people, like my friend Mike. Blame the establishment, blame the Man, blame God.

Blame God, now there's a good idea.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.


I really am tired of seeing this kind of stuff on the forums over & over. As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers, unforunately I can't say the same of certain muslims. You all have told me that I shouldn't hold this against all muslims but in the same breath you make blanket statements about Christian people being nothing but trouble. I am a Christian, and I have NEVER killed any one for any reason. So could we just stop making blanket statements regardless of who is being talked about. :headbang:

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

You're new here,so I'm not going to rip it out of you just yet.But, as a Christian,I'd like to say-
Stop blaming the actions of men centuries ago on today's Christians.It's generalising,and,overall,it's wrong.I'm a Christian,I've never killed anyone,and I don't plan to.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble?Rubbish.On a smaller scale,Christianity has united communities,given people a sense of purpose,and in my case actually helped me become a better person (IMO).

I'm sick of seeing this on the forums.About any religion,not just Christianity.One day,people will hopefully step back and realise it isn't religion that's causing this,it's people abusing religion that are conducting slaughters and crusades and the like.People use God as a scapegoat,and it really does annoy me.

I really am tired of seeing this kind of stuff on the forums over & over. As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers, unforunately I can't say the same of certain muslims. You all have told me that I shouldn't hold this against all muslims but in the same breath you make blanket statements about Christian people being nothing but trouble. I am a Christian, and I have NEVER killed any one for any reason. So could we just stop making blanket statements regardless of who is being talked about. :headbang:
I haven't known any Muslims to bomb abortion clinics, unfortunately I can't say the same thing of certain Christians....

General statements: it works both ways.

Ok, first of all, I'm sick and tired of all these anti-christian threads. Every religion has flaws, so stop picking on ours. Secondly, I absolutely hate it when people use the crusades to justify that christianity is evil. They were a thousand f*cking years ago, let it go! None of us were alive back then, so you can't go around blaming the average christian for killing a bunch of muslims in the middle ages. It's hippocritical, just like most people are annoyed by people who use the holocaust as an excuse for Israel. Christianity's not perfect, but we do have over a billion adherants, so we must be doing something right. The thing that really annoys me, though, is the people who complain about the crusades. Shut up already, no one cares!

Another religion topic!

You win.

Another religion topic!

You win.

No,he doesn't,he loses.Big time.

Also,Minicon,are you a Christian?

Heh. And here's me thinking it was people who were causing all the trouble, using whatever excuse that is convinient at the time. How wrong am I?

As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers, unforunately I can't say the same of certain muslims.

What of the nominal Christians of the IRA and the Europa Hotel, Belfast - the most bombed hotel in Europe?

What of the nominal Christians of the IRA and the Europa Hotel, Belfast - the most bombed hotel in Europe?

Don't forget the Abortion Clinic bombings in the United States.

Don't forget the Abortion Clinic bombings in the United States.

The religion itself isn't doing that,however.It's people taking the religion too far,and abusing/twisting the religion for their own gain.

As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers,

See: Oklahoma City Bombing - While Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic, Terry Nichols was a devout Christian.


None of us were alive back then, so you can't go around blaming the average christian for killing a bunch of muslims in the middle ages.

Ok, no Muslems, but lets try the Jews... Ever hear of Leo Frank? Go look him up, he was lynched, when all evidence pointed to another man and even the judge called the proceedings a sham, and even when the govenor commuted his scentence to life in prison.

I'm pretty sure I even know people who followed this trial when they were younger. My grandmother for instace.

But then again, most christians won't want to talk about the jews, after all, their religion is almost identical to the christian faith, same with Islam. If they actually had to think about it, they might realize they were killing their own brothers...

It's hippocritical, just like most people are annoyed by people who use the holocaust as an excuse for Israel.

Actually, the only people who are annoyed with the use of the Holocaust as the reason for Israel are the people who say it never happened. The Islamic people are only upset because they were never consulted before we (Americans) carved out a piece of thier land.

People use God as a scapegoat

No they don't, its impossible to use an idea as a scapegoat, however, if they use the people of the religion as a whole as a scapegoat it is possible. And if they do, I can't say I'm sad, everyone else has been used as a scapegoat until now, the Jews, Muslems, Blacks, Athiests, 'Witches', etc, I think the Christians need a turn in line.

See: Oklahoma City Bombing - While Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic, Terry Nichols was a devout Christian.

This is not the same. McVeigh didn't do it in the name of religion, he did it for political reasons. Not a very apt comparison. A better example would be the Abortion Clinic bombings which were in fact done for religious reasons.

Actually, the only people who are annoyed with the use of the Holocaust as the reason for Israel are the people who say it never happened.

Nope - I don't deny the Holocaust, but I find it unpalatable that it is used to justify the creation of modern Israel.

This is not the same. McVeigh didn't do it in the name of religion, he did it for political reasons. Not a very apt comparison. A better example would be the Abortion Clinic bombings which were in fact done for religious reasons.

That wasn't the statement I was responding to, he said he had never heard of any christrians blowing up skyscrapers, I educated him.

Also, the Abortion Clinic Bombings have already been pointed out.

Nope - I don't deny the Holocaust, but I find it unpalatable that it is used to justify the creation of modern Israel.

I also find it equally distasteful, however, it was necissary at the time to have a reason for carving out this swath of land, and the holocaust, so fresh in the mind of the world, was the best solution.

...however, it was necissary at the time to have a reason for carving out this swath of land...

You are saying that there was no real reason for the creation of the state of modern Israel then, yes?

This is not the same. McVeigh didn't do it in the name of religion, he did it for political reasons. Not a very apt comparison.

Hmmm. An argument can be made that the attack on the WTC was carried out more for political than for religious reasons.

Hmmm. An argument can be made that the attack on the WTC was carried out more for political than for religious reasons.

I knew somebody would call me on that. Al Qaeda has goals that are religious as well as political. However, McVeigh's motivation was purely political.

The religion itself isn't doing that,however.It's people taking the religion too far,and abusing/twisting the religion for their own gain.

The problem is religion is too easy to exploit -- much easier than anything terrestrial except perhaps a gun -- the reason being that it's an absolute that cannot be proven. No one can prove that God is or isn't telling them to do something, so it comes down to charisma. That's NEVER a good thing when you're talking about disgruntled elites with a percieved greivance.

I haven't known any Muslims to bomb abortion clinics, unfortunately I can't say the same thing of certain Christians....

If abortion clinics openly existed in Muslim countries, I can guarantee you would see bombings every week. If not daily.

No, it doesn't "work both ways", since no abortion clinic bomber has ever killed as many people as have died in numerous Islamist attacks.

That said, I don't blame Islam for these problems. I find it funny that people like you are so quick to attack Christians, but you're always the first to stress the need to distinguish radical Islam from moderate Islam.

And if they do, I can't say I'm sad, everyone else has been used as a scapegoat until now, the Jews, Muslems, Blacks, Athiests, 'Witches', etc, I think the Christians need a turn in line.
You're a bigot.

I knew somebody would call me on that. Al Qaeda has goals that are religious as well as political. However, McVeigh's motivation was purely political.

...and the IRA?

...and the IRA?
Their goals were entirely political; the expulsion of British forces and the re-unification of Ireland.

...and the IRA?

What about them? I don't know enough about that organization to give you an answer.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

Actually you'll find that Muslims were also enemies of Christianity back then as well - from the Byzantines to the Normans in Sicily to Spain to Saracen raids towards Rome.
However, this is what happens when geopolitical struggles inter-mix with religious struggles. So the Crusades were a natural product of the clash of two empires fighting over the same bit of land (Byzantines and the Saracens at this point) - that both empires were of different religions only increased the intensity of the struggle.

And when thinking about the Crusades, don't try and apply modern thinking on it - people who do so will only decry religious fanaticism and the evil zealots who perpetrate so many bloody crimes, that are not in keeping with our standards today. And then you won't really understand them.

Blame the fanatics, I might add.

No no, blame just the fanatics. Every religion has them, however it might try to reduce killing. It's not fair to pick on christians only. Besides, in the last 100 years we've reduced killing in God's name a lot. I'm sorry I can't say the same about muslims. The crusades are history.

But almost every religion has also caused much good. Take Mother Teresa or Gandhi for example. Religion isn't the problem, it's dogmatism.

You're new here,so I'm not going to rip it out of you just yet.But, as a Christian,I'd like to say-
Stop blaming the actions of men centuries ago on today's Christians.It's generalising,and,overall,it's wrong.I'm a Christian,I've never killed anyone,and I don't plan to.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble?Rubbish.On a smaller scale,Christianity has united communities,given people a sense of purpose,and in my case actually helped me become a better person (IMO).

I'm sick of seeing this on the forums.About any religion,not just Christianity.One day,people will hopefully step back and realise it isn't religion that's causing this,it's people abusing religion that are conducting slaughters and crusades and the like.People use God as a scapegoat,and it really does annoy me.


here here.

Their goals were entirely political; the expulsion of British forces and the re-unification of Ireland.

Ah, but they operate along a religious axis. Why else the tit-for-tat killings of the seventies and eighties?

So... I suppose the unprovoked jihads that swept across predominantly Christian lands (North Africa and the Middle East) that slaughtered Christians and Jews (if they did not convert or agree to pay the exorbitant tax for being a non-Muslim) are just an innocent actions that have *nothing* to do with the Crusades. Oh, and the Papacy was just a religious power without political governance or sway. And the Muslim cultures were not middle men cutting out a profit in trade with the Far East.

Please open up and read a history book before posting this "Christians are evil because of the Crusades" bilge.

Secondly, your modernist perspective does not apply to people who lived in the Middle Ages, just as someone living 800-1000 years from now will not know how you think or why you think they way you do. But they will probably make false conclusions, just as you have.

What are you blaming the Orthodox Christians for???

They didn't do anything. The only thing that they did was be attacked by catholics...:mp5:

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.
Yeah but you could say that about every religion. Think about how much 'trouble' the Romans have caused in the name of Jupiter.
Btw I like how your concluding sentence is the same as your topic sentence in the second paragraph.

end of world. muslims vs. christians. the muslims will kick butt for a long time, but then the christians will used their secret weapon. jesus.

This thread is pointless. The professor who started it hasn't even said a word since. Let's just leave it.

I really am tired of seeing this kind of stuff on the forums over & over. As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers, unforunately I can't say the same of certain muslims. You all have told me that I shouldn't hold this against all muslims but in the same breath you make blanket statements about Christian people being nothing but trouble. I am a Christian, and I have NEVER killed any one for any reason. So could we just stop making blanket statements regardless of who is being talked about. :headbang:

You know Muslims who blew up skyscrapers? Christ, dude! I hope you called Homeland Security or something! Luckily the muslims I know haven't caused any terrorist violence, same with the Christians I know too. *hmmm*

Ah, but they operate along a religious axis. Why else the tit-for-tat killings of the seventies and eighties?
They were trying to terrorise the unionist community, which was mostly Protestant. The IRA were pretty much entirely Catholics and atheists, but their violence was always rejected by the Catholic Church, and the IRA never claimed that any of their attacks was perpetrated in the name of "the one true faith" or such.

...and the IRA never claimed that any of their attacks was perpetrated in the name of "the one true faith" or such.

Not so: their statements continually hark back to the 1916 Proclamation:

In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

Fo example - their 2003 statement on the end of the armed struggle:

The IRA is fully committed to the goals of Irish unity and independence and to building the Republic outlined in the 1916 Proclamation.

Not so: their statements continually hark back to the 1916 Proclamation
I fail to see how this makes the IRA a Catholic group.

I find your linking of the IRA with the 1916 Proclamation to be offensive.

I haven't known any Muslims to bomb abortion clinics, unfortunately I can't say the same thing of certain Christians....

General statements: it works both ways.


I'm against bombing ANYTHING! And I am Pro-Life. While bombing is not the answer I don't think people who in there own way think they are trying to stop the deaths of innocent children before they are born is NOT the same as cowardly terrorist that blow up civilians because they think there God will take them to heaven for doing so. I'm not talking about ALL Muslims, just the cowardly terrorist that kill because they like too!

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

These Christian bashing threads are really starting to annoy me.Its like youve got some kind of jihad going on in NS forums,and you people spent hours pouring through mideavel history together looking for items for your list of grievances in your diatribe.Do I really need to debate every single of of these people?I dont have this much time on my hands,people.What I am going to say is this-if you are one of these people,go get a fucking life.Got a problem with me being a christian?Well screw you,just move somewhere else buddy,Im not going to quit just cause you have some sort of obsession with the ever-present "threat" to you posed by us you think exists.Im sorry that you get goosebumps whenever you see a church.So you think there wrong.Fine.America is a free country,you enjoy your right to not be religous.But you dont need to put on a tinfoil hat cause there spying on your from outer space.These are the people you go to work with and live near.There is nothing frightening about us.The hypocrisy of the radical secularists is whats most annoying.Its amazing how all these people accuse "fundamentalist Christians" of hunting down all the dissenters,but really,we dont.Go to the forum archives.See any examples of Christians starting threads about bashing secularists or members of other religions?Nope?Maybe thats cause they DONT EXIST do they asshole?Now count all the examples of folks like yourselves making these threads.THERE EVERYWHERE.I see one almost every other day.They are like the definition of hipocrisy.I am going to save this response and post it in a bunch of other threads similir to this one.

I really am tired of seeing this kind of stuff on the forums over & over. As I said one other time I haven't known any Christians that blow up skyscapers, unforunately I can't say the same of certain muslims. You all have told me that I shouldn't hold this against all muslims but in the same breath you make blanket statements about Christian people being nothing but trouble. I am a Christian, and I have NEVER killed any one for any reason. So could we just stop making blanket statements regardless of who is being talked about. :headbang:

I'll bet you 500 credibility points that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Just sayin.

Got a problem with me being a christian?Well screw you,just move somewhere else buddy,Im not going to quit just cause you have some sort of obsession with the ever-present "threat" to you posed by us you think exists.Im sorry that you get goosebumps whenever you see a church.

So you think there wrong.Fine.America is a free country,you enjoy your right to not be religous.But you dont need to put on a tinfoil hat cause there spying on your from outer space.These are the people you go to work with and live near.There is nothing frightening about us.

The hypocrisy of the radical secularists is whats most annoying.Its amazing how all these people accuse "fundamentalist Christians" of hunting down all the dissenters,but really,we dont.
Wow, you're a fundamentalist?

Don't rage at them, you only make us look like idiots. If you feel the need, pray for them. They don't know what they're doing.

You are saying that there was no real reason for the creation of the state of modern Israel then, yes?

I don't have a problem with the creation of a Jewish state, as long as it is given freely. Israel was kind of annexed. If a UN nation gave some of there land(New York, *scoff New York) then it would have been fine.

If Christians/Christianity never caused anything but trouble, then Islam is the Hitler of religions.

If Christians/Christianity never caused anything but trouble, then Islam is the Hitler of religions.

If Islam is the Hitler of religions, than Christianity is whatever genocidal maniac killed more people than Hitler.

If Islam is the Hitler of religions, than Christianity is whatever genocidal maniac killed more people than Hitler.
Yes, yes, if only you had a factual basis for this wishful thinking of an assertion.
Moreover, Jesus Christ is not all that is repugnant, unlike the very imaginative and clever founder of Islam who is Mohammed;)

If Islam is the Hitler of religions, than Christianity is whatever genocidal maniac killed more people than Hitler.

Bush would be a good Christianity. Hasn't killed enough people though.

Yes, yes, if only you had a factual basis for this wishful thinking of an assertion.
Moreover, Jesus Christ is not all that is repugnant, unlike the very imaginative and clever founder of Islam who is Mohammed;)

Do you have a factual basis for comparing a centuries old religion with one man?

I'm going to tastefully stay out of this debate.

One should keep in mind that when a very powerful, large, and influential organization has been around for around two millennia, it's bound to screw some stuff up.

Bush would be a good Christianity. Hasn't killed enough people though.
Yeah....Bush would be a real good Christianity...
Let's compare the figures of how many people Jesus killed in his lifetime with how many people Mohammed killed;)

god will smite you :sniper:

Yes, yes, if only you had a factual basis for this wishful thinking of an assertion.


Let's see...

Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, the proliferation of AIDS in Africa, American Indian genocide, Adolf Hitler...

Islam's got the Hashishin, a few expansionistic wars, and the hellhole that the Middle East became after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent fuck ups that resulted in ethnic groups that hated each other being placed together and breeding violence, poverty, and inevitably terrorism, all because the British were too damn stupid to learn from Africa.

Let's see...

Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, the proliferation of AIDS in Africa, American Indian genocide, Adolf Hitler...

Islam's got the Hashishin, a few expansionistic wars, and the hellhole that the Middle East became after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent fuck ups that resulted in ethnic groups that hated each other being placed together and breeding violence, poverty, and inevitably terrorism, all because the British were too damn stupid to learn from Africa.
Wait....How the hell is Christianity responsible for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa or Adolf Hitler?
The hypocritical insult hurling of the left is truly awe-inspiring. I guess the left would rather forget about its proliferation of AIDS in America. Yes, let's be tolerant of the people who have disorders so they all get AIDS because it's the 'nice' thing to do! Lastly, Hitler hated Christians and was inspired by the ideals of Darwin, so I have absolutely no clue where you got that one from.


P.S; You should really study up on your middle east history.;)

Yeah....Bush would be a real good Christianity...
Let's compare the figures of how many people Jesus killed in his lifetime with how many people Mohammed killed;)
Let's compare how Muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed with how Christians follow the teachings of Jesus.
god will smite you :sniper:
No, I shall smite God.

Let's compare how Muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed with how Christians follow the teachings of Jesus.

OK.
Muslims:
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/608attack.jpg

Christians:
http://www.virginia.edu/911/images/phototext_5.jpg

I believe you just proved my point:)

Wait....How the hell is Christianity responsible for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa or Adolf Hitler?
The hypocritical insult hurling of the left is truly awe-inspiring. I guess the left would rather forget about its proliferation of AIDS in America. Yes, let's be tolerant of the people who have disorders so they all get AIDS because it's the 'nice' thing to do! Lastly, Hitler hated Christians and was inspired by the ideals of Darwin, so I have absolutely no clue where you got that one from.


P.S; You should really study up on your middle east history.;)

The AIDS in Africa would be all those Christian missionaries telling the locals how evil condoms are. And neglecting to mention that one of their evil side effects is preventing AIDS.

Oh, and I hate to be the one to tell you(not really) but Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin, was never advocated by Darwin and, most amusingly, predates Darwin.

And I don't even know what the hell you're talking about with that tolerence of people with disorders nonsense.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

the orthodox church did not tax pilgrims, the byzantine empire taxed. the patriarch of constantinople is also only one of 4 historical orthodox patriarchs, the patriarchs of antioch, jerusalem, and alexandria were all on equal footing with him - and *their* people all got screwed over by both the byzantines and the catholics. furthermore, the coptic and oriental orthodox churches were *never* associated with any government, and never had enough political clout to do jack-shit to anybody. if you want to call the sacking of constantinople somehow appropriate, I don't understand how you define right and wrong. the catholics were absolutely brutal to the orthodox in jerusalem (and entirely seperate church from the byzantine church - don't equate them, again, they have seperate leadership)...I honestly don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this thread...

If Islam is the Hitler of religions, than Christianity is whatever genocidal maniac killed more people than Hitler.

Um...That would pretty much be limited too...


The collective god of christians, jews and muslims, acting indirectly.

I would like to point out that the crusades were political moments and politically driven, they were not religious movements.

OK.
Muslims:
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/608attack.jpg

Christians:
http://www.virginia.edu/911/images/phototext_5.jpg

I believe you just proved my point:)

Don't for get about
http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/crusaders.jpg
Far far more Christians were involved in the Crusades than there were Muslims hijacking planes on Sept. 11th

Wait....How the hell is Christianity responsible for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa or Adolf Hitler?
The hypocritical insult hurling of the left is truly awe-inspiring. I guess the left would rather forget about its proliferation of AIDS in America. Yes, let's be tolerant of the people who have disorders so they all get AIDS because it's the 'nice' thing to do! Lastly, Hitler hated Christians and was inspired by the ideals of Darwin, so I have absolutely no clue where you got that one from.


The Vatican's refusal to educate Africans about condoms is directly responsible for the massive proliferation of AIDS in Africa, which has claimed the lives of millions, and will still kill millions more.

As for Hitler, he repeatedly stated that he was doing God's work and was a devout Catholic. He was never even excommunicated. As for your claim that Hitler was inspired by Darwin, he was a young-earth creationist.

OK.
Muslims:
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/608attack.jpg

Christians:
http://www.virginia.edu/911/images/phototext_5.jpg

I believe you just proved my point:)

Umm...did you miss those small, unimportant parts of history like "The Crusades" and "The Inquisition"? Christians are just as murderous and nuts as muslims, if not more so.

I would like to point out that the crusades were political moments and politically driven, they were not religious movements.

How is "kill the heretics!" not a religious movement?

I would like to point out that the crusades were political moments and politically driven, they were not religious movements.

Religion was used as an excuse. And ultimately, that's all that matters for this. I doubt that Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks are much more driven by religion than the Crusades were.

Wait....How the hell is Christianity responsible for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa or Adolf Hitler?

seconded. the jesuits and the quakers were christians who were rather firm on native american rights and trying to PREVENT the genocide. saying christianity caused native american genocides is like saying speaking spanish makes you a conquistador.

as far as aids in africa - most africans are not christian, and something tells me being a bunch of third world countries has a hell of alot more to do with it than anti-condom missionaries. if catholicism and subsequent avoidance of condoms was responsible for the aids epidemic, then it would be happening in italy and mexico more than africa. there are other factors here. :headbang:

The AIDS in Africa would be all those Christian missionaries telling the locals how evil condoms are. And neglecting to mention that one of their evil side effects is preventing AIDS.

Oh, and I hate to be the one to tell you(not really) but Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin, was never advocated by Darwin and, most amusingly, predates Darwin.

And I don't even know what the hell you're talking about with that tolerence of people with disorders nonsense.
Lol, yes...these non-Christian tribes take direction from Christians soely on condom use. Oh, and condoms don't prevent AIDS, amico.

I have no clue where you're going with 'social Darwinism.' Studying Darwin's ideas and adhering to his beliefs inevitably leads to that way of thinking, which is not Christian at all. Not to mention the fact that Hitler said that "Christianity is an invention of the Jews."

Lastly, I think you know what I'm talking about. I love it when people play stupid...In case anyone with an IQ under 20 is reading this, I was referring to gays, who created the AIDS epidemic in America with the help of the 'tolerant' left. Yes, yes, now we have a 'wonderful' gay culture of trannies, bathhouses, 'barebacking', bug-chasing, and general coarseness that would not be tolerated by people if heterosexuals were doing it.

Um...That would pretty much be limited too...


The collective god of christians, jews and muslims, acting indirectly.

I thought about mentioning that. But I decided to play it safe, because I wasn't sure if no one would be able to top Hitler if you limited it just to those killed in the Holocaust and not WWII.

seconded. the jesuits and the quakers were christians who were rather firm on native american rights and trying to PREVENT the genocide. saying christianity caused native american genocides is like saying speaking spanish makes you a conquistador.

Well, those killing the Amerindians seemed pretty intent on using Christianity as a justification.

Don't for get about
http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/crusaders.jpg
Far far more Christians were involved in the Crusades than there were Muslims hijacking planes on Sept. 11th
Too bad one of them was justified and another was not, eh? But, I always forget that the left LOVES when people invade their land. For a contemporary example, see: Mexico.

Oh, and condoms don't prevent AIDS, amico.
They stop the spread of HIV very, very well.

I have no clue where you're going with 'social Darwinism.' Studying Darwin's ideas and adhering to his beliefs inevitably leads to that way of thinking, which is not Christian at all.
Except social "Darwinism" makes no sense evolutionarily.

Not to mention the fact that Hitler said that "Christianity is an invention of the Jews."
One, source. Two, that's pretty obviously true. He was a genocidal maniac, not a total idiot.

Lastly, I think you know what I'm talking about. I love it when people play stupid...In case anyone with an IQ under 20 is reading this, I was referring to gays, who created the AIDS epidemic in America with the help of the 'tolerant' left. Yes, yes, now we have a 'wonderful' gay culture of trannies, bathhouses, 'barebacking', bug-chasing, and general coarseness that would not be tolerated by people if heterosexuals were doing it.
You can no more blame homosexuals for the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. (IV drug use was what really caused the spread) than you can blame the Bubonic plague on white people.

Too bad one of them was justified and another was not, eh?
Holy shit he thinks that 9/11 was justified.

How is "kill the heretics!" not a religious movement?

when it's rhetoric used to motivate people because the political power in europe realises it's about to be destabilised by the incursion of another religion? muslims made it a good deal of the way into france in the west, and as far west from turkey as the eastern block countries - there were times in the middle ages when italian principalities had good reason to worry that they would be conquered by muslim peoples - the countries on the outer edges of europe had even more reason to be concerned. this, along with heretical movements like the albigensians and bogolmils and dolcinites threatened to destroy the political power of the roman pontiff - it's not until the church hierarchy has political power to protect (and the associated corruption) that it starts killing off its opponents.

you *are* aware what heretics were saying, right? the dolcinites were radical socialists who directly opposed the accumulation of wealth, and went around burning down villas and killing local nobility and clergy - the cathars directly said the ecclesiastical authorities were windbags (...they had a point) and challenged the foundations of fuedal society. most heretics had *strong* anarchist tendencies, and were *direct* political threats to anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. unorthodox theological positions that didn't also ammount to sedition were very rarely prosecuted. heresy and "religious" warfare is almost *always* an excuse to eliminate a political enemy. if you're under the impression that people don't scapegoat innocents to blame them for unrelated problems nowadays (what most witchburnings were), then you're outright wrong. the only difference is that now our rhetoric is renaisance humanism and not religion - we still do the same damn things. the iraq war had nothing to do with democracy and the crusades and reconquista had nothing to do with the teachings of christ.

They stop the spread of HIV very, very well.


Except social "Darwinism" makes no sense evolutionarily.


One, source. Two, that's pretty obviously true. He was a genocidal maniac, not a total idiot.


You can no more blame homosexuals for the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. (IV drug use was what really caused the spread) than you can blame the Bubonic plague on white people.
No, actually, they don't. Social Darwinism makes perfect sense in the context of putting his ideas and theory to use.... Moreover, Jesus is not an "invention," and his ideas did not come from the Jews...
How about you look up the AIDS epidemic in America and come talk to me. A very very hefty percentage of gay men have AIDS and their average life expectancy is, I believe, 39 years old. Saying that IV drug use caused the AIDS epidemic is throwing the facts right in front of your face out the window.

Lastly, I think you know what I'm talking about. I love it when people play stupid...In case anyone with an IQ under 20 is reading this, I was referring to gays, who created the AIDS epidemic in America with the help of the 'tolerant' left. Yes, yes, now we have a 'wonderful' gay culture of trannies, bathhouses, 'barebacking', bug-chasing, and general coarseness that would not be tolerated by people if heterosexuals were doing it.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang::headbang:

Holy shit he thinks that 9/11 was justified.

This is the kind of dry humor that nobody laughs at...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang::headbang:

Sorry, but I don't pick and choose the teachings of Jesus.:D

This is the kind of dry humor that nobody laughs at...

Well, since the Crusades are obviously not justified, since Europe invaded first, that was the only conclusion that could be drawn. Since you equate immigration of all things with an invasion I assumed you were talking about the U.S. troops present in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the big reasons that Osama bin Laden gives for a reason for the attacks.

Sorry, but I don't pick and choose the teachings of Jesus.:D

Nope, you just flat-out ignore them.

Well, those killing the Amerindians seemed pretty intent on using Christianity as a justification.

and so did those defending them. those who enslaved africans used christianity as a justification, and so did those who demanded their freedom. 200 years ago you didn't do ANYTHING in western culture without christianity as a justification - it has nothing to do with something inherent to christianity - there isn't a major ideological conflict in western history in which christianity hasn't been used as a justification for both sides. obviously christ didn't take both sides on every issue - what people say they believe has little to no bearing on what they actually do.

They stop the spread of HIV very, very well.


Yes, with a near-100% success rate, I believe.

Well, since the Crusades are obviously not justified, since Europe invaded first, that was the only conclusion that could be drawn. Since you equate immigration of all things with an invasion I assumed you were talking about the U.S. troops present in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the big reasons that Osama bin Laden gives for a reason for the attacks.
Ah, so 9/11 is more justified than the Crusades...
How telling.

Sorry, but I don't pick and choose the teachings of Jesus.:D

since there isn't a single word attributed directly to jesus on the subject, I don't see how that's relevent.

Nope, you just flat-out ignore them.

:fluffle:

since there isn't a single word attributed directly to jesus on the subject, I don't see how that's relevent.

I know extrapolating things from the Bible may seem daunting to you, this is not the case with everyone.

No, actually, they don't.
All evidence to the contrary.

Social Darwinism makes perfect sense in the context of putting his ideas and theory to use....
Nope. Read up on altruism and gene pools in relation to social species.

Moreover, Jesus is not an "invention," and his ideas did not come from the Jews...
Jesus is not Christianity. Jesus is not a religion. And Christianity has little to do with Jesus's teachings. It's influenced far more by Paul, who drew from Leviticus and Deuteromony for inspiration.

How about you look up the AIDS epidemic in America and come talk to me.
I've done so for the past ten-odd years.

A very very hefty percentage of gay men have AIDS and their average life expectancy is, I believe, 39 years old.
Quite a bit longer than 39. It's low, but less because of AIDS and more because of suicides resulting from discrimination.

Saying that IV drug use caused the AIDS epidemic is throwing the facts right in front of your face out the window.
IV drug use is how heterosexuals got the disease in the U.S. And guess what? There are more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals with AIDS.

Ah, so 9/11 is more justified than the Crusades...
How telling.

Not at all. Merely pointing out the reason why I assumed that you were talking about 9/11. I've seen that reasoning before.

Lol, yes...these non-Christian tribes take direction from Christians soely on condom use. Oh, and condoms don't prevent AIDS, amico.
Preventing HIV is a great way to prevent AIDS.

I have no clue where you're going with 'social Darwinism.' Studying Darwin's ideas and adhering to his beliefs inevitably leads to that way of thinking, which is not Christian at all. Not to mention the fact that Hitler said that "Christianity is an invention of the Jews."
I don't know anything about Darwin's beliefs, nor do I care about them. His Theory of Evolution is interesting, but beyond that I'm not all that interested.

And Christianity is an invetion of the Jews, seeing as Jesus and his disciples(mostly) were Jews.

Lastly, I think you know what I'm talking about. I love it when people play stupid...In case anyone with an IQ under 20 is reading this, I was referring to gays, who created the AIDS epidemic in America with the help of the 'tolerant' left. Yes, yes, now we have a 'wonderful' gay culture of trannies, bathhouses, 'barebacking', bug-chasing, and general coarseness that would not be tolerated by people if heterosexuals were doing it.
Sorry, you fail. Saying gays created AIDS is like saying the first person to suffer of the bubonic plague created it. Gays were the first to be afflicted widely by AIDS because they had no reason to belive they need to take precautions during sex. They(by and large) know better know, as do most people.
Too bad one of them was justified and another was not, eh? But, I always forget that the left LOVES when people invade their land. For a contemporary example, see: Mexico.
Immigration=/=invasion. Weren't you saying something about people with an IQ of 20?
No, actually, they don't. Social Darwinism makes perfect sense in the context of putting his ideas and theory to use....
Who is this mad you refer to, because it's surely not Darwin. As I've already ssaid, he had nothing to do with Social Darwinism.
Moreover, Jesus is not an "invention," and his ideas did not come from the Jews...
No, I doubt he is.
How about you look up the AIDS epidemic in America and come talk to me. A very very hefty percentage of gay men have AIDS and their average life expectancy is, I believe, 39 years old. Saying that IV drug use caused the AIDS epidemic is throwing the facts right in front of your face out the window.
You're making the claim, you provide the proof. Speaking of which, got a source for some of these numbers?
Ah, so 9/11 is more justified than the Crusades...
How telling.
You seem to be the one who thinks so, since you said one, out of 9/11 and the crusades, was justified, and the crusades obviously weren't, you must think 9/11 was.

All evidence to the contrary.


Nope. Read up on altruism and gene pools in relation to social species.


Jesus is not Christianity. Jesus is not a religion. And Christianity has little to do with Jesus's teachings. It's influenced far more by Paul, who drew from Leviticus and Deuteromony for inspiration.


I've done so for the past ten-odd years.


Quite a bit longer than 39. It's low, but less because of AIDS and more because of suicides resulting from discrimination.

IV drug use is how heterosexuals got the disease in the U.S. And guess what? There are more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals with AIDS.

LMAO.
HAHAHA.
I'm not one to accept blind assertions, so I would love proof for that bolded statement, which is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
Once again, you've proven your brilliant stupidity. Concerning America, there are far far far more gays with AIDS than heterosexuals considering the AIDS in Africa is a completely different form of the disease. I suggest you visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_related_immune_deficiency

and so did those defending them. those who enslaved africans used christianity as a justification, and so did those who demanded their freedom. 200 years ago you didn't do ANYTHING in western culture without christianity as a justification - it has nothing to do with something inherent to christianity - there isn't a major ideological conflict in western history in which christianity hasn't been used as a justification for both sides. obviously christ didn't take both sides on every issue - what people say they believe has little to no bearing on what they actually do.

I never said that it has to do with anything inherent to Christianity. All I said is that Christianity was used to justify it, and, under his logic, is to blame for it.

LMAO.
HAHAHA.
I'm not one to accept blind assertions, so I would love proof for that bolded statement, which is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
Once again, you've proven your brilliant stupidity. Concerning America, there are far far far more gays with AIDS than heterosexuals considering the AIDS in Africa is a completely different form of the disease. I suggest you visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_related_immune_deficiency

Oh I love this. First, you make the claim that gays with have a life expectancy of 39 years, then when someone disagrees you call for a source. Sorry skip, burden of proof doesn't work like that. You make the claim, you back it up.

Oh, and the first sentence of the wiki page you linked to:
Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID) was the original name for AIDS,

Same disease, different name. Sorry.

LConcerning America, there are far far far more gays with AIDS than heterosexuals considering the AIDS in Africa is a completely different form of the disease. I suggest you visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_related_immune_deficiency

Oh boy. GRID. Yeah, that was discarded fast, once it became apparent that AIDS was not caused by homosexuality. And I got my numbers from the CDC.

Oh, and HIV-1 and HIV-2 aren't "completely different". HIV-2 is just harder to transmit, and is mostly confined to West Africa.

Oh I love this. First, you make the claim that gays with have a life expectancy of 39 years, then when someone disagrees you call for a source. Sorry skip, burden of proof doesn't work like that. You make the claim, you back it up.
No shit, brainbox. When someone makes a fake claim that I know is wrong just to justify correct figures I have, I am completely in the right to request the source for this ludacris claim.

Oh boy. GRID. Yeah, that was discarded fast, once it became apparent that AIDS was not caused by homosexuality. And I got my numbers from the CDC.
Wait, Wait....are you now telling me that AIDS is not caused by anal sex? If you are, I'm done arguing with you, because you are a complete dumbshit.

No shit, brainbox. When someone makes a fake claim that I know is wrong just to justify correct figures I have, I am completely in the right to request the source for this ludacris claim.

So give the source for the 39 year lifespan. I gave mine for the numbers of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals who are HIV+. But I assume you were too lazy to look, so now I have to pull up a direct link.

No shit, brainbox. When someone makes a fake claim that I know is wrong just to justify correct figures I have, I am completely in the right to request the source for this ludacris claim.

You have claimed that gay men with AIDS have a life expectency of 39 years. Where is your evidence for this?

Wait, Wait....are you now telling me that AIDS is not caused by anal sex? If you are, I'm done arguing with you, because you are a complete dumbshit.

AIDS, my friend, is caused by HIV.

AIDS, my friend, is caused by HIV.
Now you're just being obnoxious. Do you think HIV can be acquired through anal sex?

Wait, Wait....are you now telling me that AIDS is not caused by anal sex? If you are, I'm done arguing with you, because you are a complete dumbshit.

No, it's caused by HIV. How the fuck would anal sex cause AIDS?

No, it's caused by HIV. How the fuck would anal sex cause AIDS?
HIV CAUSES AIDS.
ANAL SEX=HIV=AIDS.
The connection is quite clear. I cannot go on arguing with a moron such as yourself.

As for the virtues of Christ - there is little I can express to imply any
negative affect would result from following siad principles, other than
one's eventual crucifixion, poverty and severe lack of social influence.

Toward the actions recorded by history that some are now comparing
to Muslim beliefs - well that's like comparing a Hersheys Bar to a large
piece of dog feces. One doesn't see any Christians blowing up towers,
when in fact (Muslims had nothing to do with it) "In God we Trust" is
to this day a reminder on the beliefs on which the USA was founded.

In past events [within the last 1,200 years] Christians have been respon-
sible for more mayhem than Korea, Vietnam and Iraq Combined. This does
not even hint at the statistics for the Iraq movement, where their records
for deaths of innocent [non-militia] personnel is miles above 150,000. All
in the name of God and Country... where I am sure theories will be diverse.

During the Dark ages, and up until the late 1800's, Christian authorities have
exiled, murdered, raped, imprisoned, executed, tortured and otherwise made
conquest for political and social empowerment. Under accusations of herecy
there have been entire cultures extinguished in "the name of god"... which
incodentally - has been yet to be established to an accurate pronunciation.

War is merely a means of establishmentarian development. Today its feigned
as a neccesary premise to achieve economic stability for the leading nations
of world power. To supress or force Christianity upon any one people, is to
warrant death to that nation... for not all peoples will ever believe as these
alleged Christians do. Havoc is their reward, and in their claim for peace lies
treachery and eventual war.

The Dark Prince of 916 hath spoken.

Now you're just being obnoxious. Do you think HIV can be acquired through anal sex?

It can be acquired through any sort of sexual contact. Anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, pretty much anything that results in infected blood, semen, or vaginal secretions entering the body.

HIV CAUSES AIDS.
ANAL SEX=HIV=AIDS.
The connection is quite clear. I cannot go on arguing with a moron such as yourself.

How the fuck does anal sex equal HIV? It doesn't create it. Once again, any kind of sex can transmit HIV. Plus, not only homosexuals engage in anal sex. Plenty of heterosexuals do as well. And anal sex isn't as common in homosexuals as you might think.

It can be acquired through any sort of sexual contact. Anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, pretty much anything that results in infected blood, semen, or vaginal secretions entering the body.
Yes, now check the chances of getting HIV from anal sex between two men;)

Now you're just being obnoxious. Do you think HIV can be acquired through anal sex?
Through unprotected anal sex, and various other ways, yes.
HIV CAUSES AIDS.
ANAL SEX=HIV=AIDS.
The connection is quite clear. I cannot go on arguing with a moron such as yourself.

No, Anal sex does not equal HIV. The two are ridiculously different.

Yes, now check the chances of getting HIV from anal sex between two men;)

If a condom is used(properly) the chances are miniscule.

And anal sex isn't as common in homosexuals as you might think.

Oh boy, that is the biggest joke I've ever heard. Gays act as if they have some complex mindset and language that can only be understood by each other. The primary component of homosexuality is the physical attraction of a male to people of his same sex.

If a condom is used(properly) the chances are miniscule.
How exactly do you use a condom 'properly' in an anus, which it is not meant for?
Also, I already addressed the gay culture of barebacking, so even if that point was true, it would be moot.

Yes, now check the chances of getting HIV from anal sex between two men;)

Same as the chance of getting HIV from anal sex between a man and a woman. Guaranteed if no protection is used and one of the partners is HIV+, very low if protection is used and one of the partners is HIV+, nil if neither of the partners is HIV+.

How exactly do you use a condom 'properly' in an anus, which it is not meant for?

Condoms are meant for the penis, not the anus. No wonder you think that they don't do anything, you're putting them on the wrong partner.

The primary component of homosexuality is the physical attraction of a male to people of his same sex.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anal sex? Are you under the impression that homosexuals cannot perform oral sex or mutual masturbation?

Condoms are meant for the penis, not the anus. No wonder you think that they don't do anything, you're putting them on the wrong partner.
You're either being obnoxious or you're just stupid.
Condoms(ON THE COCK!) are not meant to be used for anal sex, as the anus is different than the vagina.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anal sex? Are you under the impression that homosexuals cannot perform oral sex or mutual masturbation?
No, they do that, also;)

You're either being obnoxious or you're just stupid.
Condoms(ON THE COCK!) are not meant to be used for anal sex, as the anus is different than the vagina.

Condoms are meant to be used for any sort of sexual activity involving the penis, whether it be oral, anal, or vaginal. To claim otherwise is absurd.

No, they do that, also;)

So why the fixation on anal sex? Secretly wanting to be a bottom?

Oh boy, that is the biggest joke I've ever heard. Gays act as if they have some complex mindset and language that can only be understood by each other. The primary component of homosexuality is the physical attraction of a male to people of his same sex.
Have you not heard of lesbians? Are they not homosexual? And attraction to members of your own sex is the primary component of homosexuality, but it is not the primary component of a homosexual's life.
How exactly do you use a condom 'properly' in an anus, which it is not meant for?
Also, I already addressed the gay culture of barebacking, so even if that point was true, it would be moot.

Eh, it's traditional to wear the condom on the penis.

Do you have numbers on how many gay men bareback as opposed to how many use protection, out of the ones who engage in anal sex? Or is this another of your unverified claims?

You're either being obnoxious or you're just stupid.
Condoms(ON THE COCK!) are not meant to be used for anal sex, as the anus is different than the vagina.

Condoms are meant to be used on the cock, as you so eloquently put it. Which orifice you the proceed to put that cock in is not very important.

Do you have numbers on how many gay men bareback as opposed to how many use protection, out of the ones who engage in anal sex?

I had numbers once. Condom usage was in the high nineties, if I remember correctly. Far higher than condom usage among heterosexuals.

I had numbers once. Condom usage was in the high nineties, if I remember correctly. Far higher than condom usage among heterosexuals.

I wouldn't be suprised. Back when AIDS first appeared gay people got scared into using protection big time.

I wouldn't be suprised. Back when AIDS first appeared gay people got scared into using protection big time.
Oh yeah, there was no reason to at all;)
"Homosexuals make up over 80 percent of the AIDS cases in America."
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Centers for Disease Control. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report." July 1993 Vol. 5 No. 2.

I'm done with you:)

I don't disagree that homosexual intercourse is wrong. However, who are we to be casting stones here. All non-pro-creation nightly excursions are wrong, or at least say 6 of the eight major world religions. The fact off the matter is yes they may be immoral, yes they may create diseases, but if you are truly upright, then you have no need to fear them.

Oh yeah, there was no reason to at all;)
"Homosexuals make up over 80 percent of the AIDS cases in America."
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Centers for Disease Control. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report." July 1993 Vol. 5 No. 2.

I'm done with you:)

That's thirteen years old. Things change in thirteen years.

Oh yeah, there was no reason to at all;)
"Homosexuals make up over 80 percent of the AIDS cases in America."
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Centers for Disease Control. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report." July 1993 Vol. 5 No. 2.

I'm done with you:)

Got anything more recent? 13 years is a long time.

14 years in a few days :)

All non-pro-creation nightly excursions are wrong, or at least say 6 of the eight major world religions.

The major world religions are...

Christianity - some sects say it is wrong
Judaism - Some sects say it is wrong
Islam - Some sects say it is wrong
Hinduism - Not wrong
Buddhism - Not wrong
Shinto - Not wrong
Taoism - Not wrong
Sikhism - Not wrong, to my knowledge
Confucianism - Not wrong
Ba'hai - Some sects say it is wrong

4 out of 10.

Huzzah, we win!

Huzzah, we win!

Aw, don't tell him. I want to play more.

Aw, don't tell him. I want to play more.

So do I, but he's evidently poofed out of existence.

Yeah, he's offline.

You seem to be the one who thinks so, since you said one, out of 9/11 and the crusades, was justified, and the crusades obviously weren't, you must think 9/11 was.

How were the First Crusade, and the crusades against Islam in general, 'obviously' not justified?
It was taking the fight to a political and religious enemy that had over the past few centuries made dangerous incursions into Europe - even sacking Rome in 846. Christianity in this period was still very much on the back-foot on the world stage.
Closer to the First Crusade, the chaos that overcame the Byzantine Empire after Manzikert in 1071 meant that Anatolia was mostly lost to the Seljuks, and that Byzantine/Christian influence and protection over the routes to the Holy Lands was now non-existent, which was a huge loss to Christianity. Its eastern bulwark, albeit divided from Rome by the Schism, was no longer there. Something had to be done. Retaking the Holy Land would thus be a major political, religious and symbolic blow to the Seljuks, and reverse what was seen as Christianity's political and religious decline in the East.
And in Spain, crusades had a more immediate effect in trying to reclaim once-Christian lands from the Moors - or at least to stop all of Christian Spain falling under Moorish rule.

The crusades were not, as I assume you think, unjustified 'naked aggression' against Muslims in the name of God and profit. They were wars based on political and religious agendas that could call upon a large pool of justification suitable for the time. At times the crusades submitted to more base and cynical goals, but they were started for a good reason.

I knew somebody would call me on that. Al Qaeda has goals that are religious as well as political. However, McVeigh's motivation was purely political.

Actually McVeigh's biggest issue was with the killing of the Branch Davidian's in Waco Texas a Christian cult headed up by David Koresh.
So in a way his motivations were of a religious nature.

Both McVeigh and bin Laden (and his "followers") are extremists of the worst sort.
Not all Christians are extremists like McVeigh just as not all Muslims are extremists like bin Laden.

Dark Ages and Medieval Christianity is also responsible for preserving important works of the Roman Empire that would otherwise have disappeared. And yeah there was more to the Crusades then just religion, and didn't a Muslim empire cause a lot of trouble in Eastern Europe during the middle ages too?

Huzzah, we win!
I don't know about you, but I actually have a life, so I put your nagging little ass aside for a while. Now, here are the more recent statistics you've requested(it wouldn't hurt to search for them yourself)
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 70% of all estimated HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2004 (based on data from 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting*), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1,2]. The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group [3, 4]. This increase points to a continued need for culturally appropriate prevention and education services.

Statistics
HIV/AIDS in 2004

In the 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, an estimated 19,575 MSM (18,203 MSM and 1,372 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, accounting for 70% of all male adults and adolescents and 51% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year [1].
The number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased 8% from 2003 through 2004. It is not known whether this increase is due to an increase in the testing of persons with risk factors or due to an increase in cases of HIV infection.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

Sorry, but I don't pick and choose the teachings of Jesus.
Except Matthew 5, I suppose.

Too bad one of them was justified and another was not, eh?
Jesus didn't command the Crusades, Pope Urban II did.

I don't know about you, but I actually have a life, so I put your nagging little ass aside for a while. Now, here are the more recent statistics you've requested(it wouldn't hurt to search for them yourself)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

Congratulations on backing up one of your claims with statistics or a source of some kind. Oh, and a word of advice, don't ever expect people to find evidence of your claims for you. It's not gonna happen.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

What you say is, to a large extent, true of the middle ages.
Just don't start applying it to all Chritians then, or all Christians / the Church of England (or any other UK denomination, my knowldge of those abroad is too limited for me to comment) today.

What you say is, to a large extent, true of the middle ages.
Just don't start applying it to all Chritians then, or all Christians / the Church of England (or any other UK denomination, my knowldge of those abroad is too limited for me to comment) today.What do you mean by middle ages? The divisions among Christians and the persecution of folks of other confessions started to come to its full extend after the Middle Ages were over. Also the violent spread of Christianity to the New World was no crime of the Middle Ages. And the condescending and patronizing attitude of Christians towards non-Christians has always stayed the same, although it might be voiced differently today.

And the condescending and patronizing attitude of Christians towards non-Christians has always stayed the same, although it might be voiced differently today.
You would never do anything like that, would you?

As a Christian maybe your mind may be somewhat clouded

I don't have a problem with religious folk, that is until they start trampling peoples rights and freedoms by trying to impose their beliefs on others. Keep it out of the schools, and out of the government. If we want any of it, we'll come to your churches.

And the condescending and patronizing attitude of Christians towards non-Christians has always stayed the same, although it might be voiced differently today.

There are condeceinding people everywhere. Whether or not they are Chrsitians is very little to do with it.

There are condeceinding people everywhere. Whether or not they are Chrsitians is very little to do with it.In Christianity it's systemic. In fact in all "abrahamic" religions.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

More like the personification, the establishment, of the religion caused all that. Not every Christian, or even one prcent, decided one day to start the Crusades, if anything it was a plea by a Byzantine Monarch to the Pope, who then 'made' the Crusades.

Not that they were exceptional in their violence. I get the idea of what cast your from, because you attention to details that fit your narrow minded view, and disregard others.

Violence was the name of the game back then. Not until recently, very recently, has armies ceased to plunder, pillage, and kill. If anything, the nations who were most influenced by religion were the first to cease, why those who are caught up in ethnic differences (Dafur for one) continueto have their bloodbaths.

Secondly, the first banking system was established as a direct result of a crusading legion, it also broke the monopoly of trade Venice had, expanded the knowledge of the Far East, inspired exploration, added s signifiant economic boom to Europe spawning a increase of productivity and capital, and it also destroyed the influence the Pope had, making sure none of that sort would happen again.

Back to violence; armies did that stuff all over the place, it was considered exceptional to not pillage, loot, and do all that. The Mongels, Huns, Romans, all those were belived not in God, atheist by our standards, did that stuff. The crusading armies were not some abnormal construct of religious anger, they were just constructs of nomal anger.

Catholic anger was never more misdirected when they sacked Constinanople and then again to make those befuddling Christian states. I don't understand what your trying to say for that last part, it was always misdirected for very Earth bound political gains.

Hmmm. An argument can be made that the attack on the WTC was carried out more for political than for religious reasons.

Indeed, especially as Islam is not just a belief or faith, but it is a Politics Based on that belief or faith.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble

Empirically false even from the perspective of the Medieval age. The Catholic Church made remarkable contributions towards art, science, philosophy, education, etc., the results of which we can still see today. (Even modern genetics is rooted in the findings of Gregor Mendel, a Catholic abbot).

They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless.

So did the Muslims during the occupation of Jerusalem, under the Pact of Umar.

And at any rate this is irrelevant, as you yourself openly admitted you are dreding up millennium-buried slights against other religions to attack the contemporary church. And even those slights are exaggerated.

I haven't known any Muslims to bomb abortion clinics, unfortunately I can't say the same thing of certain Christians....

It doesn't help that Muslim countries usually ban abortion (if they weren't, such clinics would probably be bombed routinely). But at any rate that doesn't matter: there haven't been abortion clinic bombings in years, and on the rare occasion they do occur, they are done with the active condemnation of the "Christian street." This is untrue of the Muslim world, which is, at the very best, silent on the atrocities committed by their members.

In contemporary times, you cannot conceivably argue that the crimes committed in the name of Christ even remotely approach those committed in the name of Allah.

What of the nominal Christians of the IRA and the Europa Hotel, Belfast - the most bombed hotel in Europe?

As I recall the IRA disarmed and resolved to settle its differences with England peaceably.

Not to mention their goals were to expel the perceived British occupation, not to force all of Britain under Catholic rule. And, of course, there's the fact that the Catholic Church (or at least Pope JPII) stridently rejected the IRA's use of violence and routinely called on them to seek peaceful alternatives, a warning they, of course, refused.

See: Oklahoma City Bombing - While Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic, Terry Nichols was a devout Christian.

McVeigh was baptized a Roman Catholic. His later writings suggest he was a generic theist (i.e., "I believe in 'a God'"). At one point, he wrote a letter to the UK's The Guardian stating he was agnostic. IIRC, the Church's only contribution to the act was when the pope pleaded for Bush to pardon McVeigh, in keeping with its long-held opposition to capital punishment.

And at any rate it doesn't matter, as their actions were motivated by extremist politics, not religion.

Ok, no Muslems, but lets try the Jews... Ever hear of Leo Frank? Go look him up, he was lynched, when all evidence pointed to another man and even the judge called the proceedings a sham, and even when the govenor commuted his scentence to life in prison.

Leo Frank was lynched over 90 years ago. And today the U.S. is arguably the most pro-Jewish nation in the world (outside, of course, Israel itself).

Again, a century-past lynching does not compare the manifold bombings, assassinations, and murders committed in the name of Islam.

No they don't, its impossible to use an idea as a scapegoat

No it isn't; people do it all the time.

Hmmm. An argument can be made that the attack on the WTC was carried out more for political than for religious reasons.

A useless distinction, as contemporary Islam acknowledges no difference between church and state.

Religion isn't the problem, it's dogmatism.

Dogmatism isn't really the problem, either; I mean the pope is, by definition, dogmatic, but he is not really a violent person. The problem is vast and cannot be traced to any one particular source; it's the willingness of extremists to do evil, the culture that breeds it into their minds that it's OK to do evil, the society that either ignores or actively rewards that evil, the absence of alternatives, poor governance, poverty, etc.

One should keep in mind that when a very powerful, large, and influential organization has been around for around two millennia, it's bound to screw some stuff up.

Bingo.

the proliferation of AIDS in Africa

Eh? What's this got to do with Christianity?

American Indian genocide

Motivated almost entirely by politics, not religion, and that over the objection of many fundamentalist Christians.

Adolf Hitler

Hitler was openly critical of religion and loathed the Christianity of ordinary German people, as it interfered with his racial stud farms. (In response to this I expect you'll trot out some ancient speech he delivered saying that he drew strength from God or whatever, and thereby ignore the fact that he was obviously just pandering to his overwhelming Christian subjects. His personal writings and the table talk that has come down to us over the decades suggest otherwise).

Don't buy the revisionist pap surrounding Hitler. He wasn't a fundie and he wasn't a nationalist. He was a just a madman with a hard-on for war.

The AIDS in Africa would be all those Christian missionaries telling the locals how evil condoms are. And neglecting to mention that one of their evil side effects is preventing AIDS.

Maybe the locals should listen to those Christian missionaries when they tell them not to have premarital sex, which the Bible explicitly forbids and which is one of the chiefest methods for spreading AIDS.

Of course if they listened to the Christian missionaries, I imagine the population of Christians in Africa would be much higher than it is.

I would like to point out that the crusades were political moments and politically driven, they were not religious movements.

They assayed religious justifications, which of course in the mind of modern historical revisionists mean they were acting at the behest of their evil bloodthirsty God.

Some people will just never grasp the fundamental fact that politicians lie.

Maybe the locals should listen to those Christian missionaries when they tell them not to have premarital sex, which the Bible explicitly forbids and which is one of the chiefest methods for spreading AIDS.


Unfortunately the whole abstinence schtick isn't realistic or effective.
And of course The Church forbids birth control, which doesn't seem to help the population and AIDs issues much.

Unfortunately the whole abstinence schtick isn't realistic or effective.
And of course The Church forbids birth control, which doesn't seem to help the population and AIDs issues much.

Not having premarital sex with lots of people is a surefire way to not get AIDS.

My point here is that you can't fault Christian missionaries for Africans following their prohibition on birth control but flagrantly flaunting their prohibition on premarital sex.

The whole point behind the Catholic anti-birth control theme is that you wouldn't need it if you didn't have premarital sex. That's kind of what they're getting at there.

Hitler was openly critical of religion and loathed the Christianity of ordinary German people, as it interfered with his racial stud farms. (In response to this I expect you'll trot out some ancient speech he delivered saying that he drew strength from God or whatever, and thereby ignore the fact that he was obviously just pandering to his overwhelming Christian subjects. His personal writings and the table talk that has come down to us over the decades suggest otherwise).

Don't buy the revisionist pap surrounding Hitler. He wasn't a fundie and he wasn't a nationalist. He was a just a madman with a hard-on for war.

The only revisionism is people trying to deny that Hitler was religious. He stated that he believed that he was doing God's work in Mein Kampf itself.

There is such a double standard on these forums and in world society for that matter, you say something bad about the Christian religion, you are commended, meanwhile, if you say anything bad about other religions, Islam for example, you are chastized by dozens of people for being a redneck with a small brain. I hate it.

There is such a double standard on these forums and in world society for that matter, you say something bad about the Christian religion, you are commended, meanwhile, if you say anything bad about other religions, Islam for example, you are chastized by dozens of people for being a redneck with a small brain. I hate it.

I hear you. It has become heresy among liberals to insult any religion outside of Christianity. This goes hand-in-hand with the liberal standard that no criticism may be made of any person other than straight white males without accusations of sexism, racism, and homophobia popping up.

The only revisionism is people trying to deny that Hitler was religious. He stated that he believed that he was doing God's work in Mein Kampf itself.

You're basically saying is that, because Hitler said it, it must be true. Politicians lie; evil politicians lie even more. So he mouthed a few insincere platitudes in a book intended to appeal to the hearts of Germans, who were overwhelmingly Christian; that doesn't mean he meant them as anything more than political bludgeons.

We know from his private writings, and from private writings of others (like Albert Speer, who recorded at length some of Hitler's complaints about Christianity), that at best he adhered to a wildly distorted and massively revisionist version of Christianity that he basically invented himself (called "Positive Christianity," which among other things painted Jesus as a fighter against Jews rather than, y'know, a Jew himself); and there's evidence that he doubted his Catholic upbringing at a very young age and ceased to attend mass and receive sacraments as soon as he left home.

You're basically saying is that, because Hitler said it, it must be true. Politicians lie; evil politicians lie even more. So he mouthed a few insincere platitudes in a book intended to appeal to the hearts of Germans, who were overwhelmingly Christian; that doesn't mean he meant them as anything more than political bludgeons.

Mein Kampf was a damn diary. In addition, all that matters is that Christianity was used by Hitler to justify his actions, just like Osama bin Laden uses Islam to justify his actions.

Mein Kampf was a damn diary.

Hardly. It was a political treatise with autobiographical elements.

Even if it were pure autobiography, which it isn't, they differ in nature from diaries. Diaries are generally not intended to be read. Hitler wrote this knowing full well that it would be; it sold so well he made a fortune before he even left prison.

In addition, all that matters is that Christianity was used by Hitler to justify his actions, just like Osama bin Laden uses Islam to justify his actions.

Again, hardly. He mouthed a few Christian-sounding platitudes, which mountains of evidence now suggest he didn't really believe, to appeal to the Christian people of Germany. This is not disputable.

And I don't know why you choose bin Laden as a comparitive example, as bin Laden is not even a political leader the way Hitler was. There are many infinitely worse Muslim leaders (i.e., the actual rulers of nations) who literally use Islam as the basis for their social order -- enforcing sharia at a very minimum, and in some cases ruling as the direct representative(s) of Allah himself.

Not having premarital sex with lots of people is a surefire way to not get AIDS.

My point here is that you can't fault Christian missionaries for Africans following their prohibition on birth control but flagrantly flaunting their prohibition on premarital sex.

The whole point behind the Catholic anti-birth control theme is that you wouldn't need it if you didn't have premarital sex. That's kind of what they're getting at there.

So getting an entire continent of people to all simply stop fucking is a feasible solution? I guess it was god's folly to give people sexual urges and to make sex pleasurable.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.

No extreme prejudice! You have to be kidding! All you did was point to a couple of sad incidents in history and then blame Christianity and Christians as the cause. And then you have the brass to claim no 'extreme prejudice'. I reckon your prejudice has made you far more blind than you seem to realize. Or you were just saying something 'far out' to get a reaction. You certainly did get a reaction.

Let's look at your conclusion that Christians have been 'nothing but trouble' a little closer. Because of Christianity, we have universities today, since they were a Catholic institution, or at least heavily supported by Catholic clerics. Then we need to look a little further and see how many of the founders of modern science were devout Christians (the vast majority), and then look to see elsewhere in the world (other than Christian Europe) where science arose (nowhere). It does indeed look like modern science arose from Christian rational thought, despite the occasional conflict between new ways of thinking and the authoritarian Church establishment (which is not the same as Christianity--Christianity being far bigger than the Roman Catholic Church)

Then we need to look at the abolishment of slavery. In the Roman empire, many of the people that made up the empire were slaves, captured in battle. In some cities, more than half of the inhabitants were slaves. By about 1000 AD, slavery was almost all but abolished in Europe, while the rest of the non-Christian world have slaves, and still do in some parts. The exception was in Spain where the Muslims enslaved the Christians that they captured, and the Christians retaliated by doing the same, despite opposition from the Pope.

Both before and during the rise of colonial empirialism, several Popes issue Bulls that were directed against slavery, urging everyone to recognise that slaves had souls, that they were entitled to receive communion, and that families should not be separated during the sale of slaves.
And don't forget that the anti-slavery movement in Europe and America began with Christians, and the morals from Jesus (and whatever you do to the least of these, you do as unto me).

It is true that Christians were involved in the Crusades, and it is possibly one of the darkest moments of Christian history--what happened on those crusades. However, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see that what happened in those crusades was in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. Thus, while it is right to blame the actions on the Christians who were present, it isn't the same as blaming Christianity in general.

Furthermore, one needs to keep in one's mind that Europe was under pressure from the Muslim invasions, as the militant Muslims were intent on taking over the world--and they typically castrated all the males they captured. That would put fear in any red blooded male.

In conclusion, I would say that you ought to read around a bit more, and at least try not to be so extremely prejudice. Those Muslims that hate Christians do so not because of what happened 1000 years ago, but because they believe that American and European governments are Christian. The Muslims that see a difference between a government and a religious institution (i.e. the American government is not officially a Christian institution) try to blame democracy or 'westernism', not Christianity. And those that hate the West do so because its culture is changing their way of life, and because the west is powerful. If it were not, they wouldn't hate the West any more than they hate each other.

So getting an entire continent of people to all simply stop fucking is a feasible solution? I guess it was god's folly to give people sexual urges and to make sex pleasurable.

First of all, I'm not proposing a solution, as the solution is logically a cure for AIDS, something I don't have.

And second, go back and reread what I said. You suggest that Christian missionaries are responsible for the African peoples' refusal or inability to use protection when having premarital sex. This implies that, to some degree, Africans listen to whatever Christian missionaries tell them to do. But if this were true, they wouldn't be having premarital sex and the spread of HIV would be stifled.

From this it follows that the fault lies either with those Africans who selectively refuse to follow certain parts of church teachings, or with some unidentified third party that has no relation to the church.

You can't fault the church for the behaviors of people who clearly don't listen to it.

And finally, it doesn't matter if it's pleasurable. Of course sex feels good. So does not having AIDS. In my opinion, that's a pretty strong disincentive to have premarital sex.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.


In the past, it's true that Christians have caused a lot of trouble. They considered their religion to be the only "right" religion and wanted to force others to become part of it. Eventually, however, Christians realised these kinds of actions were contrary to Christ's message of peace and love. Nowadays most Christians are peaceful, even if a lot are hypocritical. In short, there used to be a lot of bad Christians but they finally got past that period in history and now most Christians are good people.

I'm not using your post as an excuse to attack Islam, but just as Christianity moved forwards, now Islam has to. I'm surprised actually that you've not chosen to either include the religion in your rant or to make a seperate rant about the religion. Granted, there are a large number of peaceful Muslims, some of whom I know personally. But, whilst the non-peaceful Muslims may number only a minority in comparison with peaceful Muslims, they are still a very significant minority, as evidenced by the amount of terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam and supposedly "for Allah" (the name Muslims use for God even when speaking English, despite the fact that Arab Christians use the word 'Allah' as it is simply the translation of the word 'God' into their language'. There are passages in the Bible that Christians used to justify their treatment of others, and a significant minority are doing the same with the Qur'an - for example beating up wives, treating women as second-class citizens, etc. (even an Imam -a sort of Muslim equivlent of a Priest- stated on TV that it's alright to beat up your wife as long as you don't leave marks). Sharia law (Islamic law) also allows for brutal treatment of women - for example, there must be either 3 or 4 (not sure which number is right, but it's one of them) witnesses to a rape of a woman under Sharia law for her to be able to bring about a complaint - something which is virtually never likely to happen. In short, Islam is still, as Christianity used to be, living in the dark ages in respect to the actions of a significant minority of Muslims and in respect to Islamic law.

I'm really looking at the christian religion from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

Christians have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards christians in jerusalem than the christians were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The christians slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the orthodox christians of the Byzantine Empire that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed catholic christians and jews sensless. Catholic anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to christianity than; though today it may be differnet.
Christians have caused nothing but trouble.
this is off to a Baaaad start... allow me to demonstrate...
I'm really looking at the European Culture from a perspective of the medieval period; so when I say this it is with no extreme prejiduce.

The Europeans have caused nothing but trouble, one of the major examples are the crusades to free the holy land from the muslims. What a load of crap. The muslims were more tolerant towards Europeans in later years than the Europeans were towards the muslims when the crusaders captured the city. The Europeans slaughtered the jews and muslims; no wonder why they hate us so much. If anything it was the Greedy European Royalty of the European Empires that were doing the most harm to people on their way to the holy land. They taxed everyone. Muslim anger was misdirected; except for the fourth crusade that captured constantonople.
Muslims were not the enemy to Europeans back then; though today it may be differnet.
Europeans have caused nothing but trouble.

Anything and everyone caused trouble in the medieval period, Even Muslims among themselves in their medieval periods.

The real point is that what was learned after the "Dark Ages" and what changes were made.

So getting an entire continent of people to all simply stop fucking is a feasible solution? I guess it was god's folly to give people sexual urges and to make sex pleasurable.

I guess on the second day he should have created degree-granting institutions accredited in Biological Engineering.

I'm not using your post as an excuse to attack Islam, but just as Christianity moved forwards, now Islam has to.

Christianity didn't "move forward." The world moved forward and Christianity sat back yelling "hey! where do you think you're going. Come back here or I'll smite you!" And the rest of the world did for a while. Then it advanced to the point that commercially successful villages realized that the hierarchy didn't have a lot to offer them that it couldn't get for itself and Christianity has been hopping along afterwards whining "hey fellas! Wait for me!" like a fat kid with asthma.

Many parts of the Middle East that were geographically suited to joining the modern commercial world had started to move forward, like the Democraticly elected government we overthrew in Iran in the 50's. Whenever it starts to do that we show up and plunge it into chaos.

You can't sit back on your nice comfy chair in the middle of your secular paradise and then claim that your religion made it possible and now theirs must follow suit when it has been your religion all along that has fought our progress tooth and nail as long as it had both teeth and nails, while at the same time the most religous elements of our society go destroying the progress that other countries make.

First of all, I'm not proposing a solution, as the solution is logically a cure for AIDS, something I don't have.

And second, go back and reread what I said. You suggest that Christian missionaries are responsible for the African peoples' refusal or inability to use protection when having premarital sex. This implies that, to some degree, Africans listen to whatever Christian missionaries tell them to do. But if this were true, they wouldn't be having premarital sex and the spread of HIV would be stifled.

From this it follows that the fault lies either with those Africans who selectively refuse to follow certain parts of church teachings, or with some unidentified third party that has no relation to the church.

You can't fault the church for the behaviors of people who clearly don't listen to it.

And finally, it doesn't matter if it's pleasurable. Of course sex feels good. So does not having AIDS. In my opinion, that's a pretty strong disincentive to have premarital sex.

Sex does more than "feel good." It's a drive. A powerful one. Human beings are compelled to do it. There's a reason that the Bible says that women are lusty and desire men but centuries of Christian tradition say that women have the weaker sex drive and the responsibility to keep men from having sex. The only reliable way to reduce the rate at which people have sex is to reduce the opportunity.

As for the "they're not listening to missionaries" dichotomy you present...

Someone might make two suggestions, both of which are good to follow e.g.
1) Don't buy a gun and shoot yourself in the foot.
2) Have a million dollars in the bank.

Simply because I don't follow the advice in #2 doesn't mean that I won't follow the advice in #1. I'd like to follow the advice in #2, but let's face it. It's not going to happen any time soon. But the fact that I don't have a million dollars in the bank can hardly be used as evidence that I must have shot myself in the foot.

By the same token, just because people are following one of the most basic drives in human nature despite being told not to, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't use precautions if they were made available.

Christianity didn't "move forward." The world moved forward and Christianity sat back yelling "hey! where do you think you're going. Come back here or I'll smite you!" And the rest of the world did for a while. Then it advanced to the point that commercially successful villages realized that the hierarchy didn't have a lot to offer them that it couldn't get for itself and Christianity has been hopping along afterwards whining "hey fellas! Wait for me!" like a fat kid with asthma.

Many parts of the Middle East that were geographically suited to joining the modern commercial world had started to move forward, like the Democraticly elected government we overthrew in Iran in the 50's. Whenever it starts to do that we show up and plunge it into chaos.

You can't sit back on your nice comfy chair in the middle of your secular paradise and then claim that your religion made it possible and now theirs must follow suit when it has been your religion all along that has fought our progress tooth and nail as long as it had both teeth and nails, while at the same time the most religous elements of our society go destroying the progress that other countries make.

Christianity did move forwards - just not as far or as fast as the rest of the world - but at least it tries to convert people peacefully now.

I am Christian and will help you come to know Jesus if you ask me too. However I would never try to force it on you. God gave all men freewill so they could make up there own minds. Because of this no real christian will try to force you to become christian. The things I see being posted in here offends me as I see this as a threat to my beliefs. But even in that context I would never harm any of you because of my discomfort.