Yeah, and I hear that the Pope wrote the Bible too!!!1I didn't hyperbolize you you did.
Saying Christianity is somehow different than Islam in terms of being or begetting violence is simply false.
The Crusades were all RUBBER STAMPED by the Pope. Trying to split hairs about what BRAND of Christianity did it, does not excuse the faith as a general whole. 'Not really Chrisitan' = No True Scotsman fallacy. The Pope, a position supposedly rubber stamped by Jesus in Peter, eventually said OK to wars in the name of the faith. Same as Islam. Just deal with the truth.
Yeah, and I hear that the Pope wrote the Bible too!!!1
Like I said, it's an idiotic argument. You can't hold the ideals of "don't murder, don't hate, don't be jealous, don't harm, turn the other cheek, etc." to people who don't follow any of the above.
It's absolutely NO different than me listing off every atheist dictator that massacred millions and then saying that all atheists are the same or that there's something wrong with atheism.
And it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There are rules to follow. If you don't follow those rules, you are not a part of that religion, because you don't represent what that religion adheres to.
What's the one "rule" of being an atheist? Think about it. It's like saying that you're an atheist, but you believe in God. YOU'RE NOT AN ATHEIST IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD. It's really that simple.
Learn to use the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy properly.
Oh, okay, well countless atheist leaders have committed mass genocide in very organized fashions.the entire point you keep missing is that DESPITE WHAT THE RULES ARE IT STILL HAPPENS, IT HAPPENS IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION, AND IT HAPPENS FREQUENTLY. In a very real sense, Christianity is NOT only what nice liuttle catchphrases are present in your scriptures. History demonstrates that it is ALSO undeniably conquest and violence, in the name of the faith. Trying to fall back on 'but the book says we love each other!' is entirely fallacious.
Muslims fall back on the trite statement that Islam is a religion of peace; yet you have those bloody verses to show. Christians say 'we are a religoin of peace', but the actions of organized Christianity put the lie to it.
I'm not religious, so I don't know why you're using pronouns.This makes you even more like the Muslims.
No, you didn't. You're failing to realize that there are rules/prerequisites. You're just spewing shit that you've heard elsewhere and improperly attempting to apply it to this argument:Oh and yes, I was using the No True Scotsman fallacy correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy said:Errors in usage
In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian.
Yeah, and I hear that the Pope wrote the Bible too!!!1
Like I said, it's an idiotic argument. You can't hold the ideals of "don't murder, don't hate, don't be jealous, don't harm, turn the other cheek, etc." to people who don't follow any of the above.
It's absolutely NO different than me listing off every atheist dictator that massacred millions and then saying that all atheists are the same or that there's something wrong with atheism.
And it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There are rules to follow. If you don't follow those rules, you are not a part of that religion, because you don't represent what that religion adheres to.
What's the one "rule" of being an atheist? Think about it. It's like saying that you're an atheist, but you believe in God. YOU'RE NOT AN ATHEIST IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD. It's really that simple.
Learn to use the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy properly.
Oh, okay, well countless atheist leaders have committed mass genocide in very organized fashions.
I guess anyone who doesn't believe in God is a murder? One bad apple, right?
the religion alone is irrelevant. It is nonexistent without people to follow it.Once again, you are not distinguishing between the religion itself and people who claim to follow the religion.
Your fervent denial of an obvious truth makes me suspicious. I don't actually believe you.I'm not religious, so I don't know why you're using pronouns.
No, I made this idea up myself as I was considering what to post.No, you didn't. You're failing to realize that there are rules/prerequisites. You're just spewing shit that you've heard elsewhere and improperly attempting to apply it to this argument:
False. Christians are a huge percent of the US prison population.An theist can't call himself a Christian, just as someone who mass-murders atheists can't call himself a Christian.
If they act on that obvious conflict, then what they are doing is what they actually believe. Again, the system is NOT ONLY what is said on paper; it's what that system drives its adherents to do.They are in conflict with their own beliefs/ideals/rules.
Look, No True Scotsman!That's not to say that a Christian can never be at fault, but if they don't follow the religion and its rules, then they aren't Christian, regardless of whatever they like to call themselves. Catholics fit perfectly into this category.
The Crusades without any doubt were religion-driven. Jerusalem is of no use whatsoever to the English. Or the French. Or any of the people of Europe who answered the Pope's call to save the Holy City from the Muslims.Your whole argument is that "well, some people who call themselves Christians, do non-Christian things in organized fashions." As if that somehow 100% directly relates to the religion itself as the source of the problem.
And so begins the noble doctrine of they-started-it-first-ism.Like I said, it's an idiotic argument. You can't hold the ideals of "don't murder, don't hate, don't be jealous, don't harm, turn the other cheek, etc." to people who don't follow any of the above.
What?And so begins the noble doctrine of they-started-it-first-ism.
Stop using pronouns. faggot. I'll respond once you correct yourself.What is it you think you're supposed to turn the other cheek to, anyway?
Oh, well if you said it, I'm sure it's true. No one has ever died because of their beliefs or anything.Well, not countless, there haven't been that many. And none ever claimed they did it for the cause of atheism, or that atheism necessitated the death of all these victims.
Your hyperbole does not refute what I said. It's just a panic-answer.Your hyperbole does not refute what I said. It's just a panic-answer.
How deep and profound.the religion alone is irrelevant. It is nonexistent without people to follow it.
I don't give a flying fuck what you do or don't believe. You're too incompetent to refute anything I've said.Your fervent denial of an obvious truth makes me suspicious. I don't actually believe you.
False. Being Christian when they enter and becoming Christians are once again two different things. You're also ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that a majority of them claim to be Christian in hopes of getting lighter sentences or parole.False. Christians are a huge percent of the US prison population.
Righto.If they act on that obvious conflict, then what they are doing is what they actually believe. Again, the system is NOT ONLY what is said on paper; it's what that system drives its adherents to do.
Oh hey, well feel free where the religion to tell me where the religion itself (New Testament) told them to do that.The Crusades without any doubt were religion-driven. Jerusalem is of no use whatsoever to the English. Or the French. Or any of the people of Europe who answered the Pope's call to save the Holy City from the Muslims.
Just like Jews, they are wish-washy followers of Islam.has anyone asked:
a) what a muslim woman was doing out of the home
b) speaking to a man unchaperoned
c) speaking without being given permission to do so
??
Oh, well if you said it, I'm sure it's true. No one has ever died because of their beliefs or anything.
How deep and profound.
You haven't said anything to refute, you've just stamped your feet and used hyperbole as if removing what I'e said to extremes somehow refutes it. I actually do know how to do this, you apparently need some practice.I don't give a flying fuck what you do or don't believe. You're too incompetent to refute anything I've said.
Can you show the stats on entry to prison + religion vs conversion while incarcerated? Or are you just grasping at straws? Did you know that when the US prison system identifies an inmate's religion, it's the inmate who declares what he is? If he declares, he's one. And why exactly do you believe parolees have a better chance if they are Christian?False. Being Christian when they enter and becoming Christians are once again two different things. You're also ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that a majority of them claim to be Christian in hopes of getting lighter sentences or parole.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see that. I'm not shocked you don't.
I tell ya what, there's a new religion. It's called Whatism. It's followers are called Whaters. The rule of being a Whatever is that you are not allowed to post on any forums.
You as a self-proclaimed follower of Whatism, decide to post on TW everyday without regard to the one rule.
Are you still a Whaters? And is it Whatism's fault that you decided to post on TW?
I'm sorry to everyone else for this idiotic example, but some people are just so stupid, logic doesn't work with them. You have to talk to them as if they're a child.
The New Testament is just a book, it can't tell someone a thousand years [well, actually 700 years] after it was edited together, anything. The religion's leaders on Earth did tell them that though. For 9 different wars. Plus a few odd skirmishes. It doesn't matter what the text says, it matters what the adherents do with it.Oh hey, well feel free where the religion to tell me where the religion itself (New Testament) told them to do that.
Why is there a Pope, Validuz?In fact, if would be so kind, explain to me where the Pope is mentioned in Christianity.
There ya go, o mocking neophyte student of History.The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs, and was further strengthened by religious propaganda, which advocated Just War in order to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Holy Land included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city). Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor and provided any God-fearing man who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in Hell. It was a hotly debated issue throughout the Crusades as what exactly "remission of sin" meant. Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death. However, much controversy surrounds exactly what was promised by the popes of the time. One theory was that one had to die fighting for Jerusalem for the remission to apply, which would hew more closely to what Pope Urban II said in his speeches. This meant that if the crusaders were successful, and retook Jerusalem, the survivors would not be given remission. Another theory was that if one reached Jerusalem, one would be relieved of the sins one had committed before the Crusade. Therefore one could still be sentenced to Hell for sins committed afterwards.