"Wait! Bush Was RIGHT?"

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:41 am

Ausoi wrote:Hate to break it to you religion haters but this democracy was founded on religious views.
-snip-

Ehh - this democracy is most certainly not.

Curry · Post by **Curry** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:28 am

Aramant wrote:Wait, are you saying all Middle Eastern people are hairy?

Have you ever seen anyone who isn't?

Ausoi wrote:Hate to break it to you religion haters but this democracy was founded on religious views.

Wrong.

TAKR86 · Post by **TAKR86** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:30 am

"Hate to break it to you religion haters but this democracy was founded on religious views."

That's not really true though. Read "The Faith of the Founding Fathers" by David L. Holmes for a more historically accurate and nuanced perspective.

Also, on the discussion on fanatics; it's not really fair to lump the entire pakistani population in to one group: Fanatics. Just because some pakistani are siding with the taleban and al-qaeda (primarily in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan), it doesn't follow that they're all fanatics...
Generalizing statements like those are always wrong and lead to a mistaken perception of the world and it's diverse population.

"History does not kill. Religion does not rape women, the purity of blood does not destroy buildings and institutions do not fail. Only individuals do those things." (Giandomenico Picco).

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:43 am

'This' democracy?

Wait, you mean Holland right? No, Thailand. Or Ghana? *GASP* could you possibly mean American? I didn't see that one coming! Not on the Internet, no way.

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:33 am

If i sounded like an islam-hater, know that it wasn't my intention at all. Its just that 'western' religions tonned down their thirst for power and blood.. a bit, and i don't think a single western country would start a war "in god's name" these days.. But let's not forget how christianity affected europe just a few hundred years ago. SA & co gov's are more or less at this "stage" so to speak.

Now imagine : Europe and USA influenced by religion just as much as M-East, SA and others are by islam. Or influenced by religion just as we were not that long ago..

Free nukes for everyone!

disciples of Michel de Nostredame would love it

TAKR86 · Post by **TAKR86** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:20 pm

Don't worry I didn't take you as an "islam-hater".

Btw I seem to recall Bush calling for a crusade (imo a word that reeks of religion).

The question is whether SA or other "islamic" countries would actually declare war because of religion or whether that would actually be their rethorical frame for a "regular" power-/landgrap?

A religious discourse fits well with the almost universal trend of never declaring an unjust war and always a defensive war (of course this is a way of legitimizing aggressive actions and not me saying that all wars are just).
An "islamic" country might use religion in that regard by saying it's a war in defense of a holy place, God in general etc. thus a just war.

USA. & co. does and will continue to declare war after the same prinicple with "us" it's in defense of human rights, democracy and freedom etc. thus a just war.

It all comes down to what legitimize aggressive actions in any given place and at any given time (which most likely reflects culture and religious beliefs).

Nukes for everyone, hehe, maybe we would get to experience the fallout situations in the real world.

Ausoi · Post by **Ausoi** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:06 pm

I can understand why some of you are confused, I should have been more specific, I was speaking of the U.S.

Hey, what I'm trying to get at is that (1) the U.S. was religion based, you cannot dispute that, I don't care what book tries to say it's not, if you go to the source, a majority of the founders were christian and they based the government on that principle...

Now do you have to be religious to live here? Hell no, but please don't tell me it wasn't largely founded on religious ideas.

In the case of Islam, it is religion that leads them to be violent because it's part of their theology - if they can't persuade you to convert to their religion then they have to kill you.

Same crap has happened with christianity in the past...I'm not defending it, but it's not a part of the theology of REAL christians.

The whole middle-east controversy is based in religion...so it's not gonna end any time soon.

...I'm a history nerd so instead of simply stating that I'm wrong, you might want to provide examples of why I am.

And FYI that book you put as an example, ''the faith of the founding fathers'' is a perfect example of how wrong you are. The author has a point that he wants to make, and does so by excluding tons of relevant information to the contrary. Taking tid bits of information and providing no counter example to an opinion is a classic form of a terribad argument.

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:32 pm

Ausoi wrote: In the case if Islam, it is religion that leads them to be violent because it's part of their theology - if they can't persuade you to convert to their religion then they have to kill you.

Same crap has happened with christianity in the past...I'm not defending it, but it's not a part of the theology of REAL christians.

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky. Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. Deut 17:2-7 "

One example of many from the Bible. I'd say it depends on how brainwashed someone is. If you look deep enough every book tells you to go on a killing spree. Except maybe the phone book..

Those who lack the braincells to think for themselves, are bold and zealous enough, and have the opportunity to do so, will eventualy blow themselves up in some public place in the name of one god or another.

endboss · Post by **endboss** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:02 pm

Ausoi wrote:Uh, I'm not sure what you are questioning?

I'm questioning your assertion that the Jews killed Jesus.

Ausoi wrote:Hey, what I'm trying to get at is that (1) the U.S. was religion based, you cannot dispute that, I don't care what book tries to say it's not, if you go to the source, a majority of the founders were christian and they based the government on that principle...

Now do you have to be religious to live here? Hell no, but please don't tell me it wasn't largely founded on religious ideas.

No. What little religion they held to was more in line with deism. They revered Locke more than Jesus. You can dispute that the U.S. was founded on religious ideals. Because it wasn't. It was founded on ideals of economic liberalism, freedom of speech, and democratic government. You sound like one of those neocon wackos we have over here in the states who are trying to re-write history. You're not part of the Texas school board, are you? Attend any Tea Party conventions lately?

In the case if Islam, it is religion that leads them to be violent because it's part of their theology - if they can't persuade you to convert to their religion then they have to kill you.

LOL

Same crap has happened with christianity in the past...I'm not defending it, but it's not a part of the theology of REAL christians.

LOL

The whole middle-east controversy is based in religion...so it's not gonna end any time soon.

Yea, nothing at all to due with some precious resource in the region, or centuries old grudges and holistic cultural differences.

LOL

...I'm a history nerd so instead of simply stating that I'm wrong, you might want to provide examples of why I am.

This is the first time I've seen a "history nerd" show up, say a bunch of random things, then tell everyone else to prove them wrong.

TAKR86 · Post by **TAKR86** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:08 pm

To Ausoi

The thing about aking people to provide evidence/examples to support their statements is fine, as long as you yourself will live up to the standard you're setting for me

Ignoring a serious historian's book with allusions to the "source" and stating that you're a "history nerd" is not providing examples to support your own claim.

David Holmes' book "The Faith of the Founding Fathers" (which I provided as an example of a more pluralistic approach to the question of USA's religous roots). Based on the wide source material available (and not a narrow selection of it as you seem to believe) he shows how fx. Benjamin Franklin moved from Calvinism to deism questioning the divinity of Jesus (p. 53-57).

George Washington seems more tricky, but judging by church attendance (perhaps problematic category), which we can read about in his diary (which I would hope you would agree with me is as reliable a source as we can get), he wasn't the most religious fellow of the time

Also his speeches and letters etc. (also a very good source) has a very telling deistic vocabulary when dealing with the subject of religion (p 65).

Thomas Jefferson (my personal favourite) rejected Jesus divinity "ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other" (p 83). He generally admired Jesus as a perfect embodiment of morality, but his edited version of the new testament, "Syllabus", cuts out all prophecies and miracles believing them to be superstitions and focused instead on it's ethical teachings (typical of the deist approach to christianity. The ethics are great, the rest is simply superstitions).

There are of course examples of orthodox Christians among the Founding Fathers fx. Samuel Adams and John Jay. The more nuanced approach towards this subject, which I find convincing, is that the Founding Fathers were a diverse group: Some Christians and some deists who were critical towards the authority and authenticity of the bible, the divinity of Jesus and against all forms of organized religion. While the colonization of America was done by dissenting christian sects from europe fleeing religous prosecution, the establisment of the american state after/under the revolution was founded on the principle of a state divorced from religious adherence and by a diverse group of people some christian, some deist and some not religous. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.

To the rest I agree with Stworca and Endboss.
And while I dont have a Quran, I'm fairly certain that if you give me a day, I can find some suras that will say that murder and violence are sins.

Your allusions to "REAL christians" is a testament to your narrowmindedness. What qualifies you to make such a statement and who are the real Christians anyway? Maybe people from your own particular sect or denomination? LOL!!!

Lastly what constitutes a history nerd? Have you any form of academical education in history that would give you a qualified method of source criticism and overview over the general academical historical research made on the subject (a necessity to not remake previous mistakes when dealing with the source material)?

I have never wanted to play this card (as I don't think it's fair or testament to me being right), but since you played the history nerd card so arrogantly, I will simply say: I believe I am fairly well qualified to dispute your view on the subjects mentioned by you, since I have BA degree in history and religion and in 1 year a MA degree in the same.

So while it's always nice with a little history discussion, I will insist that if you claim qualification by being a "history nerd", at least have the common courtesy to help make a fair, civil and nuanced discussion, instead of your very antagonizing and unacademical approach to those who disagree with you.

Ausoi · Post by **Ausoi** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:42 pm

:laugh:

I'm sorry guys, but really what is the point...I had a huge post, but I decided to screw it.

You aren't going to influence me and I'm not going to influence you,
I'm sorry if I am an ass, but that book doesn't consider both sides, that's why I got upset.

But really, whatever.

One thing I would like to say. Don't give me the close minded crap card, I believe in absolutes, and you should also. One of us is right the other is wrong, don't cater to my ideas, and I won't cater to yours.

Oh yeah, at Endboss...I'm curious as to who really killed Jesus if not the Jews?

endboss · Post by **endboss** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:00 pm

Ausoi wrote:You aren't going to influence me and I'm not going to influence you

So we can't have a discussion about our differences? Conversations don't have to be competitions. I know that's the norm around the 'net, but GB is different.

I'm sorry if I am an ass, but that book doesn't consider both sides, that's why I got upset.

+

One thing I would like to say. Don't give me the close minded crap card, I believe in absolutes, and you should also. One of us is right the other is wrong, don't cater to my ideas, and I won't cater to yours.

= Does Not Compute

Anyways, the world isn't black and white. There is no absolutes. A defining feature of close mindedness is, in fact, is believing in absolutes. Well... facts are absolute, but there cannot be two sides to a fact. So, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. I cannot tell if you are being sincere or if you are just trolling. I hope for the latter.

Oh yeah, at Endboss...I'm curious as to who really killed Jesus if not the Jews?

Pontius Pilate, a corrupt prefect and rabid anti-Semite. That is if Jesus, as a singular man and not a collection of teachings by various apocalyptic prophets from the time collected and reconstructed by Paul of Tarsus, actually existed.:mischief:

Ausoi · Post by **Ausoi** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:03 pm

All I see is a difference of opinion...

And

if you can't except my belief in absolutes, how dare you place my ideas on the black and white field, when, according to you there is no black and white.:laugh:

You see it's a flawed idea.

P.S. if Jesus didn't exist then history is really wacko, because he is the most historically recorded person up to that point.

Garriath · Post by **Garriath** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:57 pm

Just thought I'd hop in to this discussion and say...

Ausoi wrote:P.S. if Jesus didn't exist then history is really wacko, because he is the most historically recorded person up to that point.

[citation needed]

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:46 am

Ausoi wrote:-snip-
P.S. if Jesus didn't exist then history is really wacko, because he is the most historically recorded person up to that point.

And once history showed the world to be flat.

And whether or not Jesus existed historically is no indication of whether or not he was the son of the Christian God.

Ausoi · Post by **Ausoi** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:51 am

Xandax wrote:

And whether or not Jesus existed historically is no indication of whether or not he was the son of the Christian God.

I don't believe that was the question he was referring to.

And we (I) somehow managed to troll this subject to something totally different.

Darth Gavinius · Post by **Darth Gavinius** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:28 am

Since we've really managed to go off topic... I just wanted to draw attention to a long-winded tongue-in-cheek article from Cracked.com. In light of where the debate is going - you could all do with a time-out to, lighten up a bit...

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com

Just keep in mind the old expression "those that believe they know everything....

..... are really pissing off Socrates!"

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:46 am

Xandax wrote: And whether or not Jesus existed historically is no indication of whether or not he was the son of the Christian God.

Especially considering how few historians and writers living during his 'work' in the area where he did all the miracles mentioned him at all. Four out of a few dozen. Only one writing more than a single sentence

But i went as offtopic as it gets here.

I just want to add that i agree with
"And while I dont have a Quran, I'm fairly certain that if you give me a day, I can find some suras that will say that murder and violence are sins."

Only (expletive deleted x 12) kill in the name of faith. On the other hand, one can be only as good or as bad as his world allows him to be. Think about it

endboss · Post by **endboss** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:12 pm

Ausoi wrote:All I see is a difference of opinion...

And if you can't except my belief in absolutes, how dare you place my ideas on the black and white field, when, according to you there is no black and white.:laugh:

You see it's a flawed idea.

What?

There's facts, which are facts, then there's everything else, in shades of gray. I mean, some things could be seen in absolutes, but there's always other factors affecting those situations.

P.S. if Jesus didn't exist then history is really wacko, because he is the most historically recorded person up to that point.

What?

I'd like to see that [citation] too.

Curry · Post by **Curry** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:53 pm

TAKR86 wrote: And while I dont have a Quran, I'm fairly certain that if you give me a day, I can find some suras that will say that murder and violence are sins.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w"]See this video.[/url]