Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why Christians?


Rickety

Recommended Posts

Yes, you somehow keep misundering these words -> I do not wish to discuss it any further..I stand by all I said.. Thanks

Well, that is fine I guess, but you and I are talking about two different things. Maybe I have the point of a discussion forum wrong.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that Christian are being portrayed as blood thirsty war mongers, and I feel that is an incorrect stereotype so I have asked for facts to back this up, as the Holocaust, and both Vlad Tepes and Ivan IV seem to have each exceeded the number of deaths that the crusades are responsible for altogether.

Cheers

I must admit that I am a little confused by your posts. Are you saying that Vlad, Ivan and Hitler killed more people than christians have or that they are examples of bloodthirsty christians? I am just wondering because all 3 were religious.

Vlad was a Christian knight in the Order of the Dragon which was responsible for defending Hungary, and later the Holy Roman Empire, from infidels.

Ivan grew up obsessed with the bible and the idea that god was protecting him at all times.

Hitler had a devoutly catholic mother and affirmed christian beliefs in public speeches and his writings. Though his personal beliefs are still debated from what I've read.

And that is just three examples from history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit that I am a little confused by your posts. Are you saying that Vlad, Ivan and Hitler killed more people than christians have or that they are examples of bloodthirsty christians? I am just wondering because all 3 were religious.

Vlad was a Christian knight in the Order of the Dragon which was responsible for defending Hungary, and later the Holy Roman Empire, from infidels.

Ivan grew up obsessed with the bible and the idea that god was protecting him at all times.

Hitler had a devoutly catholic mother and affirmed christian beliefs in public speeches and his writings. Though his personal beliefs are still debated from what I've read.

And that is just three examples from history.

Vlad did not kill his own countrymen, up to ten thousand at a time for religious reasons. It was to scare the Ottoman empire into submission. A war tactic designed to strike fear into others. HIs problems with the Ottoman empire are likely from the torture he suffered at their hands as a child, and watching them bury his father alive.

Ivan was a madman, his wars were politically motivated.

Hitler had a close relationship with a Mufti, he was as influenced by Islam as he was by Christianity. Again his killing sprees were driven by insanity and political reasons, His goal was to make Germany strong.

None of the killing I have mentioned were in the name of God. They may have been Christian, but they did not kill all these people in the name of God.

In my posts I am trying to say that Vlad and Ivan individually killed more than any individual Christian event. Overall I find it hard to believe that more people have perished at the hands of Christians than any other reason cause or spin. WWII Overshadows the total Christian count by a long shot. The posted links do not in any way support that fact that over all time Christian have spilled the most blood on this planet.

I was told to Google it. I mean for Petes sakes. Surely people recognise I would have taken this option first up, and I still cannot see how the claim is true. All I am constantly asking for is can someone plainly show how this claim is true? I did not make the claim, it is not up to me to defend it, it is quite fine as far as I know to ask the person who made the claim to provide sources for this claim. There are some seriously smart cookies on this forum, and I am not seeing them show me how this statement is correct, so the way I see it, I have every right to ask the person who made the claim to back it up with fact. I cannot. Some hate sites make the claim, but again, they are sorely lacking in fact. The 2 links that were posted do not have figures that back the claim. If this is true, why is it so hard to prove the statement with some figures? That is all I am asking, because if the claim is true, I suspect I have quite some reading up ahead of me and quite some wars to read about.

Settlement seems to be a much bigger killer from what I read. Natives lose every time.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad did not kill his own countrymen, up to ten thousand at a time for religious reasons. It was to scare the Ottoman empire into submission. A war tactic designed to strike fear into others. HIs problems with the Ottoman empire are likely from the torture he suffered at their hands as a child, and watching them bury his father alive.

Ivan was a madman, his wars were politically motivated.

Hitler had a close relationship with a Mufti, he was as influenced by Islam as he was by Christianity. Again his killing sprees were driven by insanity and political reasons, His goal was to make Germany strong.

None of the killing I have mentioned were in the name of God. They may have been Christian, but they did not kill all these people in the name of God.

In my posts I am trying to say that Vlad and Ivan individually killed more than any individual Christian event. Overall I find it hard to believe that more people have perished at the hands of Christians than any other reason cause or spin. WWII Overshadows the total Christian count by a long shot. The posted links do not in any way support that fact that over all time Christian have spilled the most blood on this planet.

I was told to Google it. I mean for Petes sakes. Surely people recognise I would have taken this option first up, and I still cannot see how the claim is true. All I am constantly asking for is can someone plainly show how this claim is true? I did not make the claim, it is not up to me to defend it, it is quite fine as far as I know to ask the person who made the claim to provide sources for this claim. There are some seriously smart cookies on this forum, and I am not seeing them show me how this statement is correct, so the way I see it, I have every right to ask the person who made the claim to back it up with fact. I cannot. Some hate sites make the claim, but again, they are sorely lacking in fact. The 2 links that were posted do not have figures that back the claim. If this is true, why is it so hard to prove the statement with some figures? That is all I am asking, because if the claim is true, I suspect I have quite some reading up ahead of me and quite some wars to read about.

Settlement seems to be a much bigger killer from what I read. Natives lose every time.

I'm not talking about one single event, I never was , I am talking about total of all the individual events.

And my link agrees with my statement . Its objective and cites were he got the numbers from , highest estimates to lowest

Im not disagreeing with your statement about vlad or ivan .

Edited by danydandan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about one single event, I never was , I am talking about total of all the individual events.

And my link agrees with my statement . Its objective and cites were he got the numbers from , highest estimates to lowest

Im not disagreeing with your statement about vlad or ivan .

Indeed, yet I still find that the total killings as depicted by the site you posted do not amount to the death toll of victims in WWII. For one example. If you can clarify and show me something from that page which offers a count higher than WW II I would much appreciate it because I cannot see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad did not kill his own countrymen, up to ten thousand at a time for religious reasons. It was to scare the Ottoman empire into submission. A war tactic designed to strike fear into others. HIs problems with the Ottoman empire are likely from the torture he suffered at their hands as a child, and watching them bury his father alive.

Ivan was a madman, his wars were politically motivated.

Hitler had a close relationship with a Mufti, he was as influenced by Islam as he was by Christianity. Again his killing sprees were driven by insanity and political reasons, His goal was to make Germany strong.

None of the killing I have mentioned were in the name of God. They may have been Christian, but they did not kill all these people in the name of God.

In my posts I am trying to say that Vlad and Ivan individually killed more than any individual Christian event. Overall I find it hard to believe that more people have perished at the hands of Christians than any other reason cause or spin. WWII Overshadows the total Christian count by a long shot. The posted links do not in any way support that fact that over all time Christian have spilled the most blood on this planet.

I was told to Google it. I mean for Petes sakes. Surely people recognise I would have taken this option first up, and I still cannot see how the claim is true. All I am constantly asking for is can someone plainly show how this claim is true? I did not make the claim, it is not up to me to defend it, it is quite fine as far as I know to ask the person who made the claim to provide sources for this claim. There are some seriously smart cookies on this forum, and I am not seeing them show me how this statement is correct, so the way I see it, I have every right to ask the person who made the claim to back it up with fact. I cannot. Some hate sites make the claim, but again, they are sorely lacking in fact. The 2 links that were posted do not have figures that back the claim. If this is true, why is it so hard to prove the statement with some figures? That is all I am asking, because if the claim is true, I suspect I have quite some reading up ahead of me and quite some wars to read about.

Settlement seems to be a much bigger killer from what I read. Natives lose every time.

http://articles.exch...n-killed-by.php

The same article can be found on other sites, but it seem to come from here.

Sourced, as well.

And here is a list of people killed in just the bible.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, yet I still find that the total killings as depicted by the site you posted do not amount to the death toll of victims in WWII. For one example. If you can clarify and show me something from that page which offers a count higher than WW II I would much appreciate it because I cannot see it.

Seems you are right . By my calculations that link estimated that Christians have killed 49.24 million approx and the general estimate for death toll of ww2 is approx 60 to 70

if you consider the difference in population between ,

Ah sure it doesn't matter I am still wrong <_<

Edited by danydandan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://articles.exch...n-killed-by.php

The same article can be found on other sites, but it seem to come from here.

Sourced, as well.

And here is a list of people killed in just the bible.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Sorry I don't take the bible to be a very good historical reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't take the bible to be a very good historical reference.

No one should.

Just goes to character, is all.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://articles.exch...n-killed-by.php

The same article can be found on other sites, but it seem to come from here.

Sourced, as well.

And here is a list of people killed in just the bible.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Thank you for the link, I have been reading it, but it is not straightforward at all is it? It's a long winded stab at anyone who every has been near a Christian, or shown the religion an ounce of support.

I do not have time right now, but later I will tally the number, shame you had to stoop to a hate site, because it has many claims on there that are incorrect, as shown in the comments on the same page as the article. They even call this monster a Christian

Hitler%2Band%2Bthe%2BMufti.jpg

Yet

In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

LINK

And what's this all about?

From your link:

On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [sH204]

What has this to do with Christianity?

That site is calling anyone who ever walked within stones throw of a Church a Christian. As I say, later I will try to tally up the entire site, and I will try to verify the references, which they seem to have awfully wrong. Another instance is the Hundred Years war. That was four wars, and they were not religiously motivated. The Edwardian War (1337–1360 a civil war), The Caroline War (1369–1389 the Black Prince, son of Edward III of England, refused an illegal summons from the French king demanding he come to Paris and Charles responded by declaring war. ), the Lancastrian War (1415–1429 land/power war Britain and france), and the slow decline of Plantagenet fortunes after the appearance of Joan of Arc (1412–1431 ). Also, the Breton War of Succession (house war), the Castilian Civil War (England and France at it yet again), the War of the Two Peters (another house war), and the 1383-1385 Crisis (Civil war) are also considered to be factors of the hundred years war.

And another reference, the cause King Phillip's war stems from the increasing numbers of English colonists and their demand for land. They are saying that is a religious war because some priest made an offhand remark after the battle????? What????

And this:

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Again??????

Yes the Saxons were unwilling to convert, that is not at all why the massacre occurred:

An entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals records that, after Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around twenty nobles in battle with the Saxons, Charlemagne responded by massacring 4,500 rebelling Saxons in what is now Verden. Regarding this massacre, the entry reads:

When he heard this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks that he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death—four thousand and five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out. Widukind was not among them since he had fled to Nordmannia. When he had finished this business, the Lord King returned to Francia.

They did not want to convert, so they too it upon themselves to kill the Christian influence. When they killed some people, the King struck back in a big way. The initial disagreement was the reason for revolt, not the conflict in question, the revolters swung the first punch. This is prevalent in history, particularly during settlements. If the natives killed a visitor for overstepping their boundaries, natives were massacred. It is not all that different for the current war and how it began with the Trade Centres. I suppose they list that somewhere as a Christian killing as well?

It will take some time, again it is a real mess no doubt to confuse the reader and shove the sites opinion in ones face, but I will try to get around to exposing the glaring mistakes and misconceptions used on that hate site to promote the idea that Christian's are bloodthirsty killers. If this site is acceptable, then is information for the site http://www.****************.com/ also acceptable?

For the sake of clarity, could I ask people to use reputable sites? Berkeley and the like? I too can come up with hate sites that say much about nothing, yet even so, look at the tallies on the site, most are thousand and hundreds. Settlement and war have killed hundreds of millions. Even with cheating and calling any killing that a Christian was seen in the vicinity of are still not tallying up. Something from a scholarly source that can be trusted would be just peachy. Or at least something that has basic facts correct would be a big help. I appreciate the effort, but I am a little dismayed that you did not check the article which as we can see is majorly flawed.

If anyone would like to beat me to the tally, please feel free. When I get around to that mammoth task, I am sure comparisons will be interesting to look at.

With the Bible, it's a fictional book. I wont discuss it in any other fashion until you can explain the great flood to me, as it is pretty much impossible And therefore you are now using fictional characters to boost your argument, which do not count at all. I do not wish to push a Christian point of view, I just want to know if the claim is true. It does not seem to be, and every site that makes the claim is convoluted on purpose I would say to make sure that no straight answer can be provided. Can you pull a straight statistic from it? The one I would like to see is the total amount of people who have been killed in the name of God. Why is it so hard to produce that number? Why do I keep getting pages of anti Christian blather instead of a nice neat ledger? If the claim is true, surely someone had to do this to make the determination? Can I see it please? Not pages of anti Christian opinion and blatant mistakes if that is not asking too much.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link, I have been reading it, but it is not straightforward at all is it? It's a long winded stab at anyone who every has been near a Christian, or shown the religion an ounce of support.

I do not have time right now, but later I will tally the number, shame you had to stoop to a hate site, because it has many claims on there that are incorrect, as shown in the comments. They even call this monster a Christian

Hitler%2Band%2Bthe%2BMufti.jpg

Yet

In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

LINK

And what's this all about?

From your link:

On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [sH204]

What has this to do with Christianity?

That site is calling anyone who ever walked within stones throw of a Church a Christian. As I say, later I will try to tally up the entire site, and I will try to verify the references, which they seem to have awfully wrong. Another instance is the Hundred Years war. That was four wars, and they were not religiously motivated. The Edwardian War (1337–1360 a civil war), The Caroline War (1369–1389 the Black Prince, son of Edward III of England, refused an illegal summons from the French king demanding he come to Paris and Charles responded by declaring war. ), the Lancastrian War (1415–1429 land/power war Britain and france), and the slow decline of Plantagenet fortunes after the appearance of Joan of Arc (1412–1431 ). Also, the Breton War of Succession (house war), the Castilian Civil War (England and France at it yet again), the War of the Two Peters (another house war), and the 1383-1385 Crisis (Civil war) are also considered to be factors of the hundred years war.

And another reference, the cause King Phillip's war stems from the increasing numbers of English colonists and their demand for land. They are saying that is a religious war because some priest made an offhand remark after the battle????? What????

And this:

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Again??????

Yes the Saxons were unwilling to convert, that is not at all why the massacre occurred:

An entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals records that, after Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around twenty nobles in battle with the Saxons, Charlemagne responded by massacring 4,500 rebelling Saxons in what is now Verden. Regarding this massacre, the entry reads:

When he heard this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks that he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death—four thousand and five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out. Widukind was not among them since he had fled to Nordmannia. When he had finished this business, the Lord King returned to Francia.

They did not want to convert, so they too it upon themselves to kill the Christian influence. When they killed some people, the King struck back in a big way. The initial disagreement was the reason for revolt, not the conflict in question, the revolters swung the first punch. This is prevalent in history, particularly during settlements. If the natives killed a visitor for overstepping their boundaries, natives were massacred. It is not all that different for the current war and how it began with the Trade Centres. I suppose they list that somewhere as a Christian killing as well?

It will take some time, again it is a real mess no doubt to confuse the reader and shove the sites opinion in ones face, but I will try to get around to exposing the glaring mistakes and misconceptions used on that hate site to promote the idea that Christian's are bloodthirsty killers. If this site is acceptable, then is information for the site http://www.****************.com/ also acceptable?

For the sake of clarity, could I ask people to use reputable sites? Berkeley and the like? I too can come up with hate sites that say much about nothing, yet even so, look at the tallies on the site, most are thousand and hundreds. Settlement and war have killed hundreds of millions. Even with cheating and calling any killing that a Christian was seen in the vicinity of are still not tallying up. Something from a scholarly source that can be trusted would be just peachy. Or at least something that has basic facts correct would be a big help. I appreciate the effort, but I am a little dismayed that you did not check the article which as we can see is majorly flawed.

If anyone would like to beat me to the tally, please feel free. When I get around to that mammoth task, I am sure comparisons will be interesting to look at.

With the Bible, it's a fictional book. I wont discuss it in any other fashion until you can explain the great flood to me, as it is pretty much impossible And therefore you are now using fictional characters to boost your argument, which do not count at all. I do not wish to push a Christian point of view, I just want to know if the claim is true. It does not seem to be, and every site that makes the claim is convoluted on purpose I would say to make sure that no straight answer can be provided. Can you pull a straight statistic from it? The one I would like to see is the total amount of people who have been killed in the name of God. Why is it so hard to produce that number? Why do I keep getting pages of anti Christian blather instead of a nice neat ledger? If the claim is true, surely someone had to do this to make the determination? Can I see it please? Not pages of anti Christian opinion and blatant mistakes if that is not asking too much.

The link I provided was anything but anti-Christian. It just gave the numbers

But also proved me wrong

here is another: http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf

Hitler wrote:

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

Hitler to General Gerhard Engel, 1941 wrote:

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

Edited by danydandan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link I provided was anything but anti-Christian. It just gave the numbers

But also proved me wrong

No mate, no, you did not provide the link this post refers too, Imaginarynumber1 did. Sorry for the confusion. ETA I thought your links were a great deal more impartial than the one I reference above. Just a bit hard to extract all the numbers from.

Seems you are right . By my calculations that link estimated that Christians have killed 49.24 million approx and the general estimate for death toll of ww2 is approx 60 to 70

if you consider the difference in population between ,

Ah sure it doesn't matter I am still wrong <_<

Thank you very much.

I do agree with what you said to Imaginarynumber1

Sorry I don't take the bible to be a very good historical reference.

Yet Imaginarynumber1 did use this as a reference whilst agreeing with you!

What you have said is totally correct. Freshwater organisms have a fossil record that goes back millions of years. If the seas rose, all of them would have died out 2 thousand years ago. The fossil record is pretty much a written record that proves the great flood never happened.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mate, no, you did not provide the link this post refers too, Imaginarynumber1 did. Sorry for the confusion. ETA I thought your links were a great deal more impartial than the one I reference above. Just a bit hard to extract all the numbers from.

Thank you very much.

I do agree with what you said to Imaginarynumber1

Sorry I don't take the bible to be a very good historical reference.

Yet Imaginarynumber1 did use this as a reference whilst agreeing with you!

What you have said is totally correct. Freshwater organisms have a fossil record that goes back millions of years. If the seas rose, all of them would have died out 2 thousand years ago. The fossil record is pretty much a written record that proves the great flood never happened.

Your either wrong or right , if you cant admit being wrong , we as a species would get no where .

You cant have an argument based on bias material .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your either wrong or right , if you cant admit being wrong , we as a species would get no where .

You cant have an argument based on bias material .

Mate, those two lines just made me respect you very, very much. They are the most important lessons in this thread and I think I might have learned something from you as well over all this. I tip my hat to you danydandan. :tu:

I do hope this country gives you the best memories of your life during your stay, and heck, we'd be honored if you wanted to stay on. If you ever make it back to the East Coast, I'll have a cold Beer over here with your name on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then it's okay for a Muslim man to call you and infidel? But not for us to call you a sinner?

Not going to read through 10 pages to see if this was already replied to this way. Don't have that kind of time.

So, here goes...

A Muslim calling a non-Muslim an infidel is actually correct. Because an infidel is "A person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own." Also known as an unbeliever.

A Christian calling a non-Christian a sinner is wrong. It is not accurate. Because a sinner is "A person who transgresses against divine law by committing an immoral act or acts." Therefore, a nonbeliever is not a sinner as they aren't adherents to "Divine Law".

Just because Christians view non-Christians/nonbelievers as sinners, doesn't make them sinners. It would be like saying that ALL Liberals are douchebags.

Also, you need to look beyond the Crusades when it comes to Christianity's bloody past. They had a very bloody history WAY before the Crusades (also, where the heck are you getting 500 years???, the first Crusade started in 1095...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian, yet the Christian right has spent the last 20 years attempting to legislate their morality & beliefs into laws that I would have to abide by, despite our country's history of separation of church & state. Go out on the internet and look at how Christians have influenced foreign aid policy, denying condoms & other birth control methods to the poor, ignoring the high rate of AIDS infection,at a cost to their lives. Take a look at how Christians have attempted to influence Planned Parenthood's funding & policies, again at a personal cost to the poor. The insistence that abortion should be illegal, without exception to rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health. How about the attempts to ban the teaching of evolution in schools? whether one believes in evolution or not, it's an important scientific theory that should be included in the classroom, as opposed to intelligent design, which is a Christian theory with no science behind it, and has no business in public schools. Then there's the opposition to stem cell research based on the idea that it would kill human life, despite the lives it would save. Why did the debate turn on religion rather than science or medicine?

I don't care whether someone is Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, an atheist, or a pagan. I do care when any religion attempts to impose and legislate their beliefs into law, and will always oppose it.

You're taking the fabled "seperation of church and state" out of context.

Also, there are other people besides Christians that oppose using our tax dollars to pay for abortions and Planned Parenthood. I'm not a Christian, but if I were to have a say in it, my tax dollars wouldn't go to either. There are more (and better) ways to get funding than to go the the Gov and demand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay simply put... We believe that abortion is wrong simply because it is taking a human life, which is murder. I don't care how you try to justify it, you are taking a human life, one with a heartbeat and a brain and this is murder. Period!

Second... Try going over to China and expressing your religion, they will kill you! And if they don't, they take you to jail for the simple act of owning a bible. Go to Afghanistan and try to be anything but Muslim and you will die. Simple.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the simple truth is that the pilgrims came over to escape persecution so that they could practice protestant christianity in peace and they founded this country based on those principles, it is truth and you know it. Our nation was founded on Christian beliefs and if you don't like that then you don't have to live here, there are over 200 other countries, take your pick.

And yes the Christian faith is used in politics, because it is a religion of laws that are good and morally right.

Simply put that if you think we're so bad then don't live around us.

Really??? You'll die for not being a Muslim in Afghanistan?? Well, I really hate to be the thousands of people that live there that aren't Muslim. I've been there, have you?

Also, no, the Christians that first settled here that were escaping "persecution" were the Puritans. Also, no, our nation was NOT founded on Christian beliefs. They played a small role, as did other beliefs at that time.

Edited by MstrMsn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link, I have been reading it, but it is not straightforward at all is it? It's a long winded stab at anyone who every has been near a Christian, or shown the religion an ounce of support.

I do not have time right now, but later I will tally the number, shame you had to stoop to a hate site, because it has many claims on there that are incorrect, as shown in the comments on the same page as the article. They even call this monster a Christian

Hitler%2Band%2Bthe%2BMufti.jpg

Yet

In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

LINK

And what's this all about?

From your link:

On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [sH204]

What has this to do with Christianity?

That site is calling anyone who ever walked within stones throw of a Church a Christian. As I say, later I will try to tally up the entire site, and I will try to verify the references, which they seem to have awfully wrong. Another instance is the Hundred Years war. That was four wars, and they were not religiously motivated. The Edwardian War (1337–1360 a civil war), The Caroline War (1369–1389 the Black Prince, son of Edward III of England, refused an illegal summons from the French king demanding he come to Paris and Charles responded by declaring war. ), the Lancastrian War (1415–1429 land/power war Britain and france), and the slow decline of Plantagenet fortunes after the appearance of Joan of Arc (1412–1431 ). Also, the Breton War of Succession (house war), the Castilian Civil War (England and France at it yet again), the War of the Two Peters (another house war), and the 1383-1385 Crisis (Civil war) are also considered to be factors of the hundred years war.

And another reference, the cause King Phillip's war stems from the increasing numbers of English colonists and their demand for land. They are saying that is a religious war because some priest made an offhand remark after the battle????? What????

And this:

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Again??????

Yes the Saxons were unwilling to convert, that is not at all why the massacre occurred:

An entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals records that, after Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around twenty nobles in battle with the Saxons, Charlemagne responded by massacring 4,500 rebelling Saxons in what is now Verden. Regarding this massacre, the entry reads:

When he heard this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks that he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death—four thousand and five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out. Widukind was not among them since he had fled to Nordmannia. When he had finished this business, the Lord King returned to Francia.

They did not want to convert, so they too it upon themselves to kill the Christian influence. When they killed some people, the King struck back in a big way. The initial disagreement was the reason for revolt, not the conflict in question, the revolters swung the first punch. This is prevalent in history, particularly during settlements. If the natives killed a visitor for overstepping their boundaries, natives were massacred. It is not all that different for the current war and how it began with the Trade Centres. I suppose they list that somewhere as a Christian killing as well?

It will take some time, again it is a real mess no doubt to confuse the reader and shove the sites opinion in ones face, but I will try to get around to exposing the glaring mistakes and misconceptions used on that hate site to promote the idea that Christian's are bloodthirsty killers. If this site is acceptable, then is information for the site http://www.****************.com/ also acceptable?

For the sake of clarity, could I ask people to use reputable sites? Berkeley and the like? I too can come up with hate sites that say much about nothing, yet even so, look at the tallies on the site, most are thousand and hundreds. Settlement and war have killed hundreds of millions. Even with cheating and calling any killing that a Christian was seen in the vicinity of are still not tallying up. Something from a scholarly source that can be trusted would be just peachy. Or at least something that has basic facts correct would be a big help. I appreciate the effort, but I am a little dismayed that you did not check the article which as we can see is majorly flawed.

If anyone would like to beat me to the tally, please feel free. When I get around to that mammoth task, I am sure comparisons will be interesting to look at.

With the Bible, it's a fictional book. I wont discuss it in any other fashion until you can explain the great flood to me, as it is pretty much impossible And therefore you are now using fictional characters to boost your argument, which do not count at all. I do not wish to push a Christian point of view, I just want to know if the claim is true. It does not seem to be, and every site that makes the claim is convoluted on purpose I would say to make sure that no straight answer can be provided. Can you pull a straight statistic from it? The one I would like to see is the total amount of people who have been killed in the name of God. Why is it so hard to produce that number? Why do I keep getting pages of anti Christian blather instead of a nice neat ledger? If the claim is true, surely someone had to do this to make the determination? Can I see it please? Not pages of anti Christian opinion and blatant mistakes if that is not asking too much.

I never claimed the veracity of the sites linked, nor did I at any time extol the bible as a historical book.

You simply mentioned that you could find nothing about people killed by christianity by googling it.

I googled it. I post a few results.

That's it.

At no time did I endorse or condone anything on, about, or from the sites I linked, I just provided them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first part is Niki's thoughts, so I will give you his responce: 'if you didn't have the right to marry the person you love, you'd be complaing too. Never-mind having religious hotheads blatantly telling me the marriage we want makes a god I don't even believe in, hate me' Niki's getting grumpy and cursing a lot, so I'll paraphrase- yeah, we have some nice freedoms and rights, but the one we are seeking at this time is being dangled in front of us, denied us because of the religous beliefs of our leaders who don't even hold themselves to the standards they want to hold us to.

The person I quoted said indirectly that stemcell research and and abortion were murder. My comment was supposed to be taken as 'oh, and the crusades weren't?'

I was born here. I inherited no money. I come home every night in pain because of how hard I work and for so little. I don't take, I earn.

Yes. Yes, I have thought about that. I used to be an advocate for civil unions until I realized that they don't give the same rights here. That, and mariage gave up the right to be a religous matter when it became a legal matter.

Here, maybe this will help you... I'm assuming you live in the US the way you comment...

"Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community."

Source

Now, don't get me wrong... I personally don't agree with marriage in general. However, I have no issue if gays want to marry.

So, saying that you want "Equal Rights", well, you actually DO have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're taking the fabled "seperation of church and state" out of context.

Also, there are other people besides Christians that oppose using our tax dollars to pay for abortions and Planned Parenthood. I'm not a Christian, but if I were to have a say in it, my tax dollars wouldn't go to either. There are more (and better) ways to get funding than to go the the Gov and demand it.

Fabled separation of church & state? Amendment 1 of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

We all have a right to practice our religion, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other. There may be other groups who object to abortion and Planned Parenthood, but this thread is about Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed the veracity of the sites linked, nor did I at any time extol the bible as a historical book.

You simply mentioned that you could find nothing about people killed by christianity by googling it.

I googled it. I post a few results.

That's it.

At no time did I endorse or condone anything on, about, or from the sites I linked, I just provided them.

Sorry, it seems I may have worded myself badly. I had meant to say that I could not find any sites that clearly show the claim to be correct. My fault.

I got the impression that you were including the Bible when you said:

And here is a list of people killed in just the bible.

Again, if I got that wrong sorry, but you can now see how I got confused. It does however seem that the claim which is made widely has no basis in fact. It is indeed horrendous that anyone should die in the name of God, or indeed for the name of God, and watching the film "Agora" recently, about the life of Hypatia, showed an episode of what some Christians did behave like at the time, and it illustrated that some actions "in the name of God" were indeed deplorable, but when we look at war atrocities, I think that we can see it is the dark side of man that is to blame, not the cause he places that dark aside to represent. I think it is a bit too easy to blame something like religion, I think that man is influenced, and that greed can make man forget morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fabled separation of church & state? Amendment 1 of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

We all have a right to practice our religion, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other. There may be other groups who object to abortion and Planned Parenthood, but this thread is about Christianity.

Beany, the First Amendment stating "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" means - Congress can not create a State religion. Nothing more, nothing less. THAT is the "wall of separation" that Jefferson was talking about. Not that the government must stay out of religion, not that religion must stay out of the government. You also need to understand that the Founding Fathers were, in fact, men of strong religious beliefs. This is why many of our early laws can be attributed to religious beliefs (also why many feel that our Nation was founded as a Christian nation).

THAT is why I said that you took "separation of Church and State" out of context, which you did.

And yes, this IS a thread about Christianity, but when there are other groups opposing the same things they are, you can't just use Christians as a scapegoat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beany, the First Amendment stating "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" means - Congress can not create a State religion. Nothing more, nothing less. THAT is the "wall of separation" that Jefferson was talking about. Not that the government must stay out of religion, not that religion must stay out of the government. You also need to understand that the Founding Fathers were, in fact, men of strong religious beliefs. This is why many of our early laws can be attributed to religious beliefs (also why many feel that our Nation was founded as a Christian nation).

THAT is why I said that you took "separation of Church and State" out of context, which you did.

And yes, this IS a thread about Christianity, but when there are other groups opposing the same things they are, you can't just use Christians as a scapegoat.

Edited by Beany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intention was not to scapegoat Christians, my intention was to stick to the topic. And while yes, most of the founding fathers were Christians, it was not their intention to establish a Christian state. I disagree with your interpretation of the wall of separation, as I think it's too narrow, but, hey, I'm not looking for agreement, just an exchange of ideas. It's always good to understand how others think, and why they reach the conclusions they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....I can understand if you have a scientific way of thinking and it's hard for you to understand the concept of God and what not.

Well it's not because Christians like to insult the intelligence of non followers/believers in various ways (indsulting others when your 'savior' teaches you to do the opp. Love thy neighbor, JUDGE NOT OTHERS)....so on and so forth and yet, Chritian leaders and more than a few followers, seem to think they are so close to being Christ like that they end up, JUDGING OTHERS and in general..........not following the true teachings of their 'lord'.

As for the understand 'god' part............give me a break. One book still does not prove that any 'god' exists. And simply telling non believers that you have 'faith' and that that is enough well..........it's not enough for others that insist on having concrete evidence/proof.............not just some book telling me what is what.

The only thing Christians can bring to the table to 'proove' what they believe is the bible.

Please bring some real evidence........not a book. TY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.