You still bring up the Holy wars yet defend Muslims in modern times?!

I like the fact that some of you all know what happened during the crusades and yet you were not there. History books do not tel you the truth and both sides were at fault for the crusades. The Mohammedans were very much into conquering Israel so the Roman Catholics couldn't have it for their headquarters. they killed all the men, raped and enslaved women and children, burned and destroyed all churches and synagogues.

The RC retaliation is what we call the "Crusades". So the things that happened and how they progressed into these crusades is now looked upon as a murderous Christians going into foreign lands for the purpose of just destroying for the sake of destroying. It was the murderous Roman Catholic rule out of Rome as it is today all for the purpose of wanting Jerusalem as their capital.

Catholic or Islam they were both equally at fault during the crusades.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thank you for that lesson, I didn't know all of that, and didn't research the Holy crusades because my post is less about the details of the crusades, and more about modern hatred of Christians and using the long-ago crusades as a point. Your post does shed more light, though, and shows how some of the population, self included are ignorant to the details of said events.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You do realize Christians have continued the violence since the Crusades, though, right? Catholics & Protestants don't exactly have a cushy history. Neither do the Christian militias in Africa. There was a massacre in Lebanon in the 80's, during it's war period. It was considered, and still is considered, a genocide perpetrated by Christians. I think that was the Sabra-Shatilla Massacre.

Save me the "We don't hurt anyone!" spiel. It doesn't float.

a reply to: Nyiah

Demographics do not explain violence. Humans do... Yes Christians have bad apples, so do all religions, there are bad atheists, bad deists, bad agnostic people.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Nyiah

Demographics do not explain violence. Humans do... Yes Christians have bad apples, so do all religions, there are bad atheists, bad deists, bad agnostic people.

Exactly. Problem is, many people are apt to point a finger & declare one demographic worse than them, despite their own histories. If you're (the collective you) not willing to look at your own track record, all you're doing is lying to yourselves.

a reply to: Nyiah

Track record is important on a historical level, we can learn, we can attribute different events to different groups and reasons.. But right now if I were intelligence in Europe, my main focus would be Muslims. To say otherwise.. I guess I need to learn more to make further assessments.

a reply to: Abysha


Ummm...actually...you could pick up a red letter edition of the Bible...tear out all the red...and throw the rest away...
You see...even though Christianity still uses "The Old Testament"...What makes a Christian..."Christian"...is "The New Testament"............All those red lettered words are what is purported to be what Jesus the "Christ"...actually taught or stated...

Now then...if you actually read those red words...no doubt you would be in agreement with most of them...

Try it...no one will chop off your head for tearing up the Bible...and you might just gain an understanding about what Christianity is really all about...

Christianity is New Testament centric...and really has nothing much to do with any of that "Old testament"..."Go ye therefore and smite the Canaanites"...schtick...that is more a part of Jewish tradition...
Yep...there are prophecies that describe the coming of Christ in the Old Testament...but that's about it...in a simplistic fashion of course...

I would say by your posting history...that you have no real issue with "Christianity"...but rather...with Catholicism...and with christian pretenders...with those who are taking on the name but not practicing much of what Christ taught...

Christ had very liberal ideals...he taught for us to love one another...to do no harm...to be inclusive...to be caretakers...to honor the small and the weak...to be charitable with the things we have while others have not...

Sounds very pragmatic if you ask me...Sounds like what we need more of in this world...if your honest with yourself...

So stop with the equating what a sect of Catholicism did centuries ago...to what Christians are in this century...human...with all the same foibles that you have...Let me be very clear...Catholicism is...NOT...Christianity...but rather just a small sect that was swallowed by greed and politics...

On the same note stop with the equivocation of Islam and Christianity...There's absolutely no comparison between the two...
Again...an honest...open minded person might not have any disagreement with what I just stated...

Be well my friend






YouSir

originally posted by: Swills
Aren't most, if not all wars, started because of religion?

Source?

History shows us without a shadow of a doubt, that religion was invariably used as a façade to hide the true purpose of all wars of aggression. That is, the consolidation of power through fear and the acquisition of wealth in all its manifestations.

www.inthenameofallah.org...

One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. This evil cabal is few in numbers but, like a deadly octopus, its tentacles reach out to grip and strangle untold multitudes of innocent victims. The initiates of every secret society and internationalist organization, from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Jesuits to the Bilderbergers and the Order of Skull & Bones, obey the dictates of this sinister group and tremble when standing before its leaders.

The cabalist group I refer to is the Synagogue of Satan, an ancient, yet modern, elite so politically powerful and so fabulously wealthy that even past history has been twisted, reshaped, and revised to meet its preferred version of humanity's gloomy, totalitarian future.

Religious in nature, the Synagogue of Satan is, at its essence, a grotesque, satanic cult. It's high council is composed of High Priests of Lucifer; these are men who literally worship death while practicing sexual magick and occult rituals of the blackest nature. LINK

Atheists and secular humanists consistently make the claim that religion is the #1 cause of violence and war throughout the history of mankind. One of hatetheism's key cheerleaders, Sam Harris, says in his book The End of Faith that faith and religion are “the most prolific source of violence in our history.”

While there’s no denying that campaigns such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years’ War foundationally rested on religious ideology, it is simply incorrect to assert that religion has been the primary cause of war. Moreover, although there’s also no disagreement that radical Islam was the spirit behind 9/11, it is a fallacy to say that all faiths contribute equally where religiously-motivated violence and warfare are concerned.

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life. Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris’ argument, doesn’t it?

The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War

a reply to: YouSir

That isn't really counter to anything I said. In fact, you sort of reinforced it. The brand of Christianity you presented to me is the result of centuries of growth and development. 600 years ago, they would have reminded you of ISIS. And not just the Catholics. Tortures, executions, dogmatic rules with cruel punishments, and a divine motivation for dominating non-Christians. But now look at you guys. With a few exceptions, you have learned to practice your religion in a peaceful way. In your example, by disregarding the war doctrine.

In the future, Islam will look the same as Christianity does today (most of Islam already is). They will take the barbaric aspects to their scripture and say "Oh, that wasn't meant for us and we don't follow it, we only follow the peaceful parts now and throw out the rest" just like Christians do with the bible. And that's a good thing. It just hasn't happened yet.

I find it funny. Many people will point to the Catholics about the crusades and many will point to any given religion and claim Christianity is the reason for the blood shed. Hell, I even see many saying religion in general. They say "It's always religion people murder and goto war, for one god or another".

However... What I don't see are those that bring up a very valid point that sometimes wars have NOTHING to do with religion or a god.

Can anyone make show valid examples where countries or cultures didn't even invoke or involve religion? I can name a few... Sadly, religion in general is the scapegoat. Matter of fact, even the "religion related" wars often had figureheads that didn't even follow the words they were preaching, so how can anyone say it's religion based?

What words were popes and kings following when they went to war against another? It was reason.. Not religion!

a reply to: StallionDuck

History and modern times aren't so different. Many wars are waged for resources, land, money, to control, and have power over a new area.. Now days it's more oil and politics, but the reasons still seem to be the same. I hardly count the current war as a religious one, we've been over for over a decade for political reasons
.... Ie, they have oil and our government needs a reason to keep taxes high

originally posted by: YouSir
Christianity is New Testament centric...and really has nothing much to do with any of that "Old testament"..."Go ye therefore and smite the Canaanites"...schtick...that is more a part of Jewish tradition...

Our Lord Jesus Christ referred to the OT at least 78 different times that we KNOW of.

Concerning Jewish tradition, the Bible is not a Jewish book, nor is Judaism the OT religion that many believe it to be.

In fact, Judaism is the antithesis of Christianity.

Hoffman then takes ‘modern’ Christians to task for furthering the myth of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition: “The Church Fathers knew of no ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition since Judaism as we know it today did not exist before Christ. Before Christ, there was only the faith of the Israelites, until by a gradual process, the pure faith of the Israelites was subverted by corrupt teachings. These corrupt teachings were transmitted orally by the Pharisees. Christ condemned these teachings when calling them the ‘traditions of the elders.’”

Review: "Judaism Discovered"

Judaism is not the Old Testament religion that many believe. It's a mishmash of various pagan superstitions that go back to Babylonian times. It is a religion of racial self-worship.

A Review of the book "Judaism Discovered"

The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Testament as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Jesus' day, the Babylonian Talmud was known as the Tradition of the Elders.

This was the religion of the Jews. As the learned Rabbi Stephen F. Wise said, Judaism was distinguished from Hebrewism, the real religion of the Old Testament. Certainly Christianity took nothing from any Jewish religion for we have never taken any part of Christianity from the Talmud. Well then, can it be said we got our Bible or our religion of Christianity from men of the Jewish race? No, it cannot.

The Bible is not a Jewish Book

When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean." However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It is a misrepresentation.

There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the Word. That was the correct and only meaning of the word in the 18th century . . . (Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, p. 15-21). The meaning of the word "Jew" in our Bible is not the same as the colloquial idiom.

Jesus Christ was not a Jew. Had Jesus been a Judean it is very likely He would have been an Edomite, not a kinsman to Adam, and thereby disqualified from being the Holy One of Israel, the last Adam, who was born to redeem the first (Leviticus 25; Ruth). Were Jesus a so-called Jew He would not have been Messiah whom the Lord prophesied would dwell in Galilee of the Gentiles (Isaiah 9:1-7). Jesus did not live in Judea and dared not walk in Jewry (i.e. Judea), "for fear of the Jews" who sought to kill Him.

History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews

originally posted by: Nichiren
Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same. Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

originally posted by: pthena
The original Jews were the people from the Babylonian Captivity who didn't want to return to Judea, because they enjoyed the benefits of Babylonian and Persian culture. They aren't Israelites or Judeans. They are Babylonians. There is no mention of Jews until Esther. They didn't exist until Esther.

originally posted by: sweftl337
The word “Jew” never existed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Jesus spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic. First of all, if we go back some 2000 years, there were no Jews. There was a land known as “Judea” and in that land lived many different peoples. The people of Moses were the Hebrew Israelites – there was no Jew.

“Judaism as we know it today did not exist before Christ. Before Christ, there was only the faith of the Israelites, until by a gradual process, the pure faith of the Israelites was subverted by corrupt teachings. These corrupt teachings were transmitted orally by the Pharisees. Christ condemned these teachings when calling them the ‘traditions of the elders.’”

Judaism Discovered

a reply to: Abysha


Ummm...hello again Abysha...That was certainly an equitable way to dance around the core of what I stated...you should be in politics...

Thankfully all those long ago partakers in wars...that were NOT following Christ and therefore were not Christian...never had access to weapons of mass destruction...Hopefully as well...Islam steps out from the cave into the 21st century...tears out the sutra's that inflame radicalization...ceases to infiltrate annex and annihilate other cultures...and becomes the "religion of peace"...it claims to be...

Hopefully this happens before the rest of the world has it's belly full and decides to first strike them deeper into that proverbial cave...

Also the "brand of Christianity" I was referring to is as old as Christ...it's nothing new on the scene...
The perversion of Christianity...started right from the first as well...all in the name of political expedience

I certainly hope your right...and that Islam will self police itself into that "religion of peace"...for their sake...
I'm not seeing too much of that frankly...but who knows...one can always dream...

Be well my friend


YouSir

a reply to: Murgatroid


Ummm...hello Murgatroid...I really don't care how many times Christ referred to "The Old Testament"...What I care about is that he turned the "smite the Canaanites" tradition on it's head and urged us to "turn the other cheek"...to "love one another"...to "love thy neighbor as thyself"...etc...He turned tradition 180 degrees and...That's what matters...

None of the rest of that matters...As I stated to Abysha...if an individual tears out all of the teachings of Christ and throws away the rest..follows Christ...then they are Christian...even if they never heard of or read the"The Old Testament"...

Be well my friend






YouSir

There's a group on Earth today that ATS moderators will NOT allow you to speak out against.

It is the most hateful, intolerant, mysogonistic, homophobic, anti semetic, racist group that has EVER existed.

No it's not the KKK or Nazis. It's faaaar worse than those two could ever have been.

Thanks ATS moderators, way to deny ignorance!

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Mostly I think the moderators are pretty good at their job - They allow most topics to go ahead.

I've seen them close threads when threads descend into chaos, and end up being personal attacks, and just outright non-productive, but I've seen anti threads against most people, ideas, etc. You just have to be smart about it.

"Christians attempt to force their ways into legislation, this is illegal and I highly disagree with them as a whole"

is not the same as

" F*!@ christians, I hate them so much. " - Even if their opinion COULD be phrased like this, as long as you don't, your thread will likely be able to be discussed as long as it doesn't invite too much hatred/fighting. This applies towards group. I've seen anti-atheist, anti-christian, anti-conservative/republican, anti-democrat/liberal, anti-muslim, etc.. Things are allowed to be discussed here pretty openly from what I've seen.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Not what I've experienced.

Today anyway.

Put up threads anti islam without any hate whatsoever, I just outlined the hypocrisy of liberal support for such a hateful, intolerant ideology.

Removed in seconds.

a reply to: deadlyhope

OP...that is because they aren't against the act, just who is doing it. They LOVE the crusades...just not when it is Christians. They LOVE blacks rioting and call it "letting off steam". They love a gay person throwing it in someone's face in public...but not if you're a Republican. A democrat lies..."they all lie", someone on the left has a history of bombing/terrorism..."that was the past", etc. It is "equality and fairness for all", unless I don't like your group.

ATS is full of left-wing hypocrites. And I'm sure some right ones also...but definitely left ones.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

I saw that thread. Maybe you didn't portray your position as you intended (to me, it looked like it was motivated by; and intended to encourage: hatred).

I can give you a couple tips. Saying you don't want to hear an apposing viewpoint is not good for a productive conversation. Give specific examples. I know for a fact not every Muslim is worse than than a Nazi or Clansmen; don't overgeneralize. If you can give a specific example of what you're referring to, and ask why it's ignored or tolerated by mainstream liberalism (instead of saying ALL liberals support it with emphasis from caps), you may have a shot. Show us a radical who's worse than a Nazi, show us a liberal who criticizes that behavior in general, but defends it coming from a Muslim. Good luck!

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I've stopped believing any specific attributes apply to left wing, or right wing people. There's a lot of good citizens on both sides, and they want a better america in different ways. There's a whole lot of bad people on both sides when it comes to politicians, though.

Right now I like anyone who is anti banksters, and think corporations are too far up, and that trickle down is bull snip.

Bernie sanders seems to hold these stances, but being a politician... Who knows who he really is inside. I think a popular quote on here states that politicians are not human, but 99 percent fecal matter, 1 part unicorn farts...