Do you know what Islam means?

Dear Angle fire:

I don’t see how religion can be compared to capitalism or communism or Allah knows what. And I can not stress this point enough
•Do not, DO NOT, judge a culture or a religion because of some ignorant people.

"Rose are Red, Vilots are Blue, I'm going to burn your Rose and Vilotes that's what I'm gona do"

Some ignorant people? In the 1500s all of Christendom (except perhaps Ragusa, Venice and Genoa) were under despotic tyranical kings who derived their legitimacy from the Church. This is not a minority, this is every single government and every single Church of Christendom.

The barbaric crusades against Islam were done not by minorities but by all the big Kingdom of Europe, Germany, France and England.

There are simply times when people believe too hard. And it doesn't matter if you believe too hard in Islam, Christianity, Communism or Nationalism, believing too hard in anything is dangerous.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Abolition of slavery?
The Church justified slavery for centuries and not until recently actually apologized for it!

Same goes for the Church's role in doing absolutely nothing during World War II because Hitler managed to woo the southern part of Germany that was highly Catholic to accept what he was doing, the Church was getting gratuities from him AND Mussollini because both facist leaders realized the importance of manipulating it since it had such a great stronghold on both countries. Great things my ass.

Some Turks managed to screw up the Ottoman Empire and because of it, Islam got a bad name and people began to think it was an intolerable faith even though for years it promoted tolerance and unity of all that lived under its authority.

Islam doesn't have a Church that dictates to you what is God and what is not, when you give some guy that sort of power you're asking for things to go awry. Even at the microcosmic level, giving a priest the power to deem you relief from your sins through confessions leads to nasty things - all this corruption of them being pedophiles and whatnot, and they USE their own faith to justify it or pretend like it's not happening.

Angel's right, anything of too much is dangerous, especially when the religion's got some sort of system where anyone can rise to power and claim to be the most learned of it. Indulgences? What the hell was that? Manipulation of the people's because the Church wasn't making enough money, is that really the will of God?

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

"God condones slavery in the Old Testament,"

Wrong - Levitical Law prohibits the enslavement of the Israelite. And in the NT Paul writes for the freeing of a slave. Slavery was an intrinsic part of the ancient worlds economic system - it was the ideas set forth in Scripture the led to its abolishment and the justifications for its abolishment.

"Christianity has been the NUMBER ONE justification for treating women as minors throughout the ages. It was always church doctrine that women are inferior to men, like children, and have a duty towards men."

What an utterly foolish statement. You are apparently quite ignorant about the historical role of women in almost all ancient societies. Christianity broke numerous taboos and set forth the idea that women are as of the same intrinsic value to God as are men. You desperately need to study the history of the early Christian Church - did you even know that women were ministers? The importance of women to Christ and his respect and treatment of his female followers sets an unprecedented example that eventually led Christian societies to treat women better than almost any other society.

Your writing, while interesting, does not address at all my original point. I doubt you believe Christianity had anything to do with the fall of Rome and if you want a good example of the impact that Christianity played during the times of the rise of the Dark Ages then I suggest a study of Ireland and the role Christianity played in transforming a barbarian uneducated society into the most enlightened people on the planet in their day - who abolished slavery, largely ended warfare, and saved most of western civilizations great works of literature. Furthermore, it was Irish missionaries that began the process of entering education and Christianity back into numerous European cities. Even our modern universities comes from these Irish Christians.

"There are simply times when people believe too hard. And it doesn't matter if you believe too hard in Islam, Christianity, Communism or Nationalism, believing too hard in anything is dangerous."

What? You are too smart to be saying something that stupid. Believed too hard? These are people who had never read the Bible and few had any knowledge of Scripture whatsoever. Most Priests and monks were often ignorant about what the Bible taught. The Church of Rome had become a ruling government and its job was to maintain its authority - it could care less what God's Word said and only used religion to indoctrinate people into unquestioned obedience. The problem wasn't that people believed to hard - the problem was that people had nothing Biblical to believe in - it was no coincidence that the downfall of the Roman Church's domination came after the Bible was translated into local languages and mass printed by the new printing press.

The ox and mule were considered higher up in priority than women at one point in your glorious Christian society and its history, Xris. Keep it in mind.

She meant to say believing too hard in the sense of believing so hard that you are in fact being ignorant and ridiculous. That wasn't meant to be a literal statement, that was a social commentary on those who are so radical about their beliefs that they themselves have no idea what they're believing in.

Don't be mean and say things like statements are ridiculous or foolish, it's obvious you're trying to get a reaction from the person you are "debating" with instead of just commenting on their argument. If someone says to me, "Man that's the most stupid thing I've heard on the subject", you think we'll be having a civil discussion? No, it's obvious they have no respect that as another being I have my own opinions I am entitled to.

Note: Islam bettered Europe more than Christianity at one point, the Moorish influence on southern Spain was so great that it transformed societies from the gutters into new-age cities with defined sewage, lighting and governing plans. That is, while the rest of Europe was basking in the Dark Ages still throwing trash into rivers and whatnot. Just because a religion was prominent doesn't mean it was the most efficient in terms of progress. Islamic scholars introduced a new wave of progress in medicine and mathematics, in fact Algebra is derived from an Arab scholar who's name was Al-Jabr.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

"Wrong - Levitical Law prohibits the enslavement of the Israelite."
And hence, allows the enslavement of everyone else.

"You desperately need to study the history of the early Christian Church"
I'll admit I don't know much of the history of the Church until the fall of Rome. That's about 400 years of history I don't know too well. You are ignoring the other 1500 years in which the Church constantly was the justification for treating women as second class citizens, the 1500 years in which numerous crusades of extermination against pagans, muslims and jews took place or the 1500 years in which the Church everyday justified the barbaric dictatorships of Kings.

Your vision of Christianity is very different from how it was practised for most of its history.

"Your writing, while interesting, does not address at all my original point."
Your point was that Christianity made the West superior to the rest of the world. My point was, um, no if Christ had been in Australia and converted all the Aborigines they still would have been exterminated/conquered by Eurasians for the reasons I have stated.

" I doubt you believe Christianity had anything to do with the fall of Rome"
My you are so observant! Did you really notice that I said 'Christianity coincided with the Fall of Rome, but I don't think it was a real factor.'? Admirable of you.

"and if you want a good example of the impact that Christianity played during the times of the rise of the Dark Ages then I suggest a study of Ireland"
See my previous paragraph about the evils Christianity has caused. Which is not to say Christianity is per se bad. Christianity is only bad when you believe so hard in it that it becomes intolerant and justification to destroy freedom (which is what happened for most of its history).

"The problem wasn't that people believed to hard -"
Being absolutely certain in anything is a dangerous thing. It is a sign of fanaticism, absolutism and a dangerous belief in the infallibility of one's judgement.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

That was insightful, babydoll.

Very well said.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

"And hence, allows the enslavement of everyone else."

Actually not - you should look into it.

"You are ignoring the other 1500 years in which the Church constantly was the justification for treating women as second class citizens, the 1500 years in which numerous crusades of extermination against pagans, muslims and jews took place or the 1500 years in which the Church everyday justified the barbaric dictatorships of Kings."

No I am not - didn't you read about what I said regarding the true Church that was thriving in Ireland and then later Scotland and then into England and then into France, Germany, Austria etc.

I of course know the history of the Roman Church and since I am not a Catholic I feel no need to defend that history especially since Rome was just the continuation of a dead empire by different means and like I've said many times religion is the most powerful tool to subjugate and maintain control.

I mean it is complete foolishness to consider the Roman Church an embodiment of Christian doctrine. You have heard of the Reformation of course. What in the hell did the Reformers use to justify their arguments against Rome? The Scriptures!!!

"Your point was that Christianity made the West superior to the rest of the world. My point was, um, no if Christ had been in Australia and converted all the Aborigines they still would have been exterminated/conquered by Eurasians for the reasons I have stated."

No that was not my point - I stated that if one looks at a globe TODAY they will see that it is in Protestant nations (nations which embraced teachings closer to Scripture than Catholic or Orthodox nations) where people are the most prosperous and the most free and where all the great movements like abolition of slavery and equal rights for women originated as well as your beloved secular liberal democracy. As Christianity becomes the majority religion in China you will see the same results.

"My you are so observant! Did you really notice that I said 'Christianity coincided with the Fall of Rome, but I don't think it was a real factor.'? Admirable of you. "

Thank you. lol

"See my previous paragraph about the evils Christianity has caused. Which is not to say Christianity is per se bad. Christianity is only bad when you believe so hard in it that it becomes intolerant and justification to destroy freedom (which is what happened for most of its history). "

This is utterly ridiculous. If you believe Christianity real hard you are not intolerant but overly tolerant!!! It is only those that embrace parts of Christianity or that use Christianity to secure power that are dangerous - it is those that would follow your advice and take an half-assed approach to Christian beliefs that are the ones to fear. Have you read the New Testament? Anyone that fully embraces its teachings is the most peaceful, loving, charitable person the world could produce.

"Being absolutely certain in anything is a dangerous thing. It is a sign of fanaticism, absolutism and a dangerous belief in the infallibility of one's judgement."

Are you absolutely certain in that belief?

LMAO

"The ox and mule were considered higher up in priority than women at one point in your glorious Christian society and its history, Xris. Keep it in mind."

With a statement like that you reveal you are far too ignorant to really be discussing the history of Christendom. And you are right - I do not repect ignorant statements.

How is that ignorant, if you're so insightful, clarify for me instead of making statements without explanation.

I love people who sit on their ivory towers, scoffing, and yet don't explain the validity of such behavior.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

Id be happy to explain - maybe you will learn from it and be less judgmental.

What you are describing is not some history of a glorious Christian Church but the history of the Roman government and those other European nation states that used Christian rhetoric and symbology to maintain their own power structures.

The Roman Church was a government - do you understand this? It did not uphold Christian values but abused Christian teachings and twisted them when ever it helped secure their authority. And furthermore, it made up its own doctrines and called them Holy and divine. The greatest threat to this political establishment was true Christianity and real Christians which is why it was forbidden to own or read a Bible.

For over a thousand years the Roman Church fooled the masses and what is amazing is that people are still fooled today.

"I mean it is complete foolishness to consider the Roman Church an embodiment of Christian doctrine. You have heard of the Reformation of course. What in the hell did the Reformers use to justify their arguments against Rome? The Scriptures!!!"
Well great! We're making progress in figuring out what you actually mean. What you really mean is "protestantism is great" not Christianity. OK, good, I wish you would argue things clearly instead of making sweeping generalizations like "christianity is great" when that isn't what you mean.

"I stated that if one looks at a globe TODAY they will see that it is in Protestant nations (nations which embraced teachings closer to Scripture than Catholic or Orthodox nations)"
Did you also notice all the rich countries are white? Does that mean we're better?

Did you notice that 1/2 Catholic Germany and FUCKING PAGAN JAPAN are some of the richest countries in the world?

Did you notice how Protestant South Africa was the last bastion of reactionary white dictatorship?

There is NO simple cause and effect here. At most I will say that protestantism decentralized Europe and more importantly it helped destroy faith in authority.

"As Christianity becomes the majority religion in China you will see the same results."
BAAAAAH! You really believe that?

OMG hilarious! Just like Japan or South Korea? By the way, do you believe the Japs and Koreans have real democracy? Do you know how many Christians they have? Japan has... 0.7%... and counting!

"This is utterly ridiculous. If you believe Christianity real hard you are not intolerant but overly tolerant!!!"
You are obviously disconnected from reality. Or rather, you have this nasty habit of forgetting that people who are intolerant are still universally recognised as Christian and are the fruits of Christ's teachings.

"Have you read the New Testament? Anyone that fully embraces its teachings is the most peaceful, loving, charitable person the world could produce."

I think what you mean, is "anyone that fully embraces MY IMTERPRETATION of its teachings".

People who believe so strongly in their own righteousness forget other people. When you believe so hard in your own righteousness, uncertainty disappears, and suddenly the ends justify the means.

"Are you absolutely certain in that belief?"
I am more certain of that than most of my beliefs, which isn't saying much.

But do you understand that when you are certain of anything, you are also saying that you're judgement is infallible? Do you understand the implications of that?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"What you really mean is "protestantism is great" not Christianity. OK, good, I wish you would argue things clearly instead of making sweeping generalizations like "christianity is great" when that isn't what you mean."

No I am not arguing Protestantism is great - I am arguing that the Roman Catholic church was not Christian. In fact I am sure you understood this point. The USSR and Saddam's Iraq claimed to be democratic Republics - but were they? Uh huh!

"Did you also notice all the rich countries are white? Does that mean we're better?"

That is a darwinian judgment that has nothing to do with anything I have said - the genetic skin pigmentation of those people are coincidental and having nothing to do with reality.

"Did you notice that 1/2 Catholic Germany and FUCKING PAGAN JAPAN are some of the richest countries in the world?"

Of course I did which if you had read me correctly I said most not all. Furthermore, Protestant Christians created both modern Japan and modern Germany - hehehe.

"BAAAAAH! You really believe that?"

Of course - its already occurring - some estimates have China becoming majority Christian in a generation at the current rate of conversion.

Yes I am aware of Japan - are you aware that S Korea is now majority Christian?

"You are obviously disconnected from reality. Or rather, you have this nasty habit of forgetting that people who are intolerant are still universally recognised as Christian and are the fruits of Christ's teachings."

Try to drool less when you are typing. What is your point here - no one universally recognizes Christians as intolerant but as some of the most tolerant people in the history of the world.

"I think what you mean, is "anyone that fully embraces MY IMTERPRETATION of its teachings". "

So you haven't read it - why don't you read Christ's own words before you expose your ignorance further.

"I am more certain of that than most of my beliefs, which isn't saying much."

So you realize that according to your own definition that makes you a fanatic and dangerous. lol Look if "Being absolutely certain in anything is a dangerous thing. It is a sign of fanaticism, absolutism and a dangerous belief in the infallibility of one's judgment" is an absolutely true statement and you are certain of its truth then you have just proved that it is a contradiction and thus cant be true. This is basic logic DT - I expected more of you.

"But do you understand that when you are certain of anything, you are also saying that you're judgement is infallible? Do you understand the implications of that?"

Absolutely - man DT you are disappointing me - are you saying truth is unknowable now? 2 + 2 = 4, an apple is a fruit, humans will die - are you saying that all of these judgments are fallible?

Truth is absolutely knowable. No one can attain wisdom that denies this.

" In fact I am sure you understood this point. The USSR and Saddam's Iraq claimed to be democratic Republics - but were they? Uh huh!"
But these regimes are universally considered despotic, at least today. When you say "Christian" it is almost universally understood to include Catholics and Orthodox. When you challenge a traditional definition you have to make it clear or NOBODY is going to understand you.

"That is a darwinian judgment that has nothing to do with anything I have said - the genetic skin pigmentation of those people are coincidental and having nothing to do with reality."
Exactly, I argue that Christianity and Protestantism are coincidental with our wealth and liberty.

"are you aware that S Korea is now majority Christian?"

Shall I quote you? 'You are going to eat your words!'

"no affiliation 46%, Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianist 1%, other 1%" according to the CIA world factbook, one of the more reliable sources.

"So you haven't read it - why don't you read Christ's own words before you expose your ignorance further."
No, you need to be clear on this. This is YOUR interpretation. Many good Catholics have read the Bible and willingly submit to the Catholic hierarchy and church because it is in accordance with their interpretation of the Bible.

You are doing it again. You are saying "My opinion of what Jesus meant IS what Jesus meant." You are too certain of yourself.

"So you realize that according to your own definition that makes you a fanatic and dangerous. lol Look if "Being absolutely certain in anything is a dangerous thing. It is a sign of fanaticism, absolutism and a dangerous belief in the infallibility of one's judgment" is an absolutely true statement and you are certain of its truth then you have just proved that it is a contradiction and thus cant be true. This is basic logic DT - I expected more of you."

OK, asshole. You SPECIFICALLY asked me if I was absolutely certain of this and I said "I am more certain of that than most of my beliefs, which isn't saying much. " Which implies NO I AM NOT CERTAIN. If you don't read my posts and automatically assume I take extremists absolutist positions, like you systematically do, you are never going to have a valid point.

"Truth is absolutely knowable. No one can attain wisdom that denies this."
Your faith in the human mind is absolutely astounding.

Since you refuse common sense, I will use a long argument, the conclusion of which is obvious to anyone with the slightest humility. Your pretense to absolute is nothing less than divine arrogance.

* Assume I can know truth absolutely
* By looking at evidence I conclude life derives from evolution, that man is a genetic mix and that knowing truth absolutely is not a trait that he has had to evolve
* My second absolute belief contradicts my first one, the system breaks down

Hence, no, I don't think we can absolute beliefs. And if you think you're opinion happens to be absolute truth, your lack humility and your faith in your own mind over all others is nothing short of divine arrogance. Because, lets be clear, you don't believe in MAN's inherent ability to know truth (or you would respect others' opinions more), you assume that YOU have the ability to know absolute truth.

That's why you're so disimissive of other people and so sure sure of yourself.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"But these regimes are universally considered despotic, at least today. When you say "Christian" it is almost universally understood to include Catholics and Orthodox. When you challenge a traditional definition you have to make it clear or NOBODY is going to understand you."

'At least today' is the key word and shows how you are playing with words to ridicule Christianity. At the time of the former Soviet regime many people did not question their system as universally despotic. Those that did were often mocked and called extremists. This was true throughout Europe and even here in America. It is now in retrospect that we universally agree that the USSR was never a democratic Republic.However, you understand my point well, just because some one claims to be something does not make it so! Thus it is not fair to do the same thing with the Ancient Roman Church. Any historian should know that the Church was a government the used the trappings of Christianity to maintain the justification for its authority.

There is a reason we call those the dark ages.

Also, I am not claiming that the modern Catholic or Orthodox church is not Christian today.

"Exactly, I argue that Christianity and Protestantism are coincidental with our wealth and liberty."

Really? So the Reformation really had no impact? Come on DT - you can not be serious?

I love the CIA world factbook - inst it great! Well I heard recently that Christianity is now the largest religion practiced in S Korea. Sometimes the CIA world factbook data is a bit old. However, I may be wrong about Korea.

"Many good Catholics have read the Bible and willingly submit to the Catholic hierarchy and church because it is in accordance with their interpretation of the Bible."

After the Catholic Reformation, you mean.

Look I'm Irish - my whole family is/was Catholic. I was raised Catholic and had some parochial schooling. I am extremely familiar with the Catholic Church. But it is practically impossible to call the old Church of Rome Christian in any theological sense.

"You are doing it again. You are saying "My opinion of what Jesus meant IS what Jesus meant." You are too certain of yourself."

Now you are playing a sophist?

"OK, asshole. You SPECIFICALLY asked me if I was absolutely certain of this and I said "I am more certain of that than most of my beliefs, which isn't saying much. " Which implies NO I AM NOT CERTAIN. If you don't read my posts and automatically assume I take extremists absolutist positions, like you systematically do, you are never going to have a valid point."

I know you are not dumb however what you wrote was a statement of certainty and then you realized you got caught in your own illogical trap so you backslid. Come on DT - such sophistry may work with others on the board but you know its not gonna fool me.

Now lets get to the heart of the matter which is your statement - if taken as a statement of certainty - it simply can not be true because it violates the law of non-contradiction. Now I am afraid you will have to abandon that philosophy - I hope you will embrace a more Socratic understanding in light of this new vacuum.

"Since you refuse common sense, I will use a long argument, the conclusion of which is obvious to anyone with the slightest humility. Your pretense to absolute is nothing less than divine arrogance.
* Assume I can know truth absolutely
* By looking at evidence I conclude life derives from evolution, that man is a genetic mix and that knowing truth absolutely is not a trait that he has had to evolve
* My second absolute belief contradicts my first one, the system breaks down"

Just because one can know truth absolutely does not mean that everything one knows is absolutely true. You don't understand the difference?

"Hence, no, I don't think we can absolute beliefs. And if you think you're opinion happens to be absolute truth, your lack humility and your faith in your own mind over all others is nothing short of divine arrogance. Because, lets be clear, you don't believe in MAN's inherent ability to know truth (or you would respect others' opinions more), you assume that YOU have the ability to know absolute truth."

I hope your university has a class in logic - please take it. At no time did I state that my opinions are the absolute truth. Furthermore I am no more certain in my opinions than you are - I think we generally have a similar style - I appreciate your style because it is apparent it can only come from one that has a certain amount of grounding in the subjects being discussed. Thus, when we articulate our points of view we often do so with a certain amount of authority. I am not going to apologize for this nor should you. However, If we are wrong then we should admit it. I think we have both shown a willingness to do this as well. Neither of us is omniscient.

Now I do not assume that I have the ability to know absolute truths - I know I have that ability - I know you have that ability - I know all humans not only have that ability but live their whole lives practicing this ability daily. You are better than most debaters here in your use of that ability - its one of the reasons I enjoy debating you so much.

But now you seem to be denying one of your greatest attributes. I don't know who has brainwashed you into thinking you would be more enlightened if you disposed of your incredible reasoning skills and ability to determine certain judgments. But you should wake up and eradicate every semblance of this sophistic fallacy from your being. It will not serve you well and it will lead to you being incapable of making logical deductions in the future. I would hate to see someone as smart as you go in that direction. Most of the debaters here live in that world - don't follow them there - its an empty place.

"That's why you're so disimissive of other people and so sure sure of yourself."

There is nothing absolutely wrong with being sure of yourself - to know ones self can be a great virtue. And please never think that I am dismissive of you or your ideas - I respect you greatly! I wish you respected your own abilities and your own judgments as much as I do.