Religion: The best of the best of the best sir!

[Dark_Nemesis]

[Luftwaffles] Damn right with an inflammatory post like that I'm going to edit it. You've been warned, I'll be monitoring your behavior throughout the rest of this thread. Post nicely from now on. I'll give you an example of how you could've worded your disagreement with what I said without resorting to flaming and trolling.

"I don't agree with your interpretation of the crusades, and I would like to know what you mean by credible universities. As far as I am aware, the crusades remain in a positive light in modern institutions of history. I also believe that Muhammad was athiest."

[Luftwaffles]

If you go and look at major universities and the writings of many professors throughout the United States and Canada you'll find that the way the Crusades has been taught has evolved a lot. Up until the late 60's it was romanticized a lot in writings, but now we're a lot more sober about the whole thing. It's very interesting how much differently it is taught in the Middle East but that's neither here nor there.

[Dark_Nemesis]

"evolved" doesn't make it good or right. And you need to learn not to accept everything that is thrown at you.

[Ford Prefect]

So, teaching a more realistic point of view isn't necessarily good?

[Dark_Nemesis]

No, teaching a blatant, anti-christian view taught by anti-christian groups isn't good, in this case, the radical far left.

No one here is denying some bad acts that have been committed in the name of "Christianity", and I'll be the first to admit it. I don't consider myself overly religious, though I do believe in god, and that there is....more than this. But the crusades are not an intelligent example. Too, I find it funny (and ironic) that you Ford and Ion jump at the chance to attack Christianity, while covering for the islamo-nazi fanaticism that the Arabs openly spread, and still do. No, this doesn't mean all arabs are evil and Islamic fanatics, I am specifically addressing the ones that fervently follow the teachings of the Koran, which are at the core, brutal and down right evil. The Muslims that we are fighting now in Iraq and elsewhere aren't really any different from the ones the Europeans encouraged during the Crusades, in terms of faith/and or ideals, and Saladin was not a noble person as the history books proclaim.

Get the facts straight and learn to realize every religion has had it's bad moments, though at least Christians don't behead you for talking to a stranger, or have you mob raped for not wearing your veil.

[Dekar]

You do realized that the single purpose of this thread is to list every single horrible thing religious people ever did? Including the crusader.

Everything else is offtopic, like spreading right wing pro christianity propaganda. Not that anyone here does that.

[Ford Prefect]

Attack Christianity? Weird, I don't remember doing that. Cover for Islam? I can't even imagine where you got that unmitigated piece of bullshit.
By the way, have you read the Koran? How do you know that the core teachings of the Koran are evil? It would be the first major religion I've heard of which taught evil, if that's true. Common sense would indicate otherwise.
Oh, and since when are universities "anti-Christian groups"?
"Saladin was not a noble person as the history books proclaim"... you've met the man, then? Or, perhaps you have a secret history of the world book that the rest of us aren't privy to? I don't remember mention of him in my history book, but he seemed like a decent guy in the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Citing a movie as a source. Guess how much more ridiculous you sound when you don't cite any source and claim a guy who is long dead isn't anything like he is represented in history books... which are supposed to contain accurate representations of history. (Though, don't go looking for accurate American history in an American high school history book.)

[Tehw00tz]

Get the facts straight and learn to realize every religion has had it's bad moments, though at least Christians don't behead you for talking to a stranger, or have you mob raped for not wearing your veil.

I know a girl that is from Tehran (located in the Middle East) and she was never mob raped for not wearing her veil or beheaded for talking to a stranger. Those comments are just ignorant.

[Luftwaffles]

This is slowly turning into a flame war, which is only what I can assume Perhaps wanted. However, I am going to give it another chance before I take a bit of action.

No, teaching a blatant, anti-christian view taught by anti-christian groups isn't good, in this case, the radical far left.

I have been reasonably tolerant throughout this entire thread, I think about the kind of things being said here, but I will not tolerate this. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them radical and anti-Christian.

In terms of the historiography of the Crusades, just look at a booklist of modern writings on them and they are by and large negative. Our views on the Crusades have changed since a lot now that more information has become available to us and we're more skeptical of authorities (like the church) to begin within. Millions of people were slaughtered by Christians throughout Europe and the Middle East for no reason other then they held land the Church/kingdoms wanted and they happened to not be the kind of Christian that Church/king liked. Thousands upon thousands of women were raped by pillaging Christian hordes and people who called themselves Christian committed horrific acts of violence against people of other races (Poles, Sorbs, Pommeranians, Moors in Iberia, Turks, etc.).

That is not "anti-Christian radical teaching" that is what happened. If you'd like to know more, go wiki it or pick up a modern book on the Crusades (post-1970s).

No one here is denying some bad acts that have been committed in the name of "Christianity", and I'll be the first to admit it. I don't consider myself overly religious, though I do believe in god, and that there is....more than this. But the crusades are not an intelligent example. Too, I find it funny (and ironic) that you Ford and Ion jump at the chance to attack Christianity, while covering for the islamo-nazi fanaticism

You are not the "first' to admit it. Everyone in this thread but you is perfectly fine with recognizing that Christianity has caused a lot of shit over the years. Christians have been killers, Christians have watched over genocide and Christians have done horrific things. However, you're being quite offensive by making unfounded accusations against me and Ford and I am going to warn you here, you may discuss religion all you want but do not get into personal attacks.

Ford and I have not been "covering" for "Islamo-Nazi fanaticism". I am not sure what that is, but I assume it's an ignorant way of criticizing modern fanatic movements within Islam. Nowhere here do you see me or Ford advocating for the burning of women who commit adultry, or veil-only rules or "if you don't have a beard, we'll kill you". In fact, the vast majority of the Muslims don't live under these rules and in implying them you are being quite a bigot.

@Dark: In this thread you've said a lot of unrelated things that have nothing to do with the topic. I am not sure why you say these things; unfortunately I've already posted mountains and don't feel like pointing out more of them. Unless you're willing to engage in a reasonable discussion on religion I am going to have to ask that you avoid posting in this thread on threat of being temp banned. This is my final warning, be respectful and stay on topic. This is not Stormfront and I will not accept anymore bigoted and racist comments that you are perfectly capable of controlling and keeping to yourself. You may post again but if I find any more attacks or propaganda in this thread you will be barred from entering it and warned for a third time (which means temp ban).

[GeneralFunk]

Just a friendly reminder...

Weighing out all the good and bad all the listed religions have done. Which religion has benefited the world the most, or otherwise has hurt the world the least?

You're not limited to defending the negatives, and you're not limited to listing the negatives of others, it's also very possible to ever "write some as a loss" via counterbalancing with the positives, and lack of positives (if) other ones do. Arguments aren't completely 1-dimensional, it's acceptable to reach out to other possibilities.

A related example... Rather than pouring all this effort into defending actions of the Christian Crusades, you can just as well say, "well that may have happened, but it has been well made up for with our charitable and moral offering actions," or perhaps put a healthy amount of energy defending against it, while providing positive effects that even if it were an atrocity, the good things make up for it and then some. These aren't necessarily my beliefs, in which I'll probably remain discreet, this is just some advice.

Other parties, you need not to focus on the issue either, you could either seek for other negatives, or seek the positives of the other religions that you may think would outweigh it.

[Luftwaffles]

I'm not sure a thread detailing the negatives of religion can stay out of a flame war. This is a "religion thread" as far as I see it and hopefully it remains just that; a reasonable discussion on religion. So far it's fallen pretty off the mark but I have hopes it'll either just die out or turn into idle discussion about various faiths (or lack thereof).

[Ford Prefect]

In theory, it's not just about detailing the negatives. GeneralFunk said the good and bad of the various religions.

[Luftwaffles]

Yeah I know but reasonably the bads is usually where people go. I am hoping it continues into a reasonable discussion of the goods and differences between religions, so. No more zzz Crusade talk.

I was disappointed to see Baha'i, Jainism and Agnosticism not included in the religious poll ; )

[Dark_Nemesis]

In terms of the historiography of the Crusades, just look at a booklist of modern writings on them and they are by and large negative. Our views on the Crusades have changed since a lot now that more information has become available to us and we're more skeptical of authorities (like the church) to begin within. Millions of people were slaughtered by Christians throughout Europe and the Middle East for no reason other then they held land the Church/kingdoms wanted and they happened to not be the kind of Christian that Church/king liked. Thousands upon thousands of women were raped by pillaging Christian hordes and people who called themselves Christian committed horrific acts of violence against people of other races (Poles, Sorbs, Pommeranians, Moors in Iberia, Turks, etc.).

That is not "anti-Christian radical teaching" that is what happened. If you'd like to know more, go wiki it or pick up a modern book on the Crusades (post-1970s).

And why haven't you mentioned all the thousands upon thousands of people slaughtered by the Muslims? So....logically, Ion, the next thing to do is to assume you are sympathizing for them. My argument is not without proof or reason, you r one-sided argument is what makes mine stand its ground.

So I ask you.....

Why haven't you mentioned all the horrifics (which over the years vastly, vastly, vastly, outweigh the few negative of Christianity)committed in the name of Allah? I trust you will not hide behind another board warning and give me a straight and intelligent answer, because despite our different views, you seem like a smart guy. So...

Note: Covering was a bad term, I apologize, sympathize would have been more appropriate.

[Reaper]

Has it ever occurred to you that one could defend a religion he/she doesn't necessarily agree with in a thread such as this?

[Ford Prefect]

SYMPATHIZE? Where is this fantasy world of yours? I want to blow it up.
I know you were speaking to luft, but you've been lumping us together so... Your one-sided view of the Crusades is the reason we're still talking about it. I specifically stated that my use of Christian atrocities was simply due to a greater knowledge of them. That doesn't mean that we all don't know that many acts of terrorism are even today being perpetrated by Muslim extremists. It doesn't mean that (after some research, for myself) we can't agree that Hindus and even Buddhists have participated in and/or sanctioned violence. It does mean that you repeatedly support/downplay the Crusades, and so we repeatedly call bullshit.

[GeneralFunk]

People like the negatives... But what about weighing with the goods? A religion with a few less bads than another could easily be trumped of the religion it has less bads than has a great deal more goods. With that said, try and squeeze in the beneficial impacts.

[Luftwaffles]

I've PM'd Dark a very serious warning. To spur the discussion off the topic of some of what's gone on here; Buddhism is often touted out in the West as a peaceful athiestic religion, but ironically two of the world's state Buddhist countries (Sri Lanka; Theravada and Burma; Mahayana) are currently undergoing a huge amount of civil unrest. I find that ironic, and very sad (though it must be said that State religions are hardly a reasonable basis for judging values held by religion and whether or not they are legitimate).

I originally wrote a long response but I felt Dark got the point in the PM. ^^

[aegir ravenking]

IMHO I believe that best thing to come out of any organized religion is the music.

Also, at least with the monotheistic religions they seem to mellow out the older they get. The difference is that with X-ianty you had sword, bow, and catapults. Now with Islam you got bombs, bios, and jumbo jets.

[Luftwaffles]

Well it's not like they aren't radical Christians doing these kinds of things, it's that in most places where Christianity is widely followed they've already gone through some period of excess and have "blown off steam" if you wanna call it that. There are still scary things going on in Latin America, the Phillipines in and some parts of Asia and Eastern Europe with regards to Christianity (and America even, like the Oklahoma bombings) but Muslims definitely hit the headlines more.

[Ford Prefect]

I totally stole this from another thread in this forum. I think it adequately describes religion, though! If you are religious, you probably don't want to click on that.

Alright, apparently, my intent here isn't clear... to one person, anyway. First, the video is a joke, of sorts, anyone who isn't hardcore religious should find it amusing. Second, it does point out something which I thought applied, that religions are all bloody. Third, it portrays my opinion, to an extent, of religion as a whole. Namely, that they are all pointless.

[Waki_Miko]

I'd vote, but I don't see my religious affiliation in the list...

[Luftwaffles]

Just because a religion isn't on here doesn't mean it's not a good religion. No one really has a professional say on religion so youtube is about as good as any pastor or theologian. Just because it's there doesn't mean it can't have a point.

The poll does lack a lot of religions, however I don't think you'd ever be able to get them all up here. If your favourite one isn't in the poll just say it in the thread it's like it makes a big difference. Scientology is not a religion it's a cult, but if we're including them I suppose we may as well throw it in there as well.

[Dekar]

What about Jehowas Witness?

[Waki_Miko]

I am aware that the poll isn't about what my religion is.
I was just trying to subtly point out that one's own faith is likely to be picked, but I suppose it didn't work, so nevermind - ignore me.

I totally stole this from another thread in this forum. I think it adequately describes religion, though! If you are religious, you probably don't want to click on that.

I believe Marcus Brigstocke's rants on religion (1 & 2) are far more irreverant, if that's what you're looking for...