More religious violence: India

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

What a ludicrous religion Christianity is!

More correctly put, how ludicrous some people who profess to be Christians are. Christianity, in and of itself, has never killed anyone. Only intolerant human beings have killed in the name of Christianity.

@Skybird Thanks for that summary of India's religions

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

My - what...?

Strange to be accused at times of being areligious - and then being accused to have a religion. But strange only if one assumes reasonable thinking behind these accusations. Atheism is not a religion, and I am certainly not calling myself a religious person, but at best a spiritual one. And both terms are as different as is "on" and "off".

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Hitler was not an Atheist. That's a myth that the Christians started, just like the idea that he was an Evolutionist. They're just trying to disown him and everything he did.

And Christianity is one of the worst religions out there. I mean: NINE CRUSADES? THREE INQUISITIONS? Add these twelve things together, and over a million people died. That's not including all the attacks done on Protestants by the French, Germans, or Italians, either, let alone the large number of witchcraft trials held the world over.

Must we really dive AGAIN into the absolutely unique history of military conquest and submission that Islam is - the longest and most successful military conquest history knows, and to which the crusades origianlly were a defensive reaction to regain what had been taken in a wave of agression by islam?

I am really getting angry about this arguemt about crusades and how badly they beaten up their enemies. They took place before and during times when Spain, central France, parts of Italy, Greece and Balkans were militarily occupoied by Muslim armies, Europe was at serious thread to fall victim to Islam completely, and Muslim armies had won all of orthodox-Christian (!) north Africa by war or intimidation, and were busy with trying to destroy Indian culture and make it a compeltely Muhammedan country. If there would have been no Islam attacking Christian territories, there would have been other political wars - but no need for crusades.

So if telling the story of the crusades, tell both sides of the medal. they later degenrated into selfish affairs, but in the beginning they were truly defensive efforts against a marching aggressor.

Regarding the inquisition - Christian church now is beyond these. In Islam, a thinking similiar to the inquisition is declared valid and essential part of Islam until today, and prctices the same draconic, inhumane and barvbaric system of penalties to defend the dogma from abandoning, alrteration, and reform. A prominant share of Britsh Muslims want Britain to become a place where this is practiced, a prominent share of young Muslims in Britain said they accept violence to be used in acchieveing this goal, and we talk in quarters and thirds of the Muslim population here and growing numbers anyway, and in quite some countries in the world these rules already and still are practiced. A thinking similiar to that of the inquisition is active until today, and since 1400 years is far, far more successful than the Roman-Catholic church ever was in supressing reformist or alternative thinking, and defending dogmas dating back by over a thousand years that reflect the educational horizon of those ancient, old times of the medieval. The lead Arabia had over europe in the early medieval, was neutralised and turned into a handicap due to this successful brutal supression of reform and progress - the church may have hoped to be so successful, but it as not, as we know today. Arabia, not the West, should have been the centre of trade, science and commerce today, arabia should have become the place of hightech invention, silicon valeys and Nobel prize winners, but then came muhammad and his heritage strangled every promise of cultural develeopement and frooze it in total stasis for the next one and a half millenia to come. And if arabia would not have oil, nobody would give sh!t for it today, and it would be a loser and complete nobody today.

And the basic Islamic civil war rages until today, since over a thousand years. Not even the european kingdoms battled each other so constantly and enduring. I you want a count of violence and number of wars, SH, both in wars against other cultures and in ars against factions of it'S own religion Islam scores BEFORE the Christian cultural sphere. To according counts I have referred repeatedly over the past three or four years. Must we really repeat these endless fights from back then again and again and again, and then again?

[Stealth Hunter]

Sky... are you talking to me? Because if so, Islam is a pretty ridiculous religion if you really sit down and look at it, so I won't argue that point.

[Skybird]

I was directly refering to your remark on the crusades and violence of Chrisian wars, because the crusades as an argument to show how much suffering the church has brought over the poor armies of Muhammad who were at a rush at that time is a distorted argument that the media and radio and TV discussion groups and socalled experts are shoving down our throats time and again, and always and at ever opportunity. It is wrong to see it so one-sided, and I am sick and tired of this nonsense (=no-sense).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

@Skybird Thanks for that summary of India's religions

Thank the authors at Wikipedia - i just linked to their efforts!

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I was directly refering to your remark on the crusades and violence of Chrisian wars, because the crusades as an argument to show how much suffering the church has brought over the poor armies of Muhammad who were at a rush at that time is a distorted argument that the media and radio and TV discussion groups and socalled experts are shoving down our throats time and again, and always and at ever opportunity. It is wrong to see it so one-sided, and I am sick and tired of this nonsense (=no-sense).

To be honest, I prefer the old Muslims over the new ones. They were more classical and noble than the ones of today (Saladin comes to mind).

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

To be honest, I prefer the old Muslims over the new ones. They were more classical and noble than the ones of today (Saladin comes to mind).

And he got knocked off by some hardline nuters who were believers of the same faith. At least all religions suffer form the same problem!

[Skybird]

Saladin? The one Saladin they have named the "ruler with the iron fist"? One of the greatest supressors of reformist thinking in islam , who sentenced some of the most promising "mystics" and reform thinkers in all islamic history to death and established one of the toughest sharia-regimes of his time, and whose grave scripture tells the visitor that he cleaned the earth of the holy land from "the dirt of the infidels", and who almost ruined the state finances after the capture of Jerusalem in an attempt to increase his military so that he could push towards Europe?

Saladin is one of the most transfigured names in history! He started as a laissez-faire type of soft Muslim who committed murdernot for relgious but personal reasons, for he wanted to rise to power and influence. Maybe he sent Richard a birthday postcard, but I wouldn't read more into that than just that. Kings behaved mad at that time, treated each other nicely and respectfully while slaughtering hundreds of lesser beings at the same time. Lessing's "Nathan" marked the beginning of the transfiguration of Saladin in the Western world, but the Saladin that he describes in that work - is a myth. Think of it as some kind of "Helsinki-effect".

And if you think the old muslims were more noble compared to the ones today, I would like to direct your attention to the Almohades taking over the Muslim ruling in Spain, who took the demand of the Quran that infidels must be made aware of their inferiority and lesser worth by discriminating them very serious and had regular progroms and massacres amongst Jews and Christians, they are the ones who also erected the infamous "skull domes" - functioning towers! - like later the Nazi used hair from killed Jews to seal pipes aboard ships or submarines. Or the turkish conquerors moving to Vienna who killed the people of farms and villages in an area of I think 30 or 40 km around vienna and often did it in an extremely cruel way so that fear and terror shall spread over the land and weaken the defender's moral. Or that occasion - i apologize but I always forget the exact place, date and name - when short before king Richard arrived in the holy land, a Franconian army was beaten and taken prisoner by a muslim superior army - and they killed all the prisoners although back at that time a trade of prisoners, especially noble ones, was the rule. Richard also killed prisoners in a bastion he had taken from the muslim defenders before he moved on, but he had a mlitary reason: he did not want to have a potential enemy grouop in his rear, he had not enough man to command to guards duty to keep them in check, and he was running low on supplis, and his logistic supply lines were stretched. But the massacre of the franconian army, many noble men amongst them, took place in vicinity of the Muslim's home city, they were in full supply, had enough water, had defeated the enemy and were numerically superior. they had no other military need than to send a message of terror to Europe: "These were the best princes and fighters you could send, and see what we do with them. Want some more...?"

The old muslims, more noble? Islam - having changed? I see it has not chnaged at all, and still is the same mental attitude. I learned to see you as a smart guy here in the forum. You already said you are critical of islam, and some longer time ago you said your (war) biography holds events that made you thinking critical of religion in general. Be consistent, then: cut your remaining links to it, too. Saying you are critical of islam and find it hilarious, but also talking it nice and by that defend it wether you want that or not, is a contradiction.

[Frame57]

Interesting! I always thought Dolph was an Occultist of some sort. I guess I will peruse Mein Kampf and see if he makes any preferences in it.

[baggygreen]

I was always under the impression poor ol' adolf was jewish, by virtue of his mother?

ah well.

India is a nasty little melting pot of religion. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and then more! They've had quiet times where things between all the different religions were nice and quiet, and they've had rough times where things weren't so nice. I'd have to propose though, that things were fairly quiet in the place until 10 years or so ago when our lovely friends the jihadis decided blowing innocents up would be fun. Now, from all i've read, its become a bit of a free for all up there..

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Morts

wow...you'd think a grown man (:rotfl would have something else to do all day than preach on how atheist's and democrats are the root of all evil

If that's all you got on me, I'm safe. Enough said. Notice how I never attack you, but what would be the point if I did? Not worth the effort!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Not to offend but didn't Christianity play a major part in a bunch of wars called the "Crusades"

No offense ether, but if you knew your history, you would know it was the Muslims that started this. There were 5 crusades to rescue the lands that were taken, but this is a long story and outside the scope of this thread.

What do they teach in schools these days anyway? Not much i see. Maybe the Muslims have found a way to keep this out or twist it somehow?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Hitler was not an Atheist....

Yes he was. He did use Christianity and relics to try and turn the believers towards his cause though.

Man, even the Atheist Discovery channel mentioned this! I thought all your atheists were on the same page? Of course, even your biggest members of the movement have written a book that claims there is still a 1 in 6 chance god exists. Seems one way (the Christian way, you get a 100% chance you are dead wrong if you don't believe, and the other, you get 17% chance of being wrong still. Seems that the odds are in the favor of god even from your own kind!

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yes he was. He did use Christianity and relics to try and turn the believers towards his cause though.

Man, even the Atheist Discovery channel mentioned this! I thought all your atheists were on the same page? Of course, even your biggest members of the movement have written a book that claims there is still a 1 in 6 chance god exists. Seems one way (the Christian way, you get a 100% chance you are dead wrong if you don't believe, and the other, you get 17% chance of being wrong still. Seems that the odds are in the favor of god even from your own kind!

-S

I suppose you have a source for this claim? Give me a link to a historical society page that states that "HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST" with facts and proof that this is true. Only one thing: the society cannot be sponsored by a religious institute (ANY institute).

Out of curiosity, what was the name of the program, when was it aired, and why was the Discovery Channel showing a program about Hitler's religion?:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I suppose you have a source for this claim? Give me a link to a historical society page that states that "HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST" with facts and proof that this is true. Only one thing: the society cannot be sponsored by a religious institute (ANY institute).

Out of curiosity, what was the name of the program, when was it aired, and why was the Discovery Channel showing a program about Hitler's religion?:hmm:

I'm sorry - it is very difficult to find any documentation that Hitler was religious, so maybe you can? Might be a hard task for you however. Try it though. There was also a good program that addressed this to a degree on Discovery (not the one I mention above) that talked how he wasn't to some degree when talking about his personal life - It was based on who had his remains which the show determined the KGB had them but it was left open at the end.

The program I mentioned above that I saw was about the relics and propaganda Hitler was collecting to show the Christians that Germany was destined to rule the world, and how the Allies used the same tactic though to a much lesser degree. A lot of it was around the subs being used to ferry the relics back to Germany. Its been a few years however so I cannot name it. I wish i could though. That was one worth watching.

-S