GameBanshee Forums

Amergin wrote: Matthew Chapter 10
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Luke Chapter 12
49 I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Hardly the words of someone who is totally against violence.

Those quotes were used at the time of Jesus' existence when he meant that following him will result in persecution from the others as many at that time did not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So those who follow him will get persecuted by the others. No offense but using that quote to show that Christians are a violent people is a very poor argument, to be honest and its very insulting to Christians of different denominations. Its like using a certain quote from the Koran to prove that the religion itself is violent. Here's an example:

an excerpt from the January 1996 edition of Reader's Digest article, "Must there be a Holy War?" by Sai'd Al-Ashmawy

Chapter Eight of the Koran:
"Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away....Muster against them all the men and calvary at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy...."

Someone can use this quote and say that Muslims hate unbelievers but this is not true. According to the author, the reason why this is so is because at that time, the Prophet's followers are prepared to attack the city of Mecca. It was never intended as a prescription for permanent warfare against the rest of the world. Its the extremists who distorts it to make the rest of the world think so.

Woozai wrote: As far as the crusades goes, i think some of you here have a bit coloured way of seeing it. While the 'church' profitted greatly, they were not alone to do so. Do you really belive that the kings and nobles of the great countries belived that they were doing it for god? The crusades were also a massive source of income for them, so blaming the popes of old times and the church for the crusades doesn't really seem fair to me.

Apart from that, the crusades are OVER, and they have been so for a long time now.

Get over it...

I agree with what Woozai had mentioned that blaming the church and the leaders of the church alone for the faults that occured ages ago is totally unfair. The religion itself its not at fault here, its the people under it who led the flock astray. As for the crusades, I agree once again with Woozai that both the kings and nobles used it to further their own interests rather than doing it for God.

P.S. I hope I'm not being insulting here but I'm trying my best to justify my point here without flaming anyone here. If there is something insulting that I have written in this post, please PM me and I'll look into it. I clearly don't want to turn this into a flame thread. I sincerely apologise to the moderators and the rest if this is found insulting.

Coot wrote:Hey! What about me?!

Already there has been some violence and a lot of death threats. As usual, the media are playing their part by showing mostly the overly violent, over-the-top reactions from Muslim side. That's understandable because there's no news value in showing sensible reactions. You'd think President Erdogan of Turkey is the only Muslim who is able to resist shouting "Orf with his head".

My wife is a Muslim. She merely shrugged and pointed out that Benedicty doesn't have a speechwriters staff or proofreaders staff. Of course there are going to be mistakes like the one he made.
The fact that this man, who is such an important and influential person on the world stage, doesn't have the good sense to have somebody proofread the speeches that the whole wide world is going to hear... well, that says it all. Chanak is right, Muslims should consider the source. Then shake their heads in pity.

Heh! Sorry, Coot!

Anyway, if he doesn't have people to check his speeches, at least we can be reasonably sure we are getting HIS opinions, not the carefully edited and whitewashed 'opinions' we usually get from prominent people.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Not sure. But I like to know what people really think, not the cleaned-up version.

Amergin wrote:While the Pope was quoting Mohammed, perhaps he should also have quoted Jesus Christ:

Source: ESV Bible online

Not Peace, but a Sword

Matthew Chapter 10
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Not Peace, but Division

Luke Chapter 12
49 I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Hardly the words of someone who is totally against violence.

Me? I'm a pagan

The Sword of the Spirit, we are told, not the physical sword.

But anyway - no, neither Jesus nor his dad appear to be against war. His dad had the Hebrews commit genocide against the inhabitants of the Promised Land, and the Bible book of Revelation shows a mass, worldwide extermination of mankind - an even bigger genocide - apart from a few 'faithful'.

Religion is a dirty human tool designed for the subjugation of the many and the profit/power of the few, imo.
But then... I'm an extemist atheist.

fable wrote:You're not the only one, here. I'm a witch; Luis Antonio's a Wiccan. There are at least a few pagan-friendly up here, and nobody has been burnt because of their religious preferences on this board in, well, ages.

Ah! Another Bushophobe! Hello, friend!

Oh, I'm an officer in the field. I knew what we were getting back in 2001, having studied long before his record as a governor, and the remarkable way he flat out lied endlessly about it when running for the presidency.

And much as I dislike JP2, I have a far worse attitude towards this man whose election was made by judicial appointment the first time, and who has overturned the rule of law repeatedly since then. Had he been a very good president, I think this would still condemn him. As it is, he is the very probably the worst US president in history. Quite a distinction.

I like you more and more! Even if you are a witch!

Woozaii wrote:Don't you think blaming the modern church for what the old books say is getting a bit old?

As far as the crusades goes, i think some of you here have a bit coloured way of seeing it. While the 'church' profitted greatly, they were not alone to do so. Do you really belive that the kings and nobles of the great countries belived that they were doing it for god? The crusades were also a massive source of income for them, so blaming the popes of old times and the church for the crusades doesn't really seem fair to me.

Apart from that, the crusades are OVER, and they have been so for a long time now.

Get over it...

Yes, of course they were doing it for god! In the eyes of the masses, anyway, I suppose. :laugh:

And the Popes of old WERE (omitted explosive expletive! ) The church and the various national royalties were hand-in-glove. Religion is a brilliant way of keeping 'the masses' in ignorance and blind obedience. But human intellect beat the (omitted explosive expletive! ) in the end. And eventually - if we can make ourselves behave sensibly, that is - we'll be shot of religion for ever.
I pray for the day! :laugh: :mischief:

Woozaii wrote:Don't you think blaming the modern church for what the old books say is getting a bit old?

...

That's not what I was doing. I was just pointing out that, taken out of context, verses from the Bible can be seen as inciting violence just as much as verses from the Koran.

DesR85 wrote:Those quotes were used at the time of Jesus' existence when he meant that following him will result in persecution from the others as many at that time did not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So those who follow him will get persecuted by the others. No offense but using that quote to show that Christians are a violent people is a very poor argument, to be honest and its very insulting to Christians of different denominations./snip.

DesR85, I apologise unreservedly for any offense I caused. I obviously didn't express myself clearly. I was not using the quote to say that Christians are violent. My point was actually that the Bible, like the Koran, can be selectively quoted to support any point of view. It is not my wish to attack or insult anyone's beliefs.

Amergin wrote: DesR85, I apologise unreservedly for any offense I caused. I obviously didn't express myself clearly. I was not using the quote to say that Christians are violent. My point was actually that the Bible, like the Koran, can be selectively quoted to support any point of view. It is not my wish to attack or insult anyone's beliefs.

That's okay. I'm also in the wrong here too. I shouldn't have responded in that manner in the first place and I wholeheartedly apologise for the statement I made. Yeah, and I agree with your point here on how anyone can just interpret some select quotes from religious books to support any point of view. Some extremists will go to such extent to distort the meaning of certain verses in any religious books and use it to further their political agenda. When you do think about it, it all comes down to politics and personal interests.

Xandax wrote:Not when the modern church uses the same methods of quoting ancient texts from other religons.

Do you mean the church as a religion, or the church as an organization?

Fljotsdale wrote:Yes, of course they were doing it for god! In the eyes of the masses, anyway, I suppose. :laugh:

And the Popes of old WERE (omitted explosive expletive! ) The church and the various national royalties were hand-in-glove. Religion is a brilliant way of keeping 'the masses' in ignorance and blind obedience. But human intellect beat the (omitted explosive expletive! ) in the end. And eventually - if we can make ourselves behave sensibly, that is - we'll be shot of religion for ever.
I pray for the day! :laugh: :mischief:

I think you have to remember that in those years, the masses had their own stuff to care and think about. Do you really think the ordinary farmer took a break from his plowing to stop a while and think: "Is it really god's intent that we are running around in the middle-east, doing all the stuff that we are doing?"
I think it is more reasonable to suspect that 'the masses' didnt give a whole lot of thought to the happenings during the crusades, much less the reasons for them.
Rather than blaming the church, why don't you blame the human beings who were in charge at that time?

And i would like to point out that to a lot of people, religion is more of a choice than a need. I chose religion. That's right, i chose it out of my own free will, it was not forced upon me, and i am happy that i chose it, because it has given me another dimension in life, NOT because i crave something to worship. If you don't give a hoot about religion, then why pray for the day when the people who cares about religion, will loose it?
Would anyone benefit from it?
No.
Would a lot of people loose a support in their lives?
I know i would.

Amergin wrote:That's not what I was doing. I was just pointing out that, taken out of context, verses from the Bible can be seen as inciting violence just as much as verses from the Koran..

I am sorry if you felt i was only commenting you, i was really addressing anyone who read what i wrote.

Xandax wrote: Religon is in my "book" (pun intended) one of the most dangerous inventions of mankind. It is rare to see humans do so much evil against other humans then in the name of, and "justified" by, religon.
I have no issue with people wanting to, or feeling the need to, or thinkning it prooven, that God(s) exists. My problem is when they want to control and decide for others.

You could'nt have said it any better.

IMO, Religon is whats wrong with the World.
The greatest Mind @#$% in the History of Mankind

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pope-Muslims.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=de230d051ee53d40&ei=5094&partner=homepage"]An Update[/url]

This, to me, echoes the Danish Cartoon fiasco, except that it is perhaps even worse, given that it comes from the Pope....

My own feeling is that it is unlikely the Pope actually intended to insult Islam. However, his statements were ill-advised in the extreme. All things considered...the last thing we need right now are slights against Islam (either perceived or real) coming from the Pope who is a major representative of 'the West,' both in religious and political terms.

From what I've gathered, another problem is that most of the previous Pope's political advisers have been marginalised by his replacement. So, we have a situation where those people surrounding the Pope are inexperienced in the art of sensitive 'politicking.'
No, I'm not trying to justify the remarks made, just thinking out loud, really

Taken from the link DW provided:
''If I get hold of the pope, I will hang him,'' Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior MMA leader, told protesters in Islamabad, who carried placards reading ''Terrorist, extremist Pope be hanged!''
Let me get this straight: this Hussain Ahmed wants to hang Benedicty because he called Islam violent, right? I guess it's safe to say irony is not a well-known concept among religious extremists.

Coot wrote:Taken from the link DW provided:
''If I get hold of the pope, I will hang him,'' Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior MMA leader, told protesters in Islamabad, who carried placards reading ''Terrorist, extremist Pope be hanged!''
Let me get this straight: this Hussain Ahmed wants to hang Benedicty because he called Islam violent, right? I guess it's safe to say irony is not a well-known concept among religious extremists.

Indeed... Extremists of all faiths tend to be rather blinded by their own ideologies and agendas.

As has already been stated in this thread, I have no problem at all with people who want to practice their religion.
However, I'm entirely intolerant (yes, I appreciate the irony of that ) of those who try to foist it on others and/or go to violent extremes in its name. Monotheistic creeds seem to have an especially marked tendency in that direction.

Coot wrote:Taken from the link DW provided:
''If I get hold of the pope, I will hang him,'' Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior MMA leader, told protesters in Islamabad, who carried placards reading ''Terrorist, extremist Pope be hanged!''
Let me get this straight: this Hussain Ahmed wants to hang Benedicty because he called Islam violent, right? I guess it's safe to say irony is not a well-known concept among religious extremists.

Yeah, it is ironic and it is also why I can't really find much sympathy anymore either.

Xandax wrote:Yeah, it is ironic and it is also why I can't really find much sympathy anymore either.

Sympathy for any of the involved parties, you mean? I agree.

Maybe we could all chip in and buy a large island somewhere. We'll put all the troublemakers and hatemongers there and leave them to do their thing. It'll be the greatest PayPal project ever. I'll open an account. Send me money, everyone!

dragon wench wrote:Monotheistic creeds seem to have an especially marked tendency in that direction.

While I agree with you, if we go back 2000 years, that would be a flawed statement. Ancient polytheistic religions were often very warlike at times. I do believe it wasn't uncommon for the greek and roman people to start wars simply to please their war gods.

Magrus wrote:I do believe it wasn't uncommon for the greek and roman people to start wars simply to please their war gods.

I've always believed that too, but I've been told by many people who, unlike me, have real knowledge and understanding about these things that most religious wars are/were really economically motivated.

Well, yeah. However, religion was the tool used to bring everyone into it in a lot of wars. Conquest and all of that, whether from the expansion of the Roman empire, or the subjegation of the native Americans here...religion was the face over greed. How...sacriligious?

Hm, that sounded a little condescending.

Yeah, well, religious wars were often economic-driven, that's no real surprise. Religion is just the saber they wave to drive people to war, but it's not the real reason. People lying over the true motives of war is hardly a new thing.

I almost hope something will come of all this.

Magrus wrote:While I agree with you, if we go back 2000 years, that would be a flawed statement. Ancient polytheistic religions were often very warlike at times. I do believe it wasn't uncommon for the greek and roman people to start wars simply to please their war gods.

Nope. They started wars and then solicited blessings from their gods.