I wouldn't bet my life on your claim. The bible, too, calls for the massacre of infidels. Had the pope of the time have it, he would have gladly use it and say, ''I have cleared the Earth from infidels''

This is why controlling iran (and surrounding countries) is important. THEY don't have the rule of law, they have the sharia (law from the kuran). And because such a law also calls for the extinction of infidels, we must be very careful.

Of course, imposing democracy like it is done in iraq is no solution. Prosperity brings democracy, not the other way around

Sharia is law. While Sharia may be objectionable to Western values it is a code of law, and countries like Iran and even areas of Somalia that were controlled by the Islamic Courts Union had rule of law.

You're dumb. Let's say I steal your car. What do you want? Obviously, you want the car back. You're going to resent me, yes. You may want to kill me, and let's suppose further that you have a deadly bomb that will kill me without fail. Job One is getting back the fucking car, however. You can't blow me up when I'm in the car, because that would BLOW UP THE CAR. And that's the goal: TO GET THE CAR BACK.

You're dumb. People aren't cartoons. They have GOALS which usually override their immediate prejudices. The Crusades had a significant undercurrent of bigotry, yes, but they were primarily about real estate.

You're dumb. Now go read a book and don't open your mouth again until you have.

You're dumb.

YouTube Video

Ok, let me rephrase: our culture is based on the rule of law which has evolved over the years; too many islamic countries are based on the sharia, a law writtent by men in a time when people believed the earth was flat. SUch important things as law codes, when they don't evolve, keep barbaric "traditions" like stoning adulteress (??) or RAPED women. And they teach that in schools

in other words, you have no arguments left so you insult me

a part of it for sure, but when a pope is said to have said then religion is the primary motive. LEt's just hope that muslims don't do the same. After all, they could reclaim spain...

Oh, sure. Malaysia has Sharia law but you don't see women getting stoned or thieves getting their hands cut off. It's worth noting that that most populous Muslim nation in the world (Indonesia) doesn't even enforce Sharia law.

And all that has got us is a ludicrous society of blame where companies have to warn fucking idiots that the cup of coffee they just bought is hot in case they sue the vendor when they burn themselves on it and you can't send people to jail anymore in case you infringe their human rights.

To you, Sharia law might seem barbaric but to them, our and America's laws probably seem incredibly soft and no deterrent to criminals (Which by and large they no longer are). Just because something is different to your experiences doesn't mean it's automatically bad or wrong and you shouldn't look at stuff in such black and white terms. You're basically an un-educated bigot and each post you make, makes you look more of an idiot. If I were you, I'd quit while I still had a choice.

Actually, the primary reason for the crusades was the consolidation and expansion of papal authority over the Christian states of Europe. The history of the Roman Catholic Church leading up to Pope Urban II's proclamation at the Council of of Clement is one of massive power struggles, both within the church and between the church and other powers. Suggesting Urban II's reasons for begining the Crusades were anything other than those above is just silly.

Just thought I'd, you know, clear that up. Go on back to fighting a losing battle now.

No. In other words, your head is a great granite pineapple which is impervious to reasonable logic. When I insult you, it's not meant as an alternative to my showing you up as the ignorant shitheap that you are (since I did that as well). It's meant as an added bonus gift. You get to learn two things from that post: you're dumb, and The Crusades had major political motivations beyond the facade of religiosity. So it's like an education giveaway, baby, all for you!

See, this is sort of thing is why I call you dumb. You are taking public remarks from a figurehead and assuming them to somehow be the actual rationale. No war is EVER fought for the declared public reason, silly-billy! It's fought for the strategic reason. But! The strategic reason is never-ever public, because Joe Average would never sign up for a war if you put it in the starkly neutral terms of reality. Nobody ever signs up to fight and die so some fat Italian can have a place to build his summer cottage.

I mean this in the kindest way: stop to examine things. Don't be so gullible.

I don't. I admit that islam is probably the must « humbling » religion there is, where the richest and the poorest really are on the same level (fasting, praying)

However, like other religions (including christianity), a big part of it is based on primitive beliefs that, among others, women are inferior. Just look at the recent move of the anglican church: there could be a schism because women are now allowed in higher positions. Even the pope perpetuated the mysogynist tradition of the church by saying that this was against the apostolic tradition

Misogyny isn't exactly exclusive to religion...

Arguably the belief that bitches ain't shit seems a lot more reasonable when the Lord Of Creation has your back, though

The best part of this is watching Janus backpedal as fast as possible when he realises how obscenely outclassed he is.

Could you provide a specific reference for this claim? I'd like to know what book, chapter, and verse "calls for the massacre of infidels."

Just sayin'.

rock n roll jesus christ

Tch, that's the Jews, not the Christians. You should know that Jesus died so we wouldn't have to care about Deuteronomy and all that jazz (see: Old Testament).

Besides, it doesn't say infidels.

Say... has the Catholic Church ever even used that term? I never even thought of that, before. I can't recall any specific time a Christian has used it.

I'm sure "heretic" has been used quite often in Catholic times.

Yeah uh about that, Matthew 5 has some small discrepancies to point out


17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

You're dumb.

I think this is what he was talking about:

Gal 2:15 - Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Thus, the old school way of doing business that Sass pointed out in Deuteronomy doesn't really apply. Otherwise, we'd still be doing animal sacrifice and stuff.

It does seem like you Christians are pretty selective, yes.

Please, all I have to do to shoot holes in that argument is put it in context.

I don't see how that contradicts the quotation from Matthew. All that Paul appears to be saying here is that faith is more important than the law (of course it is, all the burnt offerings are pretty pointless if you don't even believe); he's not saying the law should be abandoned.

And — even if he were, you'd be putting a quote attributed to Paul up against a quote attributed to Christ and saying it's more important, which NO.

As for "animal sacrifice", I don't really see how "sport hunting" is anything else but that. "I killed that deer!" "Are you gonna eat it?" "Naw."

Not to mention that in the Matthew quote, it specifically says Jesus came to fulfill the Law. What do you suppose that means? If it's fulfilled, what is there left to do?

If fulfilling something ends it, and abolishing something ends it, in what sense is it possible to fulfill the law but not abolish it? You've made Jesus into either a liar or self-contradictory.

I'm not really sure how this isn't clear. Say there's a law that says "If you do X, you will pay consequence Y". Well, we could either abolish the law - that is to say, we make it null and void in that we decide there is no longer any need for consequence Y. But if that were that case, what justified the law in the first place?

Or we can fulfill the law by taking consquence Y.

Ok, say I steal a TV, and I go to jail for it. I've now fulfilled the law that stealing TVs will make me go to jail. Yes. But: the next guy who steals a TV will also go to jail, and so on., indefinitely.

Your position is that since I went to jail (fulfilling the anti-theft law), it's now a burglary-free-for-all with no consequences for everyone else. Except it's not, since he did not abolish the law.