1
The Lounge / Re: Bohemian Altsody
« on: November 02, 2008, 05:22:31 PM »No. I hate music. I rebel against everything possible because I am a true rebel.i'm moar rebeller den u!!!1
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No. I hate music. I rebel against everything possible because I am a true rebel.i'm moar rebeller den u!!!1
Can I at least get a hug?I don't need your sympathy.
Well your in luck, we all feel bad for you, but we despise you enough that it cancels out the sympathy.
We're talking about the time of Crusades. They were several centuries too late for "self-defense".Spain had been under Christian rule for centuries.Are you sure about that? Muslim's conquered the Iberian peninsula in 711, and ruled there until 1492.
The southern Iberian had been Christian since before 300 AD.
That wasn't caused by Christianity.There would have been no Crusades without it.
So even thought the vast majority of contemporary historians say that the dark ages were a fabrication, you for some reason disagree. Typical atheist.You are yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.
Those were other causes of the Inquisition.Christianity still remains the uniting factor. You cannot escape it.
Xenophobia wasn't inspired by religion.I never said it was.
The crusades were neither horrible or motivated solely by Christianity. They were an appropriate response to the military actions of Muslim nations.The Crusades led to the slaughter and deportation of thousands of innocent civilians for religiously motivated purposes.
Why not?Because you are not.
Xenophobia, greed.You're supposed to be naming positive things that could have only have been provided by Christianity now.
Creating a buffer zone to protect against a defeated invaded is delf defence.They were "liberating" the Holy Land. Any buffer zone created was incidental.
It wasn't as bad as you think it was.But it was still bad, right?
I take it you admit I am right.Niet.
You are yet to show any negative influences brought about solely by the religion.The Inquisition.
Cool story bro.Do you admit the Crusades were not in self-defense then?
...it's been exaggerated....and how is that relevant?
No, but few to no modern historians dispute what I say.Aheheh.
We can observe how it advanced progress significantly. We cannot know whether any negative influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.Actually, we can. We've just been discussing the negative influences. You are yet to show any positive influences brought about solely by the religion.
this library was the sum total knowledge of the greeks. You underestimate the value of knowledge.The correct conclusion of your premise would be that I underestimate the value of the library's contents. Your premise is also incorrect, so you're completely wrong. I merely feel that burning the library (which may not have even happened in the first place) was not the pinnacle of Muslim evil.
And this territory helped defend Europe from later Muslim attacks.That was not the reason cited by the Pope.
I said it's been exaggerated greatly as a result of British propaganda.So what's your point?
Your words versus historians.So you're an historian now, are you?
So by this reasoning you can't say Christianity was bad for Europe.We can observe how it restricted progress significantly. We cannot know whether any positive influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.
Setting humanity back by centuries is the least of their crimes? If it wasn't for them who knows what we would have accomplished.They have done much worse than burning a single library.
So they wanted to free Jerusalem, which had been conquered by Muslims, how is this bad?Muslims had controlled Jerusalem for centuries and the Muslims and Jews fought side by side to defend it from the "liberators". Most of the heathen civilians were massacred and even the Christian population was eventually expelled.
Did I say it didn't happen?You were very determined to trivialize it.
Dark ages are bullshit propaganda.Your word versus mine.
Everything positive minus everything negative, net gain.How do you know it was positive if there was no possible alternative?
Source?During this time, the Church was attempting to drive Muslims out of Spain and used the pretext of the Byzantine war with the Turks to try to also "liberate" the holy city of Jerusalem from the hands of the heathens.
Yes.That must have hurt.
So you won't admit you are wrong but you won't stop talking?You haven't proven anything.
There being no Christianity in Europe.How do you know?
Islam nearly destroyed the Great Library so that they could heat hot baths without going out and getting wood.I have no love of Islam.
Self defense is a crime, am I right?According to the Church, it was.
It was greatly exaggerated.It happened, did it not?
Historians won't even use the term dark ages anymore, that how bullshit it is.Boo hoo.
You said that Christianity fucked up Europe, it had a few mishaps, but it was undoubtedly a positive influence (unless you are a delusional atheist).Positive in relation to what?
I agree with you, Islam is very suitable for ignorant races that can't control themselves like we can. The newer form of christianity is better suited for people of European decent, we are smarter and better control our urges. Glad to know I have a brother out there.Idiot.
The Crusades were aggression on the part of the Church, the brutality of the Inquisition was very real (though apparently more women were burned as witches in Protestant countries - hardly a point for your side, I would think), the Reformation caused numerous holy wars (Christianity hindered the Enlightenment no matter how you look at it) and the Dark Ages is another term for the Middle Ages employed to stress the nature of the era.QuoteChristianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.The crusades were a response to Islamic military successes, the inquisition was exaggerated by British propagandist, the reformation paved the way for the enlightenment and the dark ages were a fabrication. Fail less.
You're a genuine Oscar Wilde, aren't you?If only someone would have told your dad that when you were little. amiright?And you shouldn't be so ridiculing of it, because it was one of the pictures I took to keep my fucking mind off of you...Incest is generally not desirable.
The age of the religion has nothing to do with what laws would work. It is the time period it is in.Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.
I'm asking you to look at results, not methods.
His answer makes complete sense. It's hardly grasping at straws. Most judaic law had to do with preventing disease. Whether it was keeping them from eating certain foods, demanding bathing, and the various laws of "spiritual cleanliness" which kept people away from dead bodies and other sources of disease. Please stop grasping at straws.Yes, stoning women to death was perfectly acceptable because it "stopped the spread of disease". They defend circumcision these days by saying it has "health benefits" too. Not bullshit at all.
I can go with God accepting the stoning of prostitutes - in an era where there was no knowledge of epidemiology, an emergent virus could have wiped out entire cultures. In the old West, stealing a horse was an offense punishable by death, and for good reason. If you took someone's horse, it might be a death sentence if they are too far to walk to water. Obviously today the punishment has been adjusted to match the consequences.That's retarded and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.
But Islam is invariant. A 13 year old rape victim was just stoned to death in Somalia last week for "adultery". If you want to talk about a religion that produces evil consistently, you need look no further than Islam.I agree, but please answer the question.
And you shouldn't be so ridiculing of it, because it was one of the pictures I took to keep my fucking mind off of you...Incest is generally not desirable.
It's noit difficult when the argument used is so easy proven fallacious.Which argument is that?
Worthless post is worthless by definition. "Gullible" is a much more subjective description as its meaning leaves greater room for ambiguity.Granted that a worthless post is worthless. However, "gullible" has a much more straightforward definition than "worthless". Something "being without worth" has far greater potential for explanation than merely someone who is naive.
However, I'm sure we can all take comfort in the false security of consensus that Obama is qualified to be president.
I'd say he's more qualified than McCain, who spent years living in a Communist country.His years in Vietnam are not what make him unqualified.