quoudam72 Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 Well, And who told you that? That allah is the same god?Is it in the Bible? Explain yourself.Ordos dude.Kirov if I may interject for a moment "Allah" is arabic for the word God.
Sardauker-Kirov Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 I know that. But if you compare gods religion with Allah's, Its totaly different.
Acriku Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 Kirov there you go again making excuses for things brought up, i.e. can God make a more powerful being?. And the monks did know how to read and write! They wrote every scripture till the printing press, so how could they not?And the only actual facts of Jesus' existence were in the books written by John, David, or something. It would be a good thing to write when you are trying to convert everyone...
ordos45 Posted February 22, 2002 Author Posted February 22, 2002 I like these guys where can I find more infromation on them? Warroir monks I like the way that sounds.I saw it on a video in history.
UsulSK Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 A new thought:In my oppinion all ideologies, including religions, should be tools FOR humankind and not the other way around. I mean if someone does something just because the ideology (communism, nationalism, religion, anarchy) wants it that way, then thats wrong. Because each individium is more important then any ideology which are supposed to help and not to dictate morals.OK, that was a little off-topic thought, I admit. But it was only a by-the-way thing.
Sardauker-Kirov Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 I am making an Excuse, Just by saying Allah is different then the Christian Religion. Uhhhh right. ::)And Btw Acriku. How can god create a more powerfull being then himself, If it Exceeds his Own Power. Just compare it with a Battery.Com says he needs 30 watt. But the battery can only produce 20 watt. Does the com work?? chances is 0,9% that the com will be activated. I hope the English writer's of the Bible translated the words good hehe ;D
nampigai Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 For anyone interested in the Knights Templar, here's a webby I found http://www.templarhistory.com, If anyone else got something interesting on the KT please IM me or paste in on a post.
Acriku Posted February 22, 2002 Posted February 22, 2002 Kirov if God can do anything, because he is omnipotent and perfect, and you basically said so, why can't he make a more powerful being? That is an option to make, and it is possible, because He is omnipotent. Batteries are not all powerful...or perfect...And I never said Allah being different, etc, was the excuse, only the above.
Edric O Posted February 23, 2002 Posted February 23, 2002 All of you criticizing Christianity's role in history fail to mention one thing: What would have happened if Christianity HADN'T existed? Eh? Would there have been less killings and massacres? I doubt it.Without Christianity, we would all be speaking arab by now. Christian fanaticism was the only thing that stopped the arab invasion of Europe. (see the battle of Poitiers)The existence of Christianity was vital to the developement of atheism and human rights. I don't think I need to explain what would have happened to these movements if Europe was Muslim...UsulSK:Why don't you ask yourself how did the Church get that monopoly on writing? Most roman citizens knew how to read and write. The Church couldn't (and didn't) order them to forget... ::) But when Rome fell it took down everything with it. Soon, monks were the only ones LEFT that could read and write. What's worse: Monks being the only litterate people or NOBODY being litterate?I'm talking about the barbarian kingdoms of Burgundy, the Kindgdom of the Franks, the Longobards, the Visigoths, the German tribes and all the various Slavic kingdoms...Oh, and as for your country (Germany): You were first united in the Frankish CHRISTIAN empire of Charlemagne. Then you were slowly broken up into countless little states which were ruled in name only by the Holy Roman Emperor. Then they all united with Prussia to form Germany in the 19th century.Acriku:Actually, there are several non-christian roman authors that mention Jesus... although their main focus is on the creative ways that the Emperors found to torture christians...It's true that we know very very little of Jesus outside the Gospels, but the Gospel authors had nothing to gain by making things up. When the Gospels were written the persecutions hadn't begun yet, but christians were nothing more than a weird new sect. Why would anyone write stuff for these "weirdos" which seemed to have no future?Nema:I'm saying Religion shouldn't be changed BY MAN. If God decides to change it (by sending prophets or even by sending His Son), then it should change, obviously... But of course, if someone claims to be a prophet I expect some proof. Jesus did offer A LOT of proof, and so did the ancient prophets.Please, don't be hypocritical! Atheism not having a chance? No offense, but I see atheism striking hard at Christianity, especially in the USA. Atheists have the power all right, but they just use it all against us. Well, not all atheists. Not you or others like you, but the kind I call "atheist fanatics". The sort of people that want to ban Religion and prevent anyone from even TALKING about it in public places... Like I said, ANYTHING can be used as a licence to kill, even atheism. :(Religion might cause wars, but from my knowledge of history I'm sure that there would have been even MORE wars without it.Please tell me what would have been the history of Europe without Christianity. Don't forget that the Crusades were a major factor in bringing about the Renaissance. And also, ancient non-christian moral was very different from ours. Even the "civilized" romans were proud of slaughtering women and children.So make me an alternate timeline.Ordos45:You're right, but as usual, people judge the actions of our ancestors according to modern day standards. I suppose in 1000 years' time we'll be considered just as ruthless and cruel as the crusaders.
nemafakei Posted February 23, 2002 Posted February 23, 2002 Changing of religion:Well if god is outside of time, surely he does not change over time, and nor would the religion that reflects him.Religion being good/bad for history:Edric, you do realise that losing this argument will greatly help prove that there is no god, but winning it will do little to prove there is one.And religion causes wars, but moral codes (eg religious ones) saves us from war - an equivalent Atheist moral code would work just as well."atheist fanatics"If you wish to use this example (although I've not heard of it), I can use Bin Laden the religious fanatic. So far, I don't think I have."Why would anyone write stuff for these "weirdos" which seemed to have no future?"Because they were part of the weird sect - MML&J believed in the power of this Jesus, so they glorified and even deified him."And also, ancient non-christian moral was very different from ours. Even the "civilized" romans were proud of slaughtering women and children."You mean the Romans when they were pagan or when they were christian? "Without Christianity, we would all be speaking arab by now. Christian fanaticism was the only thing that stopped the arab invasion of Europe."I oppose islam too. So we wouldn't be speaking arabic.
evilbaronatreides Posted February 23, 2002 Posted February 23, 2002 More wars without religion? If there was no religion, people would have very little to bicker about with their beliefs. But at the same time, people would have less in common....Edric, your statement could work both ways.oh, and Kirov, this is a quote from the five pillars of Islam"There is one true God, and 'his' name is Allah"sound kind of familiar?
Ligic_Tha_Master Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 "Allah akbar.""Allah is greatest."
Edric O Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 Nema, look closely at the past posts in this thread. We must have had a dozen arguments, but nobody won or lost them. They just sorta died out...God does not change over time, but He DOES change His Religion according to our level of understanding. And He did say that He would send a Messiah at some point in time. Obviously, this Messiah would do some changes as well.I don't doubt the value of atheist moral codes. The question is: Do you REALLY think savages would follow ANY moral code without the possibility of reward/punishement?I won't use the atheist fanatics in my argument, except for proving that you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.The authors of the Gospels believed in Jesus: My point exactly! And what kind of person would write LIES about his God? They must have also believed that what they wrote was 100% true. And since they wrote it only 20-30 years after the events, using eye witness testimonies, chances are it IS true.The pagan romans were bloodthirsty... just look at the gladiator battles! If these people were civilized, I don't dare to think how the "barbarians" must have been... If the arabs had conquered Europe in the dark ages, you WOULDN'T be opposing Islam. You're from the UK, right? Well, the invasion of 1066 wouldn't have been Normand...
Acriku Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 Edric, athiests are not the only ones trying to get rid of religion from schools and such, all religions are because they don't want their children persuaded to a different religion. And, think of this: The Greeks have books about Hercules, and his full life. He did miracles, saved people, went insane even, and was deified. Was he real? Did he perform all those miracles? Even though you don't believe in it, it might all be true. And so what if the Romans were fat and bloodthirsty? They liked it, they even encouraged it, but does that mean we are better than them? (Sorta like Edric's argument) The Romans brought great things, the aqueduct, great architectural buildings, etc. We are no one to criticize their doings, because we don't know the circumstances, the atmosphere created, and a lot of other factors.And no one can ever know what exactly could have happened had the Christians not go with the Crusades, because anything, even a feather being kept from dropping, could change history dramatically. So, basically that argument of what could have happened is moot. And maybe life would be better being a world of just Islamic territories and lives.
nemafakei Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 "We must have had a dozen arguments, but nobody won or lost them. They just sorta died out... "Well, they died out because there were so many arguments that we couldn't keep track of the counter arguments and counter counter arguments etc... Now I'm annoyed that I can't see all the posts. This would help for a summary."Do you REALLY think savages would follow ANY moral code without the possibility of reward/punishement? "We evolved from a 'good-of-thespecies' basis. So the reward would not have been personal, but general. And by making reward personal, religion encourages greed."Well, the invasion of 1066 wouldn't have been Normand... "I take it you're tailing off because you know this was not what I meant."The pagan romans were bloodthirsty... just look at the gladiator battles! If these people were civilized, I don't dare to think how the "barbarians" must have been.."So pagans are no better than christians historically, then (Spanish inquisition!).
evilbaronatreides Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 Pagan romans? I thought in 396 ad, the romans converted to christianity? And as for bloodthirsty, look at some of the stuff they show on modern television, and then tell me who is bloodthirsty.
Edric O Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 Nema:One particular argument that died out for no apparent reason was my "without God there is no good and evil" argument... I'm sure there were many others."Good of the species"? Yeah, right! ::) We're not acting for the good of the species even NOW, much less in the past! We're happily walking towards our own extinction due to personal greed...How could religion encourage what it condemns? (e.g. greed)Historically, nobody is much better than anyone else...Acriku:If we are not the ones to criticize the romans, then we are also not the ones to criticize the crusaders! The Crusades sparked the Renaissance by introducing Europe to the refined East...I see your point about the feather. That feather could have caused someone to sneeze in the middle of a battle and fall, thereby getting killed. And that someone could have been the ancestor of Albert Einstein...We can't possibly know how would the 20th century have looked like without the Crusades, but we can know how the century right after the missing Crusades would have been like.As for Hercules, he was considered a myth even by some ancient greeks. Nobody ever claimed to have met him and he was supposed to have lived in a strange distant past filled with monsters and such... All stories about him were passed on (or written down) as stories, not eyewitness accounts.
Acriku Posted February 24, 2002 Posted February 24, 2002 But the Crusades were in the name of Christianity, the Romans were for their Gods, or nothing. That is why we should criticize the religion. But then again, it doesn't prove anything enormous, just that humans are evil.
Edric O Posted February 25, 2002 Posted February 25, 2002 Humans are evil? Old news...I don't see your logic. If evil is done in the name of Religion we should criticize it, but otherwise we shouldn't?? ???
nemafakei Posted February 25, 2002 Posted February 25, 2002 "We're not acting for the good of the species even NOW, much less in the past! We're happily walking towards our own extinction due to personal greed..."What I'm saying is that personal greed is one way of ensuring relative peace, which religion condones by promising hapiness in heaven and such if we are 'good'... but a far better way is offering the reward to the community - if we are good, then all will prosper - and this is likely because of the good-of-the-species preprogramming we have. Hence, religion is not necessary for a good moral code.
Acriku Posted February 25, 2002 Posted February 25, 2002 Well Romans had nothing to say they had to be good, or were good, so how can you criticize something they didn't have? Christians had it...
evilbaronatreides Posted February 26, 2002 Posted February 26, 2002 Well Romans had nothing to say they had to be good, or were good, so how can you criticize something they didn't have? Christians had it...what? Please clarify.
Acriku Posted February 26, 2002 Posted February 26, 2002 Christians were doing it in the name of their religion, which had a code to be good, the Romans didn't, thus that is why.
jacobdouds Posted February 27, 2002 Posted February 27, 2002 Every war in some way hase been about religion. The terrarists, world war 11 and world war 1. So how is this helping the world, and how is any religion right.
exatreide Posted February 27, 2002 Posted February 27, 2002 WW one had nothing to do about relgion. It was more about expanding dieing empires. I dont know if the ottomanns wanted to convert people to islam. WW1 started when Arch duke cant reamber his name was assinated. The Austrien-Hungarien empire felt it was neccisary to declare war (on serbia). So they did. Thats how ww1 started. I dont think ww1 had much to do with relgion.
Recommended Posts