Staredit Network

That guy's talking out of his ass.

what the hell arbituary where did you get that from?

i think its a very valid argument but since when did jews control the media?

Okay, let's take a look at this:


That fits my namesake perfectly. There are not and never will be any grounds for Christianity being above criticism. That alone voids his entire argument. All he's doing is distorting history to fit his claims.

so hitler and stalin didnt kill more people than christianity did..... ok

Jewish media control? Highly unlikely. I'm sorry to say this but most of the bad PR that Christians get are from pseudo-intellectuals who don't know shiz about the bible, and Christians who think they're doing the right thing by forcing their religion upon someone...like what is it...Focus on the Family. Of course, I have other anti-christianity groups that I could name right now, but I don't feel like it.

Mainstream Media is sending Christianity to hell. As Billy Joel Armstrong of Green Day said, "I don't know shiz about the bible, so I made one up." What the fark was he thinking, attacking Christianity with songs such as "Jesus of Suburbia" while he proclaimed he knew nothing about the song?

I think that's what this guy is saying.

Well thats quite untrue, you have 3 crusades, the children crusades, bush is a devout christian, should we blame deaths by the US on him? Just because the leader isn't christian does not mean that a majority of the soldiers doing the killing aren't either, because a majority of german soldiers (and germans in general) were christian/catholic/follow the church. Most medieval wars were fought by chrisitans, the 100 years war, etc.

No, you dolt, I said nothing of Hitler and Stalin. Those two dictators had nothing to do with organized religion, aside from Nazi occultism during the reign of the Third Reich.

The guy's trying to draw parallels from two entirely unrelated things. Russia/the USSR was never a country to be controlled by the church; the Tsars and kings had ruled the country independent from religious influence for hundreds of years.

do i need to bring up the casualties of ww2? yes it is true that most medieval wars were fought by christians but not all of the wars were started by them. the majority of it was the catholic church that was corrupted at the time.

bush is an idiot. he would invade other countries nomatter what religion he is.

What does World War II have to do with dictators not following the 'rules' of Christian beliefs?!?! If you seriously think that there would have magically not been World War farking Two because the leaders of Germany and the Soviet Union were Catholic and Orthodox, then you need to study some god damn European history.

Actually, the Christian Church literally held Europe together while they were going through there little Heathen-fits. It was the one binding thing that prevented conflicts to break out; its much easier to attack a 'pagan' (like the muslims) over attacking Holy Rome. Except for that one Crusade. They were stupid. But during the black plague, the church played a major part in holding the western world together while they were trying to stand back up.

Right, but we're talking 20th century here, which Sie has so blindly associated with all this.

yes well what im trying to point out is is that communism and nazism killed more people than christianity. so why only focus on attackign christianity? your one of those "jewish controlled media" arnt you?!

The point is you're trying to divert attention and criticism from Christian principles by making imaginary parallels between absence of church-state relationship and war casualties.

Stop making shiz up.

what exactly am i making up.

why shouldnt i divert attention christianity isnt the cause of all the worlds pains.

Yes, and I suppose speaking against it is. You know what happened in the past due to church control of entire governments, but then if anyone makes mention of it, you revert to the "Well it isn't like that now, and if everybody followed the teachings of the Bible we wouldn't have wars lozloalzolaozlo" defense.

Hey, guess what?

IT HAPPENED. IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN.

Such a jumbled book of incoherent hearsay and parables. "Well it's the morals that count lol!" Okay, let's go back in time to the Spanish Inquisition and teach everyone the wonders of the Bible! Oh right, they already HAVE THAT. It's solidified in person on farking stretching racks.

What are you, mentally retarded or something!? Stop saying things you've heard. George carlin was actually making fun of people who say jews control the media.
"Your one of those religious fanatic fooles aren't you!"

What I've seen alot about christian fanatics when they try to disprove what you say/convert you, is that they'll either say a question which off the top of your head sounds reasonable and you can't fight back because you don't know OR they'll say something as in "god has to exist, because you can't get something from nothing" and then says "1+1 = 2 and 0+0=0" I didn't understand it, all i kept saying was "good you know addition/subtraction." They will use things that aren't true as facts. Yes granted there are those few who actually know what they are talking about but then get to a point where its all faith again.

Holy shiz, you are my farking idol!


Thats bullshiz, if he was jewish he wouldn't be able to use "jewish fundamentals" to ignite a war. It only works if your a christian. Germany started the wars, imo caused the most harm and casualties, so don't even fark around with me and ww2 history. I am a fanatic when it comes to ww2, as a selected few also are on these forums. Also I think its NEARLY ALL medieval wars were started by chrisitians since thats what they all were. Chrisitians and muslims. Mostly chrisitians. Battle of tours was muslims fault. I think this world would be a better place if ALL religion was wiped from it. Muslim, jewish, christianity, pagenism (if any still follow), every last bit.

Topic reopened as it has potential for interesting discussion.

Christianity was actually one of the goals of imperialism, especially during the Scramble for Africa in the late 1800s. The great explorer and missionary, David Livingstone, claimed that Africa needed to be colonised by European powers to spread the three 'C's' - Commerce, Christianity and Civilisation.

Soon after his death, the Scramble for Africa began. 'Spreading Christianity' was often cited as a reason for European involvement in Africa. The Christian aim of stopping the slave trade led to European involvement (usually British - as the only power really dedicated to the destruction of slavery) in East and West Africa.

The reasons for imperialism were a lot more complex in most cases, however. Often it was the actions of some Western crusader or businessman which led to the extension of European rule in Africa. Fred Lugard and Cecil Rhodes are examples. Lugard, acting on behalf of the British East Africa company, became involved in a civil war in the Kingdom of Buganda (now Uganda in East Africa), between Protestant (led by a British missionary society), Catholic (Led by French priests and supported by the King of Buganda, Mwanga), Muslim (led by Arab slavers) and Pagan factions. This got out of control and forced the hand of the British government - who had to intervene and establish formal control over the region before someone else did.

In essence, this was what the Scramble for Africa period Imperialism was all about. The actions of individuals, themselves acting on either the behalf of Christianity, corporations or European governments, caused uncontrollable situations in certain areas of Africa. There was then a race amongst the European powers to take control of the disputed territory before their rivals did. They might not have even wanted to take control of the territory in the first place, but it was usually deemed preferable to ownership by a rival. This was why Britain ended up with such a massive African empire.

To conclude, Imperialism is sometimes, but not always, a product of the desire to spread Christianity.

Then riddle me this. How come almost all serial killers have a strong religious back ground? Better yet, don't even answer that question. I know a better counter example. Kinda obvious. Just 1 word really:

Crusades.

But this has already been said.

If you lived in our parent's generation, you'd claim that the root of all evil was communism, or otherwise capitalism, depending on the side you took. It was the cause of many major battles during then.

If you lived in your grandparent's generation, it'd probably wrongly-placed nationalism that caused all the conflicts of the world. What I'm trying to get at is that the source of conflict varies from generation to generation. We're probably repeating history. Its not as strange as you may think; the 80s fashion has started becoming popular for a few years now.

It can happen again, however, I think that it will happen again. Even as a Christian, I see that we as Christians started the war with other religeons and many regret it (crusades-Spreading the gospel by sword) (If crusades didnt happen, then we wouldnt have had 9/11 very likely. Because of Crusades, many extra words were added into the Qaran- as in 'kill all other religeos people'.), and I doubt it would end anytime now. So, until all fanatics are gone, I think neutral/no fanatic background people should control the government (in other words, NOT ME) -cuz I can't
It will happen again (not very easily to be seen but right now) Bush said we are going after terrorists who are all similarly Muslims. (continued of crusades)

Religion is just one more excuse for conflict.

That sums most of it up right there.

so is money, power, control, and racism.