And now begins the "they aren't real Christians" argument. If all Christians that had ever called another Christian not really a Christian were to vanish, there would be no Christians left.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you disregard a basic tenet of faith, and feel that you are justified in doing so, you are going against the faith, and not really apart of the faith. If my religion tells me not to eat lemon heads, and it's a big part of that religion, and I eat lemon heads, and don't really care at all that I broke the rule/ I don't care about the rule: I do not believe in the authority of my religion, I do not fully believe in my religion, and I am not apart of the religion. Someone who doesn't believe in God can't claim to be a Christian, so why can someone who also does not believe in the religion?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The way that the Pope interpreted the Bible, what he was doing was a good thing. And you can't say that his interpretation was wrong, because it's an opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I believe that the pope cannot go wrong on matters of scripture. I am Catholic (but there can be bad popes, who are usually booted out). A self-righteous pope wasn't the cause, the causes were: Muslims were taking over previously Christian land, some Christian pilgrims were being killed, merchants wanted a wider area to trade, kings didn't want to lose their land. While what happened in the crusades was bad, people killing other people is never really "good", but Christians were being killed too. The crusades were a response, just one motivated by several factors, not the cause of a pope. I just don't agree with you saying that I can't say that people aren't Christians when they go against my religion. A good amount of people who fought in the crusades thought that they were fighting for God. They thought they were protecting other Christians, absolving themselves of sins, and saving Christian lands while stopping the spread of Islam.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The Pope launched the crusades because he wanted to take back the holy land (Jerusalem). He did it for the glory of God and Christianity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And because of Christians being killed, and because people had economic and political reasons. It wasn't just because of the Pope, their were other people who wanted this to happen, they asked the Pope to get in on it. The Christians thought they were fighting for God, for redemption, etc., but they did want to take back the Holy Land and make it easier for pilgrims to travel there. There were many reasons, it wasn't just because the Pope wanted it. http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusades_3.htm http://www.ehow.com/facts_5748464_cause-crusade_.html http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Those links all prove my point...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They all say that there were several reasons. Im not saying that the Pope and people didn't think they were doing it for God, but there were other reasons besides just taking back the holy land. The last one takes a bit more reading. It wasn't just the Pope wanting it, it was Italian merchants, kings, murder, instability, etc. You should know that most things in history have multiple causes, perspectives, reasons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course. But the main reason was religious.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

For the Pope. Some king something or other asked him to get involved. And the Pope's reasons were: stop the spread of Islam, get Holy Land, protect Christians. Traders and kings also had a large stake. It wasn't the whim of the Pope was my whole second point I guess.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But wouldn't you agree any church or religious group that takes someone in as a member, as one of their own, should take some sort of responsibility for their actions?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, not if that person was acting contrary to their beliefs, and without any remorse. It's one thing if I slap someone and I feel bad about it, it's another thing if I slap someone and I don't think I did anything wrong, which my religion clearly says is wrong (and if that's a major thing).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, and the people responsible for 9/11 did it in the name of Allah (actually going against the Islamic faith).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Islam commands it's followers to convert or kill everyone. Yes, there is one sentence in there that says something like "do not destroy yourselves", but there are also a lot of sections that say "make war on the unbelievers" and other things to that affect. I'm not bashing Muslims, I have no problem with Muslims. I'm just saying that according the Koran, you're supposed to kill or convert. Not to mention Islamic countries are incredibly sexist and discriminative.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're taking things out of context we are prohibited from forcing conversion upon people http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/society-and-family/interfaith-issues/168059-was-conversion-to-islam-discouraged.html if we're friends with non-Muslims why would we make war on them? http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/ethics-and-values/human-rights/168865.html

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That may be the way you interpret Islam, but others disagree. And from what information I've gathered on Islam and its followers, the radical Muslims that have a convert or kill attitude are following the Koran to the letter.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

and what letters are these? I'd like to see things can mean anything once they're taken out of context by ignoring what comes before and after whatever chunk is taken out of context do you know the Qur'an as a whole? to understand completely it's good to research the history of Islam and know the original language too a lot is lost in translations the crazies come from trying to figure things out on their own without experts/scholars involved you can do the same thing with the Constitution or any situation really

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Things can mean anything //in// context. It all depends on how you interpret the texts. What the Qur'an says is up to interpretation just as much as the Bible or any other text. What I think it means, what you think it means, what Osama Bin Laden thought it meant, it doesn't matter because interpretation is totally subjective. Context doesn't provide a definitive meaning to anything, only more material to interpret. I read a lot of atheist/antitheist literature. I've seen testimony from formerly Islamic critics of the faith and they concede that the messages of the Qur'an are generally hostile. Many of these writers are women that escaped the oppression of Islamic nations and now devote their lives to ending such oppression. The Bible and the Qur'an are quite similar. They both advocate barbaric actions and attitudes. The difference between the Christian world and the Islamic world is that Christians basically ignore those parts of their faith because they realize how flawed those systems are and that a society can't function well living by those laws.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

was Osama an expert/scholar? did he have the credentials to interpret? and those people were escaping a culture female oppression is rampant in places without religion as well and it was rampant before the advent of certain religions and Bangladesh has had women hold the role of leader of the country (prime minister I think) something equivalent to president there's nothing in Islam that says women can't vote for the leader so barring women from doing so can't be attributed to Islam and I'd like to hear what these atrocities are that you speak of atrocities happen everywhere religious and otherwise

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Interpretation doesn't require credentials, only a mind and the ability to read. That oppressive culture is built around religion and the government is theocratic. The atrocities I'm referring to are all over the place. Honor killings leap to mind. A 14 year old girl (I believe in Bangladesh) was raped recently, convicted of adultery, and whipped to death. Yes, atrocities happen everywhere and under every circumstance, but many of them are justified and even caused by religion.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

where's the proof of honor killings being okay in Islam? honor killings are conducted in India too by non-Muslims what could be a factor? poverty? education levels? there are clear rules that say the rapist is to be punished not the victim so again that'd be a cultural thing that 14 year old girls situation is not the norm it is an exception that happens like murder occurs in all countries but it is not the norm of the population regardless and let's look at Iran http://www.onislam.net/english/news/middle-east/447663.html and interpretation does require credentials if you don't have the credentials how can one understand the concepts completely? that's like asking the average Joe to perform surgery holy books are important in that they have such a huge influence on society so if an average Joe tries to make interpretations he best get help from a scholar because it's a serious deal

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They did punish the rapist. He got a few lashes, as well. The practical application of religion is to provide an instruction book for life, right? A set of morals, dos and don'ts. If honor killings are indeed cultural and not religious, that still reflects badly in Islam. A culture built around Islam is able to develop and maintain such a twisted sense of right and wrong. That means that either Islam has failed to show these people true morality, or that Islam advocates this twisted sense of morality.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again honor killings exist outside of Islamic nations so explain that? can't you see that there are other factors involved? it doesn't reflect badly on Islam it reflects badly on the culture someone blamed video games for murdering someone are video games to take the blame for this person's actions? or should these people own up to the atrocities they commit instead of trying to pin it on other things and making up excuses

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I should say Muslim nations Bangladesh and Iran are Muslim nations I've never heard Islamic nations before

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you ask a murderer who plays violent video games why he murdered someone, he will not say "because of videogames." If you ask the man who whipped that 14 year old girl to death why he did it, he will say "for Islam." You're saying that religious extremists who kill and oppress for their faith would act the same way without their faith, they're just using it as justification? Religion is the //cause// of the extremism. They kill and oppress because they think that's what God wants them to do, and they want to do it because they think that's what God wants them to do and that's what is right because it's God's will. Take God out of the equation and the motivation to act in such a barbaric fashion is gone.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, someone did say it was because of the video games how do you know what that man would say? Some other man could murder and say he did it for love or he did it for his mother etc. that doesn't mean it's love's fault or the mother's fault And as I said before, honor killings exist outside of Muslim majority nations they occur in different cultural settings Also, there is nothing in the text about honor killings being okay there is nothing in Islam that is pro honor killings that is because honor killings is not an idea held within Islam there is no proof of such if someone says "cannibalism of the promiscuous is okay" and say that religions backs them it doesn't mean religion backs them that's just the culture they grew up in take the tribes that have a passage that says if there are twins one twin must be eaten it's their culture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The difference there is that the mother/love didn't tell the man to do it. The Qu'ran may not condone honor killing, but that doesn't change the fact that these people have a culture and a government built around the words of the Qu'ran, and honor killings (and more) are an accepted part of that culture. Islam may not condone such actions, but it certainly doesn't do anything to stop them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

of course it does murder is a sin alcohol is forbidden too but people in those nations drink daily that's the culture there Islam definitely does not promote drinking it forbids drinking but that doesn't stop all of them honor killings are accepted by some of the people not all of them it's not as if every family there participates or promotes these things the ones that do participate in horrendous acts will stand out in comparison to the many who don't I know first hand because I've been there I know what it's like

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, the text says that such things are forbidden, but I said that Islam doesn't //do// anything to stop them. The intention may be to eliminate/discourage such behaviors, but followers of Islam go right ahead and do it anyway! This happens in every religion, Christianity in particular. One of the key goals of religion is to regulate human behavior to make us better people, and on this front religion has failed. If the law says that murder is illegal, but nothing is done to stop murderers, then the law is useless. Words mean nothing, only actions have results.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you said it was Islam's fault this was happening what you said doesn't prove that it shows that Islam is not at fault for horrendous acts and there are laws against murder you don't think that guy who murdered the 14 year old didn't face jail time? there are police in Bangladesh and religion hasn't failed on the account that there are countless people who are "better people" just because there are a couple of murderers out there doesn't mean that that's not true they're the exception to the norm the average person anywhere is not a murderer, a rapist, etc.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but the fact that they aren't murderers and rapists has nothing to do with religion. The average person isn't a murderer or a rapist because it's against the law and our society couldn't function if everyone acted that way. If all laws and police were abolished tomorrow, would you feel safe stepping out of your house? No, because laws, police, and the need to preserve social stability are what keep people from acting that way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

actually a portion of society could exist without laws because they have their own personal rules that they would still abide by despite the anarchy so I wouldn't say that the average person doesn't do certain things just because of the law if it was legal to murder I still wouldn't do it nor would you I assume and religion does have to do with the fear of Hell is a great, severe punishment that many want to avoid thus, dampening their desires to do evil doesn't work with everyone though just like the fear of police/law doesn't work with everyone

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If murder were legal, I'd make a list of the people I think deserve to die and then eliminate the people on that list. By my judgement, that's one of the greatest contributions that can be made to humanity (if the right people are targeted). I'd be a vigilante, I guess you could say. Who said anything about doing evil? "Thou shalt not kill". That's pretty cut and dry, right? If you kill, you go to hell because that's a sin. But millions and millions of Christians throughout history have broken that rule because they thought that they were justified in killing, whether it be in the name of God or anything else. Religious people can kill all they want without fear of hell as long as they think themselves justified.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

that's why religious lands have laws as well so people don't justify themselves the wrong way at least they're not allowed to but where ever you go there will be people who break the law that's just how it is again with the 14 year old getting raped another person took the law into his own hands and she was punished wrongly say a police officer does this that just means he's corrupt not the whole government or the whole police force you don't think non-relgious people can take horrendous actions? they certainly can they might use something else as justification doesn't mean that the //something// they use is at fault it's their fault for not taking the necessary measures to follow the law that's also why vigilantes are discouraged because they take the law into their own hands I acknowledge this and this is why I wouldn't murder even if it was legal because it's not within my jurisdiction

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The law is ultimately irrelevant. I don't see things in terms of legal and illegal, I only see right and wrong. The law has no bearing on right or wrong. Of course atheists/agnostics can do terrible things. Joseph Stalin (I believe) was irreligious, and he was a thoroughly bad dude. His justification was that he was looking out for the welfare of his nation, when he was really just securing his own power. The difference there is that Stalin used justification. He committed these terrible acts and then said that he did for x reason. Oftentimes in religious cases, the person commits a horrible act(s) specifically //because// they believe that their religion commands them to. They don't have any motivation other than religion. It's not a justification, it's the reason they committed the act(s) in the first place.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

they do have other motivation the motivation comes in the form of culture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe in some cases, but certainly not all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If Christians actually followed the Bible to the letter, there would be atrocities and oppression occurring in places like the United States just as they occur in Islamic nations like Iran and Bangladesh. The only difference is that Muslims in Bangladesh follow all parts of their faith. Christians just tend to ignore the parts they don't agree with or don't want to follow.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can live in a Muslim minority country and still follow the Qur'an without ignoring anything I have to follow the rule of the land as long as it does not contradict with my beliefs so far I haven't had that happen good thing I don't live in France the ones who oppress women by not allowing them to cover their hair if they want to go to work or get a education making a women wear something and not allowing her to wear something both are oppressive

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again, that's the way you interpret the Qur'an. The way others interpret it would greatly conflict with the law of the land in Muslim minority countries. I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make about oppression here. Could you elaborate?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you said Islam was an influencing factor in oppressing women I'm giving an example how France is promoting oppression it goes back to culture forcing a women to take off her headscarf is as oppressive as forcing her to put one on in France a democracy a women in a burka showed her face for identity but was still taken down to the station and beaten brutally by the policemen what's that about? it was the mindset the policemen had are they going to say it's a video games fault they did that? I'm trying to show how female oppression occurs because of the culture and idea people hold back to voting how can one say that women can't vote when there's no proof saying women can't vote for their leaders? when someone does something wrong he or she will do anything to justify what they did in order to sleep at night they might use religion they might use the law they might use other people maybe it's the culture we all do this to a certain degree like cheating on diets

by Anonymous 11 years ago