OT – Norway

[creechrr]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I tend to have a similar view of religion in general but, Christianity in particular as that is the prevailing religion that I am faced with on a daily basis. Or at least, those persons claiming to be Christians. I’m not sure what exactly separates a “pseudo” Christian from a “true” Christian.

I have yet to endure what I’ll refer to as a recruitment session from a member of a non-Christian based religion. A Muslim, nor Jew or any other I can think of has ever cornered me and attempted to enlighten me by sharing the “Good Word”.

That right there is the true terrorism!

As with any group there are going to be good and bad and our country has a hard time recognizing that very fact. Sure there was a group of Islamic followers that committed a horrible act but, what does that have to do with the religion as a whole. Many wars have been fought and people enslaved all while envoking devine selection by God (Christians).

[svelte]

creech, I think there are two stunningly great posts in this thread – the one you quote from zk is one of them, and edna’s is the other. Sometimes piggs amaze me.

I have never been a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. I can remember being 8 yo and my parents dragging me to church each Sunday, thinking wtf are all these crazy people doing in these pews?

Almost weekly I have smiling brainless twits appear on my doorstep salivating at the opportunity to foist their propoganda on me, the known neighborhood agnostic. I resent that, as I don’t try to convert Christians.

But I’ve always taken a live and let live approach, so I have been ambivalent to Christians in general. You can kind of sum up my feelings with this saying I found awhile back:

Religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s okay to be proud of it. But don’t go whipping it out in public and waving it around.

But then Prop 8 happened, where Christians were dead set on enforcing restraints on other people, and justifying such an action by saying it is against their religion. They didn’t seem to care no one was forcing THEM to marry a same sex partner, they were simply dead set on making sure non-Christians lived by Christian rules.

Now I am very vocally anti-Christian. The gloves have come off. I speak my thoughts about Christians loud and clear every opportunity I get.

[svelte]

creech, I think there are two stunningly great posts in this thread – the one you quote from zk is one of them, and edna’s is the other. Sometimes piggs amaze me.

I have never been a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. I can remember being 8 yo and my parents dragging me to church each Sunday, thinking wtf are all these crazy people doing in these pews?

Almost weekly I have smiling brainless twits appear on my doorstep salivating at the opportunity to foist their propoganda on me, the known neighborhood agnostic. I resent that, as I don’t try to convert Christians.

But I’ve always taken a live and let live approach, so I have been ambivalent to Christians in general. You can kind of sum up my feelings with this saying I found awhile back:

Religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s okay to be proud of it. But don’t go whipping it out in public and waving it around.

But then Prop 8 happened, where Christians were dead set on enforcing restraints on other people, and justifying such an action by saying it is against their religion. They didn’t seem to care no one was forcing THEM to marry a same sex partner, they were simply dead set on making sure non-Christians lived by Christian rules.

Now I am very vocally anti-Christian. The gloves have come off. I speak my thoughts about Christians loud and clear every opportunity I get.

[svelte]

creech, I think there are two stunningly great posts in this thread – the one you quote from zk is one of them, and edna’s is the other. Sometimes piggs amaze me.

I have never been a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. I can remember being 8 yo and my parents dragging me to church each Sunday, thinking wtf are all these crazy people doing in these pews?

Almost weekly I have smiling brainless twits appear on my doorstep salivating at the opportunity to foist their propoganda on me, the known neighborhood agnostic. I resent that, as I don’t try to convert Christians.

But I’ve always taken a live and let live approach, so I have been ambivalent to Christians in general. You can kind of sum up my feelings with this saying I found awhile back:

Religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s okay to be proud of it. But don’t go whipping it out in public and waving it around.

But then Prop 8 happened, where Christians were dead set on enforcing restraints on other people, and justifying such an action by saying it is against their religion. They didn’t seem to care no one was forcing THEM to marry a same sex partner, they were simply dead set on making sure non-Christians lived by Christian rules.

Now I am very vocally anti-Christian. The gloves have come off. I speak my thoughts about Christians loud and clear every opportunity I get.

[svelte]

creech, I think there are two stunningly great posts in this thread – the one you quote from zk is one of them, and edna’s is the other. Sometimes piggs amaze me.

I have never been a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. I can remember being 8 yo and my parents dragging me to church each Sunday, thinking wtf are all these crazy people doing in these pews?

Almost weekly I have smiling brainless twits appear on my doorstep salivating at the opportunity to foist their propoganda on me, the known neighborhood agnostic. I resent that, as I don’t try to convert Christians.

But I’ve always taken a live and let live approach, so I have been ambivalent to Christians in general. You can kind of sum up my feelings with this saying I found awhile back:

Religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s okay to be proud of it. But don’t go whipping it out in public and waving it around.

But then Prop 8 happened, where Christians were dead set on enforcing restraints on other people, and justifying such an action by saying it is against their religion. They didn’t seem to care no one was forcing THEM to marry a same sex partner, they were simply dead set on making sure non-Christians lived by Christian rules.

Now I am very vocally anti-Christian. The gloves have come off. I speak my thoughts about Christians loud and clear every opportunity I get.

[svelte]

creech, I think there are two stunningly great posts in this thread – the one you quote from zk is one of them, and edna’s is the other. Sometimes piggs amaze me.

I have never been a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. I can remember being 8 yo and my parents dragging me to church each Sunday, thinking wtf are all these crazy people doing in these pews?

Almost weekly I have smiling brainless twits appear on my doorstep salivating at the opportunity to foist their propoganda on me, the known neighborhood agnostic. I resent that, as I don’t try to convert Christians.

But I’ve always taken a live and let live approach, so I have been ambivalent to Christians in general. You can kind of sum up my feelings with this saying I found awhile back:

Religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s okay to be proud of it. But don’t go whipping it out in public and waving it around.

But then Prop 8 happened, where Christians were dead set on enforcing restraints on other people, and justifying such an action by saying it is against their religion. They didn’t seem to care no one was forcing THEM to marry a same sex partner, they were simply dead set on making sure non-Christians lived by Christian rules.

Now I am very vocally anti-Christian. The gloves have come off. I speak my thoughts about Christians loud and clear every opportunity I get.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

I am courious, do you see the Crusades as simply the church trying to educate the miss-informed? By way of the sword?

And which Inquisition is less important than the “Terror” which the church created in the population – fear that they would be next. How do you see the Inquisitions (even the ones parodied in Monte Python) if not as terrorism?

And yes, I see both as Terrorism. Most violence done in the name of the church or patriotism is likely within my definition of Terrorism.

And it does surprise me that some Catholics still refuse to accept the sins of church as real. Both in the dark ages, and currently with the “social” problems so often in the news.

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

I am courious, do you see the Crusades as simply the church trying to educate the miss-informed? By way of the sword?

And which Inquisition is less important than the “Terror” which the church created in the population – fear that they would be next. How do you see the Inquisitions (even the ones parodied in Monte Python) if not as terrorism?

And yes, I see both as Terrorism. Most violence done in the name of the church or patriotism is likely within my definition of Terrorism.

And it does surprise me that some Catholics still refuse to accept the sins of church as real. Both in the dark ages, and currently with the “social” problems so often in the news.

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

I am courious, do you see the Crusades as simply the church trying to educate the miss-informed? By way of the sword?

And which Inquisition is less important than the “Terror” which the church created in the population – fear that they would be next. How do you see the Inquisitions (even the ones parodied in Monte Python) if not as terrorism?

And yes, I see both as Terrorism. Most violence done in the name of the church or patriotism is likely within my definition of Terrorism.

And it does surprise me that some Catholics still refuse to accept the sins of church as real. Both in the dark ages, and currently with the “social” problems so often in the news.

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

I am courious, do you see the Crusades as simply the church trying to educate the miss-informed? By way of the sword?

And which Inquisition is less important than the “Terror” which the church created in the population – fear that they would be next. How do you see the Inquisitions (even the ones parodied in Monte Python) if not as terrorism?

And yes, I see both as Terrorism. Most violence done in the name of the church or patriotism is likely within my definition of Terrorism.

And it does surprise me that some Catholics still refuse to accept the sins of church as real. Both in the dark ages, and currently with the “social” problems so often in the news.

[Author]

Posts