Religious Evolution

[kellychaos]

Why does it seem that the early God(s) seem to have so much more human qualities (ex: Greek gods, vengeful Christian God that spoke from the heavens, ec) and that Heaven (or whatever paradise pertains) seemed like it was supposed to be a real, concreate place. Nowadays, however, if you talk to educated religious leaders, their talk of God and Heaven seems more metaphysical and they'll tell you, especially in Judaism and Christianity, that many parts of the Bible were supposed to be parables designed to teach and were not intended to be taken so literally. Did the people at that time deem them to be parables or did they truly see the miracles? ... or were the miracles things they saw in nature and simply didn't understand. If the miracles truly did exist, why haven't we seen any mountains talking lately? Just sayin'

[VinceZeb]

Ill explain it in my own opinion the best I can.


As we get further and further away from a point in time, a place in time, etc., we tend to have our reality distorted. Look at Easter, Christmas, Memorial Day, etc. Also, words have lost meaning in our world. If you go by what was said in newspapers, ancient scripts and other such items, Beowulf was a real event. It was altered of course to make a better story, but there is a good analysis that it really was somewhat true. The word for Dinosaur is taken from a looser version of the word "Dragon".

I believe people truly saw the miracles back then. But as with everything, once time creeps on, people forget or try to rationalize it with something they believe is "concrete", like science. I mean, let's face it, if God showed up today and said that our comprehenion of reality based on our "science" was incorrect, then it would have to be incorrect because well... he is God. The religious types of our day are becoming more P.C. in trying to accomidate more people into the faith by saying that we shouldn't take the Bible at face value and there were fables and blah blah blah. People are even trying to change the way Jesus talked in the Bible, which if these people ever read the Bible, they would see that the last paragraph in the Bible is like the ultimate copyright law.


And miracles have happend before in modern history, we just try to talk them off like it can be explained with science, like the people who recieved a vision of the Virgin Mary back in the mid 20th century.

This subject takes a lot more time and effor that I can put into it right now, but I hope you can look through my ramblings and see where I am trying to go with it. Unless a need for God arises to intervene in human affairs, He usually steps away and lets us do the work. And besides, the Bible spans a time of thousands of years. So that doesn't mean that miracles happened every day; they just happened when they were necessary.

[The_voice_of_reason]

It amuses me that as science reveals more relgion shrinks.

[VinceZeb]

VOR, for a while it has been the other way around.

[kellychaos]

It amuses me that as science reveals more relgion shrinks.

In exact reverse proportion? In other words, are they actually the same thing on opposite sides of an equation? Actually, as science grows and new, more complicated theories evolve, they only find that there's yet more that remains constantly beyond their grasp be it at the microscopic or the macroscopic level. Rather than belittle my image of God, these truths only inspire more awe in how great and adaptive the intricacies of the universe are.

[AChimp]

Vinth, you gave me the giggles. :)

If you go by what was said in newspapers, ancient scripts and other such items, Beowulf was a real event.
Vinth, you seem to enjoy writing stories about your life, so what makes you think that people X number of thousand years ago didn't like writing stories?

If you go by what was said in ancient scripts and other such items, you would end up thinking that you really would fall off the edge of the Earth if you sailed too far. Is falling off the world a real event?

The word for Dinosaur is taken from a looser version of the word "Dragon".
Um, it's actually derived from Greek and Latin for "terrible lizard", not "dragon." I suppose, though, that you could interpret "terrible lizard" as a euphemism for "dragon," but the basis is unlikely since the term "dinosaur" has only been around for a little over 100 years.

And, are you actually suggesting that humans and dinosaurs lived together?

I mean, let's face it, if God showed up today and said that our comprehenion of reality based on our "science" was incorrect, then it would have to be incorrect because well... he is God.
If "God" showed up, there would be no way to prove that he was God and not an alien from a really advanced civlization. You just can't do it.

Unless a need for God arises to intervene in human affairs, He usually steps away and lets us do the work.
What a convenient explanation for why God never shows up anymore. "God is telling us that we can handle it! Yay!" :blah

[The_voice_of_reason]

Yes but every time some scientific theory comes along that contradicts what is taught in religion some group (see evolutionary creationists) will take up that theory into their religion taking away some of the awe involved in religion. So as science reveals more religion will lose some of its power. Remember 60 years ago the consent amoung christians was that the earth was only 35,000 years or so old. (see scopes monkey trial)

[Zhukov]

Hegel once said: "Truth is infinite: its finiteness is its denial."

Scientists realise that the more they figure out about the world, the more the world will produce something that needs figuring out. They realise that these things will never be out of their grasp for long.

The religious types are indeed becoming more PC, they are forced to flow with science, lest they be washed away. Instead of sticking with the originals, religious types evolve and change depending on society as it is at the moment. In the future, the bible may be taken as simply a nice story, or something to aspire to, and it will be the priests anf cardinals asserting this, for they don't want to lose their place in the world. Then again, if something profound changes the way the world is going at the moment - like their god poking it's head in - it will be the religious leaders who will denounce the 'modern' view of religion, and change to to suit the situation, namely, the original stuff.

I don't mean to upset anyone, but I think religion is the fad that never dies. Man has roughly the same effect on religion as it has on him.

[kellychaos]

I was just thinking ( I guess poetically) that as the value of science grows to infinity in my "equation", religion will dwindle to zero. We will then find out that science, which comes from man and actually "is" man, is infinite. Beautiful! :)

[AChimp]

We should be like Kryptonians and worship science as our God. ;)

[kellychaos]

I'll be pissed if I go to Hell and I see Nietzche laughing his ass off at me! >:

[Sethomas]

Vince: Jesus talked in the Bible, which if these people ever read the Bible, they would see that the last paragraph in the Bible is like the ultimate copyright law.

That afterword was written exclusively referring to the book of Revelations. "This book" of which John of Patmos speaks couldn't possibly refer to the bible as a whole because when he wrote it the ecumenical councils were centuries away from determing what constitutes scripture. I can't imagine any Catholic boy stepping foot into a seminary without knowing that.

I think dinosaur actually means "Thunder lizard", Achimp. "terrible lizard" is the translation they teach to little kids for "tyranosaurus rex" because they don't know what tyrant means.

[ItalianStereotype]

this thread disgusts me.

we are most probably living in another Age of Enlightenment and religion is suffering for it. it will eventually come full circle.

[Sethomas]

To go back to topic, religion has become more abstract simply because science has filled in its place. Religion was developed to explain the unknown. The mechanism for this was mythology, by which you could "rationalize" phenomenon like the rising sun or lightning by relating it to the human experience, i.e. creating deific characters quite similar to ourselves.

Science comes in and performs the normal function of explaining life, so religion reverts to providing purpose: answering "why?" instead of "how?" Naturally, this leaves little room for mythology. Besides, arguments such as the means of justification seem more pertinent to the immortal soul than do the events of Paradise Lost. In the case of Judeo-Christianity, the Hexammeron creation story is comprised almost entirely of mythological stories stolen from other Semitic cultures. Per credo, I can say that these stories became "inspired" when they were consolidated under one pen by Moses, and thus from them we may derive some spiritual relevance. But to me, the idea that we should believe in a six-day creation is simply idiotic.

[FS]

Would it be fair to say that polytheistic mythologies are more "colorful" (in that the gods were more humanly fallible), because they were written more by poets than priests? I can imagine they had a great deal of influence in their time simply because their stories would've made for the height of entertainment.

[VinceZeb]

Well, sethomas, I believe that anyone that thinks we are a decendant from a fucking money is an idiot.

[Sethomas]

I don't know of any evolutionary theory that says we're "decendant from a fucking money," so I think you're all by yourself on that issue. If you're showing your dismay with people who realize that we have common ancestors with monkeys, well, John Paul II would be insulted that you think he's an idiot.

[AChimp]

Winston, you're forgetting that Vinth believes in Vatican I! Not II! I!

[The_voice_of_reason]

COME SEE THE BIGGEST RELGIOUS EVENT OF THE SUMMER, VATICAN III, THIS SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!!!!

[theapportioner]

Clearly, some humans haven't evolved from monkeys at all. Case in point, our resident simpleton, Vince.

[VinceZeb]

Oh man, thats real funny. I'm sorry if I don't believe in the fact that humans are nothing more than animals. Some of the greatest men in history thought were were nothing special. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Marx... those great people.

[AChimp]

:lol

I laugh at your attempt to tack morality to the issue of evolution, Vinth.

[VinceZeb]

Laugh all you want. The links are there.

[AChimp]

Yep... links in one, two, three and... oh yeah, four people that you listed. Not to mention the fact that there dozens of other links between those guys and other variables. :blah

How many millions support evolution without believing in genocide, hmm?

Perhaps we should judge Christianity based on its actions in the Crusades? The Inquisition? How about the colonization of America? There are links between God and extreme violence there, too. :|

Oh, wait... not all Catholics have to believe the same thing. Right.

[mburbank]

"I believe that anyone that thinks we are a decendant from a fucking money is an idiot."
-Vinth.

Huh. I believe anyone who uses the word descendant when they mean descended is an idiot.

"Oh, Oh! I wath juth typing fatht, Jewy jew jew! Aren't you too busy being Jewish to do not jew things you jew?"
-Vinth

So seriously. You know yopu had the wrong word, it was just a mistake?

"JEW! YOU ARE JEWISH, JEW! YOU DO THINGS THAT A JEW WOULD DO, EVEN BAD THINGS THAT RE JEWISH ARE YOU DOING JEW-JEW! I WILL HAVE A JISM ON YOUR FACE!"
-Vinth

Uhm... I... Know what? Skip it.

'" NO! Skip you jewishness! Bagel! Ha! I said Bagel! Mein Penith ith big!"
-Vinth

[kellychaos]

There are so many "borrowings" from other cultures that show up Christianity to be a conglomerate of other various culture's religions. In Greek mythology, all land dwellers were seen to be of evil character/traits (Re: Eden and the snake). Cloven-hooved animals were viewed as tricksters and barbarians (Re: Satan, often depicted as cloven-hooved, is the "Father Of Lies"). Hades is entered through an opening in the earth and is a fiery pit of evil(Re: Hell). Gods are high on Mount Olympus (Re: Heaven is in the sky). I can find links to back up my assertions but what's the point when the similarities are so obvious and more than likely something you've noticed before. That's why I named the thread "Religious Evolution" as monotheism seems to be, more or less, a means to compile and streamline many of the same ideas found in polytheistic cultures. How can one degrade the people who once practiced polytheistic theology to a culture of barbarians when they incorporate some of the ideas they ridicule in their very own monotheistic religion?

[VinceZeb]

Whatever you say, Max.


Achimp, please. If you can't see the connections I am not going to hold your fucking hand.

[VinceZeb]

Ok, Kelly, why cant montheism be the first and then that is what influenced Greek culture?

[mburbank]

It could. Why couldn't it be the other way around?

[AChimp]

Vinth, you boob, I didn't say that there weren't any connections, I was pointing out that if you're going to treat evolution/science as bad because of the interpretations that certain people have made, then there's no reason why I can't treat your religion the same.

The links you claim are only between certain people and their interpretations of specific ideologies.

I don't think you CAN explain your position. You're just spouting off the stuff that other people have come up with.

[kellychaos]

Ok, Kelly, why cant montheism be the first and then that is what influenced Greek culture?

Consider the fact that Greek mythology was an oral religion while Christianisty stems from the Word of the Bible. Which do you think is older?

[AChimp]

Consider the fact that Ancient Greece was in its prime 400 centuries before Christianity.

[VinceZeb]

And Judaism was 10000 years before Christanity.

[Zhukov]

Is it just a coincidence that the evil snake from eden was EVIL, ssimply because he promised intelect?

[AChimp]

Yes, Vinth, Judaism has been around for a long time. Good boy.

Now please explain how monotheism leads to polytheism.

[Vibecrewangel]

All roads lead to the same place.

[kellychaos]

All roads lead to the same place.

Damn you and your pragmatic insight. I want to argue! :)

[VinceZeb]

I don't believe that for a minute, Vibe.

[kellychaos]

What's the purpose of religion to you, Vince?

[Vibecrewangel]

Then why are the stories so similar Vince?
I mean don't you think that environment and culture play a part in how God is viewed.

Or

Don't you think God would have portrayed himself in a way a particular culture would understand?

[VinceZeb]

Religion is just the way God wants us to live our life and the ways we should show thanks for what He has given us. It teachers rules and morality. Not all religions are equal or the same. It is factually incorrect.

[AChimp]

So, uhh... why aren't all religions equal? Is it because yours is the only "correct" one? That's a pretty narrow view, Vinth. :lol

[Vibecrewangel]

Religion is just the way God wants us to live our life and the ways we should show thanks for what He has given us. It teachers rules and morality.

That in fact makes them the same. It is only human interpretation that makes them different.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
God is God no matter what name you try to pin on it.

[mburbank]

The argument boils down to:

"My religion is true because it says so in the holy book of my religion"

The correlation is

"My take on my religion is true because that's my understanding of what it says in the holy book of my religion. Other's people's take on what it says is wrong, because it's not te same as my take"


It's EXACTLY the same argument made by every fundamentalist of every religion there has ever been. Maybe one of those thousands of religions actually was right and everyone else is wrong. People will THINK they're right, but will only ever know for sure once they're dead. Which I think is kind of charming and proof of God's sense of humor.

PS: "Im NOT a Fundamentalist because I'm RIGHT! It says so in my holy BOOK which was written by GOD and everyone else who says they are right because their book was written by god is a fucking Fundamentalist!"
-Clambake

[VinceZeb]

I believe Jesus Christ (the One who Max Burbank's decendants murdered) is the Son of God. Jesus said the only way to Heaven was through Him. Kinda have to believe what the guy says if you think He is the Son of God.

[Protoclown]

I believe Jesus Christ (the One who Max Burbank's decendants murdered) is the Son of God.

So wait...you're saying that Max Burbank's grandchildren, or great grandchildren, or somewhere down the line murdered Christ...IN THE FUTURE???

What the FUCK are you smoking??

By the way, it wasn't Burbank's people who killed Christ. It was YOUR people who killed him. And I've read a book or two about it, so I'm pretty sure it was in the past, which would make it your ancestors (lookie!!! a new word!!), not descendants.

[Vibecrewangel]

Okay Vince -

But if you were born into an African tribe that had no contact with the outside world, don't you think that your view of God would be a bit different? And don't you think that God would make itself known to that tribe in a way they would understand? And wouldn't you, if you followed God's rules for the tribe, be allowed into that great tribe in the sky when you died?

[AChimp]

I believe Jesus was just a nutter who came up with a few good ideas. Specifically, how to get people to believe him.

[Protoclown]

I believe that Christ was who he said he was.

But I also don't believe that Christianity has exclusive rights on "THE TRUTH", and I'm inclined to believe that, as Vibe said it, "all roads lead to the same place". That's a simplification, but I believe there is a lot of wisdom in it.

Bake your noodle on that one, Vince.

Oh, but it's easy. You can just tell me I'm not a true Christian and then you don't HAVE to think about it.

[kellychaos]

Relgion are temporal and subjective beliefs about morals, rules, ect that follow the needs of the given culture. Cultures are different and subject to change, therefore religions are different and subject to change.

[kilmie polanski]

DONT NOBODY TELL VINTH THAT JESUS WAS A JEW B/C I'M SURE VINTHTH JESUS LIKES BIGOTRY AND STEREOTYPING

[Vibecrewangel]

Thanks Proto

It is an over simplification, but in some cases it is better to leave things simple because the more you try to explain it the more convoluted it gets. And the basic concept often gets clouded by your own opinion. Kind of a Buddhist concept.

Face it, what Jesus taught was probably pretty simple too. But too much explanation of some very simple concepts and we have one of the most convoluted, clouded by opinion books in the world.

[Vibecrewangel]

Relgion are temporal and subjective beliefs about morals, rules, ect that follow the needs of the given culture. Cultures are different and subject to change, therefore religions are different and subject to change.

Very nice!

[kellychaos]

Thanks. I was only repeating what others already said in a different way, though. :)

[Protoclown]

I meant no insult, Vibe. There is often great wisdom in simplicity. I just didn't want to paint myself completely into a corner since I don't think that Mother Theresa and someone who goes around killing babies are necessarily going to find themselves at the same end point of the path. But in a general way, yes, I think that all religions more or less achieve the same end goal.

[Vibecrewangel]

I know you didn't. I apreciate the fact that you seem to always understand what I am saying.

[The_voice_of_reason]

It is my sincere hope that we can let go of religion and whorship the fact that we are alive. Isn't existing enough? Why do we have to go looking for a reason to be alive? Religion can come to no good end.

Now I am not saying that we should throw out all religious teachings, just that we should recognise them for what they are products of MANS innovation and desire to know.

Now I am not naive, I know that this will never happen. People just get too attached to there deities. People kill for there deities. People die for there deities. This is why religion is inherently evil.


P.S. Peanut butter and chocolate cream oreos kick so much ass.

[mburbank]

LOOK OUT! ITH MY CHRITHT KILLING DETHENDANTS! THEY'RE BUILDING A TIME MATHINE!

[Bennett]

Max, it would be just like the terminator.

[FS]

I have fantastic ideas for religion. Simplicity and love, and shit. I just wish they'd take off.

[ItalianStereotype]

It is my sincere hope that we can let go of religion and whorship the fact that we are alive. Isn't existing enough? Why do we have to go looking for a reason to be alive? Religion can come to no good end.

Now I am not saying that we should throw out all religious teachings, just that we should recognise them for what they are products of MANS innovation and desire to know.

Now I am not naive, I know that this will never happen. People just get too attached to there deities. People kill for there deities. People die for there deities. This is why religion is inherently evil.


P.S. Peanut butter and chocolate cream oreos kick so much ass.

so basically it's "My views are right, religion is wrong. People with faith are all misled fools." I would very much like to give you the most savage beating of your life.

[AChimp]

Shit, Vinth. You've resorted to hacking Italian's account now? >:

[Sethomas]

People kill for there deities. People die for there deities. This is why religion is inherently evil.

You have to admit, that's a huge fucking jump of logic. The actions of the minority do not reflect a flaw in the system, it represents an error in human nature itself. Unless you are suggesting a godless society would be pure of violent crimes, you make no good point I would expect better from one with such a pretentious title.

Furthermore, the cases in which murder happens for reasons of faith are extremely rare, and normally are associated strictly with the occult. Take the most obvious examples. The Crusades had practically nothing to do with religion. The degree to which Urban II's proclamation "Deus vult" was manipulated out of his hands makes evident that an economic and political struggle between Europe and the Middle East was inevitable, and the arbitrary slaughter in Constantinople during the first campaign makes obvious the fact that religion was utterly a non-issue. Otherwise, the pacts between the Templars and the Hashishens would have been impossible.

The Inquisition, though quite unsavory in itself, was a sociological safety valve forged by political conservativism. This should be obvious from the fact that executions could ONLY be administered by the State, as pre-existing cannon law forbade the clergy from spilling any blood. The English Inquisition executed Joan of Arc because they were terrified of her success. The French Inquisition executed witches and Cathars because public unrest demanded scapegoats for the plague and other travesties. The Spanish Inquisition executed Jews because the nobility was sick of their economic power. The Italian Inquisition executed Bruno because his eccentricity was fraying the scientific community of its integrity. None of these death's were justified, but NONE of them happened by group one enforcing beliefs upon group two.

Your tone also spoke lowly of the willingness to die for one's beliefs. It seems obvious to me that if you're unwilling to die for what you truly care about, you are a weak and pathetic being.

[ItalianStereotype]

Shit, Vinth. You've resorted to hacking Italian's account now? >:

oh come now chimp, allow me some indignation before comparing me to vince. im never not to speaking bad as much for now Vince as me.. simple as that enough said?

[The_voice_of_reason]

so basically it's "My views are right, religion is wrong. People with faith are all misled fools." I would very much like to give you the most savage beating of your life.

Yes it is basically "My views are right, religion is wrong. People with fait are all misled fools." Instead of "My views are right, your religion is wrong. People who don't believe in my faith are wrong." I wish that I could lie and say that i take everyones views with equal reverence, but i will be honest and say that i do feel my views are better that everyone elses. Hell that is why they are my views. But i do know that you are entitled to your views and i would never do or say anything to jeopardize that. I was just stating what i think would help humanity the most. I mean, come on, you know you think your views are superior to everyone elses. So please suppress your desire to give me a severe beating.

[Sethomas]

Come on, tv. By cowering out of a beatdown, you're neglecting a perfectly good chance to make a hypocrite out of him.

Shame you can't have it both ways, you know.

[ItalianStereotype]

enlighten me winston, how could he have made a hypocrite of me? I would never really want to beat him, despite the sheer arrogance of his idea that all people of faith only perpetuate the worlds problems.

[Sethomas]

Because of the fact that you don't associate yourself with a religion that espouses itself with violence. By the flavor of your posts, you seem to belong to the Christian Right. If you were a true Italian stereotype, and if memory serves me then you are, you would be Roman Catholic. Beating one's fellow man would be contrary to the Christian paradigms such as "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor," thus making hypocritical any violent means to asserting the rightness of your religion.

[ItalianStereotype]

I am a Roman Catholic (with faults) and I do try to practice "turning the other cheek." as I said, I would never truly beat, or wish him any harm for that matter. you seem to be nitpicking here, very few are able to follow their respective religious codes to the letter.

[Sethomas]

I'm no saint, so I wouldn't dare hold anyone to that standard. The jab was originally intended for vox boy.

[VinceZeb]

So, Voice, people who believe in God or have religious faith are fools.... man, you would really hate to see a list of the people who had faith. I'm sure many of them wouldn't qualify as being "fools".

If there is nothing in this life that you believe that is greater than you and you have nothing you would give your life for, then you really are living a pitiful existance. Mankind is not the end all be all of existance. I am sorry to shed some light on the dark hole you live in, but this is the truth. If you believe mankind is the pinnacle of existance or at least the earth, then you can be on the side of druggie porno stars, scientist who haven't seen the sunlight in umpteen years, and frumpy second-rate comedians.

Now, to Sethomas, please do not bring up the whole "turn the other cheek" speech. Have you ever read the Bible? Jesus talked a lot about throwing down in the Good Book. Let's face facts, Jesus was peaceful until it came to His Father or the evils of the world. Then Jesus didn't take no gruff. Jesus told people who didn't follow Him that the afterlife was going to be a very unpleasant experience.

But voice, continue to believe your views are right. See, if you are right, then me and you have gained nothing, but have ventured nothing. If I am right... well, I hope eternity in Hell leaves you with enough time to comtemplate how much of a dumbshit you are.

And trust me, if I wanted to "hack someone's account", I wouldn't hack a 3rd-rate player like IS.

[AChimp]

oh come now chimp, allow me some indignation before comparing me to vince. im never not to speaking bad as much for now Vince as me.. simple as that enough said?
PRROOOOOOFFF!!! >: >:

If there is nothing in this life that you believe that is greater than you and you have nothing you would give your life for, then you really are living a pitiful existance. Mankind is not the end all be all of existance. I am sorry to shed some light on the dark hole you live in, but this is the truth.
You know, Vinth, most agnostics/athiests don't think that humans are very special. In fact, I think humans are merely fleshy bags of mostly water. The only thing that separates us from other animals is the fact that we have the ability to create and use technology.

If you believe mankind is the pinnacle of existance or at least the earth,
Earth ain't so special, either. It's just a big ol' ball of mud floating through space.

Say... weren't you the one a few threads ago saying that you don't think humans are the same as all other animals?

Let's face facts, Jesus was peaceful until it came to His Father or the evils of the world. Then Jesus didn't take no gruff. Jesus told people who didn't follow Him that the afterlife was going to be a very unpleasant experience.
Wow... he didn't take any guff by giving them a stern lecture. :lol

I hate to break this to you, Vinth, but that's still non-violent. I don't recall reading anything about Jesus promising beat-downs to those who didn't believe in him or threatening to jizz on the face of those who disagreed.

If I am right... well, I hope eternity in Hell leaves you with enough time to comtemplate how much of a dumbshit you are.
Judging by all the conversations I've had with really religious people, I'm sure that Hell is full of far more interesting people.

[ItalianStereotype]

And trust me, if I wanted to "hack someone's account", I wouldn't hack a 3rd-rate player like IS.

what makes me 3rd-rate Vince? the ability to communicate clearly? my habit of only arguing if i feel that i am able to prove my claims? the fact that i don't leave various unsubstantiated rumors hanging over my head?

[Protoclown]

man, you would really hate to see a list of the people who had faith. I'm sure many of them wouldn't qualify as being "fools".

Well, you certainly do.

[Brandon]

Personally, I don't buy into any sort of "higher meaning" or "higher presence" in the world. If there is one (or many), though, it's probably completely out of our comprehension and frankly, doesn't seem to affect us much in our daily life.

Read Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus." Life, when going purely on the evidence we have around us, pretty much seems an absurd exercise with no pay-off. It's just one big study in excess.

With that said, it's a glorious excess, and I enjoy being alive. I don't need a reason or motivation to live...I'm simply going to just live.

[Brandon]

So wait...you're saying that Max Burbank's grandchildren, or great grandchildren, or somewhere down the line murdered Christ...IN THE FUTURE???

What the FUCK are you smoking??

Now THAT'S funny. :lol

[kellychaos]

Do not question my faith or I will kill you! >:

http://www.gifmaniacos.com/SouthPark/Cartman/Cartman_policia/copcart.gif

[The_voice_of_reason]

I am sorry to shed some light on the dark hole you live in, but this is the truth. If you believe mankind is the pinnacle of existance or at least the earth, then you can be on the side of druggie porno stars, scientist who haven't seen the sunlight in umpteen years, and frumpy second-rate comedians.

If there was a God, and humans and the earth were his creation, wouldn't that make humans the pinnacle of existance?

Many of you are neglecting parts of my argument. Let me see if i can clear it up, all i was saying is that if there was no religion, and people truly believed that human life was the most supreme gift ever. Then there would be much less violence and hate in the world. Take a look at Ireland, take a look at the Middle East, a lot of good religion has done there.



Also, why is it that people with faith think that those of us who don't have it are miserable? I am probaly one of the most happy people I know. If that makes any sense.

[Sethomas]

Northern Ireland is an issue of an imperial power beating down upon a less-than-lucky people. The Catholics hate the Protestants because they are a foreign invasion, simple as that. The Middle East situation is quite comparable. You make no point.

Vince, you don't come close to making a valid point against the starkly non-violent philosophy of Jesus. Jesus believed that judgment belongs to God, not us. You're a Un-Christian fool and complete piece of shit human being for trying to malign his words into something different.

[mburbank]

"Jesus didn't take no gruff."
-Vinth

Actually, Vinth, that's a mistranslation. The actual line is, Jesus didn't take no Mcgruff, meaning that he refused to break bread with Crime Dogs.

[ItalianStereotype]

c'mon vincetta, I'm waiting for an answer here. you can't Google your way out of this one.

[VinceZeb]

If you have to ask why you are a 3rd rate player, then there is no hope for you.

[FS]

When I was a couple of years younger and thought I had the whole world figured out, I too thought religion was the true root of evil in the world, but that is naive.

Most religions stimulate some excellent human qualities. Unconditional love for your fellow man. Helping those less fortunate in society.

The problem, as has been said (better) by others in this thread, is that human psychology and sociology abuses religion. Whether conscious or unconscious, people make it into a catalyst of their fears and hatred. They read into the religion the way they want to. Then there's politicians and religious leaders throughout history, who've exploited the unifying and compelling power of religion over people to serve their purposes.

A man alone can be very smart. A group of them is much sooner and much more often, very very dumb. That is why someone who sees religion as a personal issue is much more likely to have healthy contacts with people who don't believe or believe differently than someone who feels the need to convert others to his religion in order to prevent them from being damned in the end.

Frankly, it disgusts me when someone states their form of belief online and is abused for it, like it's some kind of weird weakness.

[ItalianStereotype]

I will assume then that it was all of the above...

so tell me vincey, if you consider yourself more of a politico or "1st-rate player" than me, why oh why do we see threads like:

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3896
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3898
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2920
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2104
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2765
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3618
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3345

you take your political stance from "The O'Reilly Factor," Rush Limbaugh, and NewsMax without ever having an original thought in your fucking head. that is why you are never able to adequately defend yourself in half of the threads on this forum. do you really think your "I was bored" excuse actually fools anyone?

aside from all of this, you are 22 years old...a full college education ahead of me...and I am able to discuss and comprehend rational thought on a level that you could never even dream of.

don't fuck with me vince, it won't hurt me nearly as much as it will you.

[AChimp]

WTF! Vinth, quit jerking off and start responding to the points made in this thread rather than popping in like some virtual jack-in-the-box for a random insult. >:

[Immortal Goat]

Was it not Jesus who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? It always slays me when I see religious people insult people who have the nerve to have original thought. I go to a Catholic school, and I am in the religion class right now. In the book, it speaks of the "evils" of individuality and people thinking for themselves. That is nothing but bullshit. I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that I have the right to do, say, and think whatever the hell I please, even if it goes against the church.

[ItalianStereotype]

it is difficult to discern how a religious conversation will turn out, it can be quite a volatile topic.

it seems apparent to me now that both sides of the issue are too extreme. people like vox and immortal goat are quite clearly saying that, bottom line, religion is wrong. others, like myself, then do such things as threaten violence to defend religious sensibilities (which i later retracted). humans are simply obstinate, belligerent creatures when anything large, like religion, is involved.

so there, my epiphany.

[UnDeath]

Theres nothing wrong with religion as a whole. Sure, everything has its faults, since everyone isnt the same, and there seems to be no true one size fits all. Its not nesscessarily religion thats the problem, its people who warp it to their advantage to justify their actions and still wear their "Good Guy Badge". Take the previously said examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The true reasons were given in that post, but everyone seems to think that it was religion that caused it. Whose to blame there: religion, or people?

[Isaac]

Any doctrin that teachs good values, but can also be constued to violence and hate, is going to cause problems

[VinceZeb]

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I am truly soory to everyone in this thread who seems to think i am some extreme anti-religion nut. I have nothing against people having religion, and I know that it's people who twist religion that are the ones causing all the problems. My whole point is that without religion the oportunities for these demogouges would be fewer though I'm sure people would still find some cause to act insane for. Now I would like to apologize if I seemed offensive I wouldn't of even expressed my views on this point were that not the topic of the forum. I have many religious friends who don't know my stance on this subject because I never bring it up because i don't want to lose them as friends. Now I think it's ridiculous that they would cease to be my friends just because i happen to have different beliefs than them, but on the other hand as I said before people become too attached to their paticular diety or dieties.

Also I think it would be important to note that i am not truly an atheist I do not disbelieve in the exsitence of any form of a higher being i just don't think any traditional religions to this point have hit its true nature yet, or maybe I am so indoctrinated by the monotheistic dogma that I can't imagine a universe without some kind of god.

[Isaac]

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

The failure to engage in offensive expansive imperilistic action, would of inhibited them from taking defensive action at a later date?...You do know that the Hindues also slowed or stopped Muslem advance. Do you really think that the Muslems would of succeded at taking over the world? Attila failed, Ghengas Khan failed and Adof Hitler failed, so why would they succeed?

[FS]

Because they're SO MUCH BETTER EQUIPPED than us.

[mburbank]

Yeah, Vinth, and what about this? Suppose, just suppose that the infant kal-el's rocket ship had landed in Germany and been found by a young Adolf Hitler instead of the Kents?!? Man, then things would sure be a mess, huh?

[AChimp]

Vinth, your stupidity know no bounds. You cannot accurately predict a relation between events 1000 years apart. :lol

[Protoclown]

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

Congratulations, Vince! That is the 4th dumbest thing you've ever said! :rave

[UnDeath]

I just realised something, Vince is a funny man. I just dont know wether he knows it or not. Is he like the 3 stooges, or the actors who've played them?

[VinceZeb]

Nothing I said in that statement was ignorant. Are you that fucking stupid that you can't understand the fact that without the Catholics, the muslims would have controlled Europe, Africa, and much of Asia? That the anglo-saxon types would have been converted or killed. That someone else would have discovered the new world, and the events of the Mayflower, the colonies' revolts, and everything else would have not happened.

Can you all be any more fucking dumb?

[Isaac]

Cathlics did nothing to stop Muslims from taking over Africa, so I don't know why they didn't then, if Cathlics were the only ones pushing back the Muslim conquest, I belive the Saraha did more to stop the Muslims from moving south then anything else. Also many regions that the Muslims took over, where majority Muslim, before being invaded!

[Sethomas]

Vince, you're a complete idiot. The only time the Muslims even tried to invade central Europe was in the campaign against Charles Martel, which took place centuries before the Crusades. Unless you want to talk about the Ottoman siege of Vienna in the mid-1500s, in which case almost all credit should go to the Eastern Orthodox Church. At any rate, that was a full two centuries after the Crusades, and the Church was too wrapped up in the Counter-Reformation to give a shit, and the beligerent forces were too insignificant to pose any threat beyond the Southeastern Holy Roman Empire.

And history would have been better off if the Mayflower never did happen, since the Seperatists were a lot of assholes in the first place.

[VinceZeb]

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.

[Immortal Goat]

I also would like to apologize for seeming like a complete anti-religion nut. I find nothing wrong with something that brings people hope. I find everything wrong with people manipulating that hope into something ugly, like the Middle-Eastern people and the Catholics that believe that if you don't agree with the Pope (who, by the way, is JUST A MAN, INFALLABILITY OF THE POPE IS WRONG!!!) that you are going to hell.

[Isaac]

Vinth, what the fucks your point? You didn't back up your statement either.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.

Actually if you read his post the things he said were right, and they contradicted what you said, making you wrong. Here you go I'll give you one more shot at comprehinsion


Vince, you're a complete idiot. The only time the Muslims even tried to invade central Europe was in the campaign against Charles Martel, which took place centuries before the Crusades. Unless you want to talk about the Ottoman siege of Vienna in the mid-1500s, in which case almost all credit should go to the Eastern Orthodox Church. At any rate, that was a full two centuries after the Crusades, and the Church was too wrapped up in the Counter-Reformation to give a shit, and the beligerent forces were too insignificant to pose any threat beyond the Southeastern Holy Roman Empire.

And history would have been better off if the Mayflower never did happen, since the Seperatists were a lot of assholes in the first place.

[Brandon]

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.
Quick tip Vinth: when making a post declaring your intellectual superiority over someone else, it helps to get your spelling right.

[VinceZeb]

No, VOR, show me where they are "right". I guess major history needs to be rewritten to make him right. Crusades I was to turn back the muslims. The others were for land, and they were not sanctioned by the Church. Would you like to keep going or do you want to stop now before you look TOO stupid?

[The_voice_of_reason]

If you are too stupid to see why I am right!!!! I am too busy to prove my point. You are beyond hope, my penis is huge!!!!

:pretendingtobevince





but seriously i am about to go do some research.

[Sethomas]

Vince, you are the quintessential hypocrite. Countless times you have made a claim, been asked to back it up, and utterly fail. As you would say, it's getting really old. I was decent enough to provide specific names and events so that you could look them up yourself and learn something if you weren't too much of an imbecile to do so. You use the term "crusade" in broad sweeping statements as if it weren't a word that may be employed for about every culture or every century of recorded history.

I know the circumstances by which the first Crusade was declared by Urban II because I researched this crap for my own personal fulfillment years ago. You obviously don't know the first thing about anything, so your absolute lack of authority leaves you with a single option:
SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[AChimp]

:lol

Vinth, you really need to read your history. Seth is right, and the Catholic Church is NOT the European superhero you seem to think that it is.

1.) The Crusades were not meant to "push the Muslims back" from Europe, since they hadn't invaded Europe. They had taken over the Holy Land, of which most Europeans didn't give a shit; most people overlook the fact that the Muslims originated in the Holy Land, though, and therefore didn't really take it over. Once the Pope saw an opportunity to unite everyone under him, though, he took it and sent everyone running off. However, once everyone saw that they could make a name for themselves rather than the Church, everything basically turned into a free-for-all and general fuck up.

2.) Charlemagne kicked the Spanish Muslim's (I believe the were called Moors, but I'm not sure) asses centuries before the Crusades.

3.) The Byzantine Empire was what kept any expansionist Muslim hordes out of Europe, and they most definitely were NOT Catholic. Perhaps the Pope thought about them during his morning bowel movement, but that's about it.

[FS]

Really, how could the Crusades possibly have been the only measure to stop the Muslim invasion of the world? Were the Muslims going to biogenetically kick their breeding into overdrive several months later to produce an army large enough to overrun the planet? Did the knights that fought in the Crusades have weapons use mass destruction? Are you a complete tool?

I don't exactly remember the Middle East being "set back" beyond redemption after the Crusades. Nothing much was stopping them from still going through with their master plan of controlling the world, and the media. But I guess those Crusades showed them, huh? Showed them GOOD.

[ItalianStereotype]

Chimp-you are wrong when you say that most Europeans didn't give a shit about the Holy Land. the Holy Land was the sole focus of more than a majority of the Crusaders, they weren't involved for economic gain or the glory of their king.

the pope united the nations in the Crusades partially out of a need to protect himself. the only real state in Europe was the Germanic empire and that was a direct threat to the continued existence of the Papal seat, at least as an independent source of authority. also, by "free-for-all" and "general fuck up" do you mean the Christian states that were established in the Holy Lands that would last until the 14th century?

also, the Byzantine Empire was a mockery of its former power. they couldn't have held a single Muslim back if they had wanted to.

FS-while the Muslims couldn't have kept up their invasions with the size of their forces, it is interesting to note that the Mongols from the east indentified rather closely with Muslims, many of their "states" like the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate even going so far as to declare Islam their national religion.

and you are right about the Crusades not setting the Muslims back. a quote that I rather like comes from Mehmed II after the Battle of Lepanto and it goes something like "at Lepanto, the Christians shaved my beard....with time, it will grow back."

edit-I'm pretty sure I put the wrong sultan, but at 3:15 in the morning I don't care about dead Turkish men.

[VinceZeb]

Ok, ok, fine then. The Catholic Church never fought the Crusades against the muslims. I shouldn't believe the multitude of books and textbooks I have read on the subject and have studied in school. I should just believe 3 people on here that have 1) given no back up to their statements or 2) would argue with me that the grass is green and the sky is blue.

OH YES, VINCE IS WRONG! SO IF VINCE SAYS SOMETHING, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY WRONG BECUASE SOMEONE ON HERE SAYS IT IS! IF VINCE SAYS THAT THE SKY WAS BLUE IN ST. LOUIS TODAY AND SOMEONE SAYS IT RAINED, IT MUST HAVE RAINED. WE HAVE TO IGNORE THE WEATHER REPORTS, THE FACT THAT VINCE LIVES IN ST. LOUIS, AND THE FACT THAT MILLIONS OF OTHERS SAW THE BLUE SKY! IF VINCE SAYS IT, IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES FALSE WHEN SETHOMAS COMES ON HERE AND SAYS IT IS!

Man, I'm glad we got that ironed out.

[mburbank]

"I shouldn't believe the multitude of books and textbooks I have read on the subject and have studied in school. "
Vinth.

No, but you might concider returning to these texts nd others to see if perhaps you missunderstood some of them. I think certainly your historical time line has errors, and your understanding of the events is simplistic. Having been supplied names, it should be very easy to check reputable sources, make some sort of supportable argument, and one way or another people might learn something. Tyat said, I personally have never heard the argument made by anyone, in any text, in any history class, in any religion class, that the crusades prevented the Muslims from invading Europe and conquering the world.

The expulsion of the Moors is from a totally different period. The siege of Constantinople is from totally different period. The real estate in question during the crusades was the holy land. That's why the Europeans had to go all the way there.

I know you're not Lexus Nexus, but urely you can point me toward something, anything, that would argue what you're arguing. I'll take it from there. Can you do that much, or will you once more fall back on your "Common knowledge" "ask anyone" hoo-haa to support an argument I have NEVER heard anyone make, and tht inlcuides four years of Episcopal school.

[Brandon]

Vinth sees all of time in his crystal ball.

Remember how he predicted the crucifixion of Jesus by your great-grandchildren, Max?

[VinceZeb]

AB, I don't have to have a crystal ball to see you are a chump.

[Brandon]

AB, I don't have to have a crystal ball to see you are a chump.
Ooh, touche.

[AChimp]

you are wrong when you say that most Europeans didn't give a shit about the Holy Land. the Holy Land was the sole focus of more than a majority of the Crusaders, they weren't involved for economic gain or the glory of their king.
All right, "not giving a shit" may have been an exaggeration, but you can bet that most people had absolutely no clue about the goings-on in the region, other than the fact that the area existed somewhere to the east. Don't forget, practically the entire population was completely illiterate.

Economic gain was a big driving force behind the Christian armies, or at least, it was a huge incentive. Who do you think the Crusaders were composed of? Certainly not the lords of the land, and not their eldest sons who were already assured of a fat inheritance. Many of the younger sons who would never have a hope of controlling the land themselves saw an opportunity to get estates of their own out of the massive areas of land that they would be "liberating."

also, by "free-for-all" and "general fuck up" do you mean the Christian states that were established in the Holy Lands that would last until the 14th century?
The whole idea behind setting up a separate state with yourself as its ruler after you conquer it is economic gain. Sure, you can convert them all to Christianity at the same time, and that'll probably make it easier to convince them to pay you as well. Besides, all your Crusader states that lasted that long weren't exactly in the heart of Muslim controlled areas like you're making it sound.

By free-for-all I mean the Crusaders massacring regular peasants (including many Christians living in the area), kicking major ass and in turn, having their asses kicked repeatedly.

By general fuck-up, I mean the fact that they all failed for the most part. Yeah, there were a few forts built that lasted for a couple centuries, but the Muslims still occupied the Holy Land, so in the end the Crusades proved only that dumb people could run around in the desert while wearing armor. The first Crusade mildly succeeded only because the Muslims were in the middle of a civil war and couldn't get their shit together to repel invaders.

A whole other complicated mess of events eventually led the Byzantines and Westerners into to fighting each other. How is that not a fuck-up when allies start fighting each other? Look at the mess the last Crusade turned into; it accomplished next to nothing.

I'm not saying the Crusades were useless. They did a lot for Europe by facilitating the introduction (and in some cases, reintroduction) of many commodities and ideas that paved the way for the Renaissance. Did you know that the Muslims were big fans of the Greeks and Romans and were responsible for the survival of many of the classics? No Muslims, no Renaissance.

[Zosimus]

Could it be concivable to think that if one removed all the rules/laws belonging to all religions, wouldn't we realize that they all, in reality, are all saying the same thing?

Zoroaster (zoriastrism/the first monotheistic belief in the world) stated it simply and beautifully:

1. Say Good Things
2. Do Good Things
3. Think Good Things

If we all (regardless of our religeous affiliation) followed these three simple acts, it wouldn't matter which religion we followed (or didn't follow), for in our basics, these are the only fundamentals we need in order to at least tolerate each other and treat one another with respect!!
Rules seperate us from each other, making us falsely believe that: "I am better because, my religion says/does so and so." If we look real closely at all of the great religions, I think we would see how, in fact, they are all saying the exact same things and sadly, the joke will fall upon those that haven't realized what fools they are for not having seen that!

[kellychaos]

Isn't that pretty much analagous to the "Golden Rule"?

P.S. I'll make humanists of you all yet .... muahahahah! :)

[UnDeath]

Humanism is for pussies >:
screw betterment of yourself, its all about betterment of yourself. Satanism wins. >:

[Vibecrewangel]

UnDeath - Are you making reference to the actual teachings of LeVey?

[theapportioner]

Haha. LaVey is an imbecile.

[Vibecrewangel]

Actually he wasn't. What his church has become on the other hand......

[ItalianStereotype]

allow me to backtrack a moment and correct Chimps distorted view of history.

yes Chimp, most people were illiterate at this time. remember, most of the Crusades occured before the advent of the printing press. however, even the most severely retarded people understood word of mouth.

also, KINGS themselves participated in the Crusades, the most notable of whom being Frederick Barbarossa, Phillip Augustus, and Richard I the Lionheart. it was seen as a royal duty to take the cross and fight in the Crusades. plus, do you think the Reconquista was won by a peasant rabble?

Besides, all your Crusader states that lasted that long weren't exactly in the heart of Muslim controlled areas like you're making it sound.

bullshit. bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

how much farther into Muslim controlled lands can JERUSALEM get? also, Acre, Syria, Anatolia? do any of those ring a bell?

oh, and what did you think was going to happen? did you think that they were going to conquer these places and hold free elections? christ chimp, do you have no understanding of history at all? some of these countries ended up being controlled by the Hospitaller and Templar Knights and ALL kingdoms (including establishing a ruling line) had to be approved by the Pope. now, unless you think the Pope is some shifty eyed bandit with a handle bar moustache cranking his adding machine while "nyah nyah nyah-ing" menacingly, then you should probably concede this point.

as for your idea of "free for all" it is only partially correct. the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians. the military orders, the Hospitaller Knights and the Templar Knights, were established to not only protect Christian pilgrims, but also to ensure the safety of Christians living inside the Holy Land. while it is true that there was a certain amount of brutality on the part of the Christians during the Crusades, it was truly characterized by the Muslims. one particular encounter comes to mind (without researching it again). at Nablus, the Muslim forces under Ibn Habar ad-Din agreed to parley and discuss terms of surrender and the ransom of the women and children of the city. a price was set at 30,000 dinars for the freedom of the prisoners and the surrender of the fighting men. when the gates were opened and the ransomed began their march north, ad-Din fell on them, killing all the men, selling the able bodied women and children into slavery, and disposing of the rest. this was business as usual for the Muslim armies for most of the Crusades, Chimp.

the Byzantines, let's think on them for a moment....a decadent, primarily orthodox "empire" with whom the catholic world had very shaky and tenuous relations. i would hardly call that an ally. also, are you referring to the hotly disputed primarliy French and Venetian invasion attempt? 'cause you know, that is really considered more of a Byzantine civil war.

I'm assuming that you mean the Eighth crusade and not the later "crusades" against the Hussars and I agree that it was pretty much an utter failure. St. Louis simply did not have the full support of Christianity behind him.

yes Chimp, I knew that the Muslims studied the Greeks and Romans. hell, without them, most of the literature, art, and philosophy of the old world would have been lost.

in short, don't try to explain history to me. (i'm sure that there are some inaccuracies in my post, but this is all off the top of my head.)

[UnDeath]

UnDeath - Are you making reference to the actual teachings of LeVey?

no, more along the lines of how damn similar the two are, yet Ive seen members of both who think the others are stupid.
And no, LaVey wasnt stupid. A liar, yes, but look a lot of his writings. Theres a lot of good advice in it.
and yeah, the CoS has more or less changed into what it supposedly opposes. Thats why Im in a small "church", and Im even thinking about quitting this one. (yeah, in case you cared, I am a modern satanist.)

Anyway, this doesnt pretain whatsoever to the main discussion, so carry on, all you blokes.

[mburbank]

Eye Tie, your scholarship is admirable and trustworthy. What's your take on wether Christendom during the crusades prevented Muslims from taking over the world?

[VinceZeb]

Now, Max, if IS agrees with me, will you admit that you are a moron and that I was correct?

[mburbank]

IF Eye Tie agrees with you, and IF he presents actual facts that corespond with a theory that I can then take a look at, as opposed to your factually incorrect off the top of your head shrieking, and IF those facts in some bizarre way line up with what you said, I will certainly have learned something and will publicly admit it here, as I always do.

Those are whole lot of IFS, but IF they come to pass, I will certainly 'admit' that you had more of a point than I aoriginally assumed and that I shouldn't have dismissed you out of hand just because you are... well... you.

Still reading? This hasn't gotten to hard for you?

Would that make me a "Moron" and you "right"? Hardly. It would make me capable of actively examining other viewpoints. The worst it would mean about me, is that I was more dissmissive of you than perhaps I should have been, and concidering how hard you work at making yourself dismissible, I'm not that concerned in any case.

Here's the thing, though. While Eye Tie was dissmissive of Chimps argument, he supported yours NOT AT ALL. So don't wet your pull ups just yet.

[VinceZeb]

I don't care which one he supports. I just want to see you admit you are a moron. And a Jewish vampire.

[mburbank]

If your Aunt had a penis she'd be your Uncle.

[mburbank]

"You are a Jewish Jew! OH! Kevin! I am desperate for you to blow me!"
-Vinth

[kellychaos]

I'm not interested in converting or anything ... but just as a means to satisfy my curiousity ... does anyone (Undeath) know of a good website that explains satanism? This is showing my ignorance of the topic, I know, but doesn't Satan imply God, and being so, wouldn't it be better to be on the side of good? ... i.e. good and evil is a dichotomy in which the existenc of one implies the other. Or do you think that the Bible has it reversed and that God is the evil? By the way, I'm in no way putting these beliefs down. I'm asking.

[AChimp]

Italian, your long post is commendable, but it still shows off your "West is best" view of things.

how much farther into Muslim controlled lands can JERUSALEM get? also, Acre, Syria, Anatolia? do any of those ring a bell?
You distinctly mentioned "lasting until the 14th century." Sure, Jerusalem was out there in the thick of it, and they were forced to surrender to the Muslims in in the late 12th, after about a century of Christian rule. Some of the earliest states only survived for a while as a castle and a few town because they agreed to not attack nearby Muslims... hardly a bastion of Christian might

Antioch, Acre, Tripoli, Syria... in fact, I can't find any reference to a Christian state that lasted well into the 13th... so, either you know about some Lost Kingdom that I don't know about or it was a typo that confused my simian mind. Regardless, the Crusader states that lasted the longest were the ones nestled against the Mediterannean and in the north where they were near reinforcements.

the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians.
Really? You mean the Crusaders weren't so fired up that they stormed the walls of Jerusalem and killed every Jew and Muslim that they could find? One account from the day claimed that so many pagans had died that they were "up to their ankles in blood" and the survivors made "pyramids of bodies" for funeral pyres in which "only God new the number."

The Crusaders are just as guilty of slaughtering civilians and plundering--Crusaders kept killing and robbing Jews despite the Pope's declaration that they were to be left alone--as the Muslims, so to say that one side is characterized by violence more than the other is bullshit.

also, are you referring to the hotly disputed primarliy French and Venetian invasion attempt? 'cause you know, that is really considered more of a Byzantine civil war
Yeah, and the French and Venetians reacted badly when they realized they weren't going to be paid for lending their support. Don't you find it a bit impious that they would be marketing themselves as mercenaries in the first place?

Anyways, this argument is going no where at this rate. My original point was that Vinth's claim that the Church was the only reason why we're all not wearing turbans right now is crap. There are too many variables to make a generalization like that, chief among them, I think, is the fact that Muslims don't usually forcefully convert entire populations.

[Isaac]

If your Aunt had a penis she'd be your Uncle.what a brilliant revelation!

[Zosimus]

Undeath, Could you please describe to me, what the difference is between a "modern satanist" and "an old fashioned" satanist? Though I agree with you that Anton LaVey wasn't a complete idiot, I do have some questions pertaining to his "faith" especially in aspect to present time.

[ItalianStereotype]

aye, the 14th century was a typo, I was typing too fast to notice it. although, Cyprus was converted from its former Byzantine heritage to a Crusader state that remained under Christian rule until 1571, but I wouldn't really count that. anyway, when the power in the Outremer states began shifting from the Kings to the military orders (Templars and Hospitallers) the end was pretty much near. with the fall of Aleppo, the only noteworthy Outremer cities still under Christian control were Montfort (held by the Teutonic Knights), Belvoir (held by the Hospitaller Knights), Chastel Blanc, and Saphet (both held by the Templar Knights). When the Pope called for a crusade against Aragon in 1282, that, along with the shift of power from the royalty to the military orders, ensured the end of the Outremer states. I believe that Acre, the last of the major Christian states, fell in 1290 to a combined effort of multiple Muslim nations and tribes. the last permanent Christian presence, a Templar garrison on the island of Ruad, lasted until 1302.

I don't know where you got your information about this agreement, but www.clownpenis.fart is not the most historically accurate source. most of the crusader states were under CONSTANT attack, whether it be just a raid or a full out siege. in the north, it was mostly the Seljuk Turks and in the south, the Kaliphates were the most serious threat (at least until the Mamluks began gaining influence in Egypt, but that wasn't until much later). Like I said, there was indeed some brutality on the part of the Christians, but the muslims were by far the MOST violent during the Crusades. know why? because they were a warrior society taught to show no mercy to the enemies of their home and the enemies of Islam. of course, this period of history is marked by violence, so to say that neither side was so would be foolish.

that "crusade" against the Byzantines was doomed from the start and Alexius IV was a moron. of course, there were times when the Byzantine walls were manned ENTIRELY by Italian mercs, so maybe it wasn't so hopeless. the decadent Byzantine Empire was simply on its last leg. i think that we are in agreement on this point.

as for Vince's claim, I don't think that the Muslims could have taken over the world. hell, if it was the entire Empire of Islam against the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor, I think the Muslims would be hard-pressed to win. now imagine them trying to tackle the Chinese. the mongols created some problems for the world and would have created more after their...acceptance (not conversion) of Islam had they desired to. although the Hungarians and Polocks had severly damaged their forces at Wahlstadt and Mohi, the Mongols were adept at winning while outmanned. it was never their intent to conquer Europe, however, they only wanted to remove the threat of Duke Henry of Silesia and King Bela of Poland while reclaiming the Cumans who had fled to Hungary. so no, I don't think that there was ever any danger of a Muslim conquest of the world.

[UnDeath]

http://groups.msn.com/SatanicEquinox/home.htm
Theres a good site fer ya, Kelly.
And Zosimus, itll also answer your question. Im sure its in the top ten F.A.Q. link in the top right of the page.
If you guys have any other questions, just open a new thread, so this one doesnt go any more off topic. Ill be happy to answer any questions if any of you have em.

[theapportioner]

LaVeyan Satanism is garbage. That scam artist Anton basically lifted the tenets straight out of Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy, Objectivism.

[mburbank]

Well, there we go. Everyone agrees you're an idiot Vinth.

[Sethomas]

the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians.

You're neglecting what happened when the first Crusaders arrived at Constantinople three months after Urban II's Deus Vult speech. Thousands were massacered, mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews. From 1090 onwards, I think it would be fair to say that the relationship between Western Europe and the Bynzantine Empire was fairly amiable. Remember that the first Crusade was begun to avenge "our brothers in Christianity" (or something of that sort) who died in Jerusalem... they certainly weren't Roman Catholic. The popes continued to try to make amends with the East well into the late fourteenth century, so animosity between the two sides on religious grounds was really quite negligible. My impression has always been that the Bynzantines were largely ignored simply because their power was decaying so rapidly that the Westerners didn't need to take them seriously.

Oh, and I think the Templar stronghold at Acre fell in 1296, not 1290.

[ItalianStereotype]

You're neglecting what happened when the first Crusaders arrived at Constantinople three months after Urban II's Deus Vult speech. Thousands were massacered, mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews.

From 1090 onwards, I think it would be fair to say that the relationship between Western Europe and the Bynzantine Empire was fairly amiable... so animosity between the two sides on religious grounds was really quite negligible. My impression has always been that the Bynzantines were largely ignored simply because their power was decaying so rapidly that the Westerners didn't need to take them seriously.

Oh, and I think the Templar stronghold at Acre fell in 1296, not 1290.

I suppose I hadn't taken all of that into consideration. I will concede the point for now.

The way that I understand it is that the East and West had shaky relations. Until the Crusades, the Saracens had been enough of a threat to Rome that they were willing to leave the Byzantines to their own business in the East, but their was a certain mistrust and contempt for the Byzantine Greeks. They were seen as a treacherous people that had been corrupted by the decadence of their empire. The emperors employed eunuchs not only as bodyguards to his wives, but also as high officials in Church and State. there were only four (i think) positions that were denied to them. Liudprand of Cremona, sent to Byzantium on a diplomatic mission by Emperor Otto I, described the Byzantines as "full of lies, tricks, perjury and greed. the city is rapacious, avaricious, and vainglorious" plus there was more than a measure of resentment of the Byzantines arrogance and the envy of such a magnificent city as Constantinople, one city that surpassed Rome in size and splendor. it was also a deeply religious society that was better educated than any of the western nations. in short, they had stayed true to the "Roman ideal."

on the religious front, many of the differences that had been growing between the two sects finally came out, such as the primacy of the two patriarchs, the allegiance of newly converted people (Bulgarians, Moldovians, etc.), and, most importantly, on doctrine-namely the veneration of images or icons of Christ and the saints. they Byzantines had begun to accept the Islamic belief that the veneration of religious icons was indistinguishable from the worship of graven images and false idols. the Roman pope had condemned this kind of iconoclasm, if it had succeded there would quite probably have been no Renaissance art. hell, for a time, the two sects were lobbing anathemas and excommunications at each other.

however, when it came to conflict with Islam, the two branches stood fast by each other.

regarding the fall of Acre, we were both wrong. the templar stronghold fell in 1291.

[Sethomas]

The iconoclasm issue was one that both sides argued since the fourth century, and I've always found it rather asinine how ambivalent the East was on the issue. Rome, having a rich history of sacramentals dating back to the paintings in 1st century catacombs, was always an ardent supporter of icons. The East, however, I believe began denouncing their use around the time of the Nicean Council but the Patriarchs of Constantinople changed their minds a few times on the issue before the Great Schism. I believe that the use of icons was finally deemed acceptable in the East around 950, and the golden age of Eastern icons spanned roughly 1300-1550. During the Crusades period came the development of the Bynzantine style of mosaic work, and I would assume that such would go against an iconoclastic ideal.

The "official" reason for the Schism was the felioque clause amended to the Nicene Creed by the Pope. That the Bishop of Constantinople severed relations over that is laughable, considering that it should be obvious from the letters of Leo the Great (which the Bynzantines conceded were right) that the Holy Spirit proceeds both through the Father and the Son. Basically, the East found the most petty issue possible and used it as an excuse to tell the West "fuck you." So yeah, I agree with you absolutely that the Bynzantines were prissy pissants.

Have you any thoughts on Justinian and Theodora?

[UnDeath]

LaVeyan Satanism is garbage. That scam artist Anton basically lifted the tenets straight out of Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy, Objectivism.

Thats why Im not LaVeyan. LaVeyans more or less use his word as Law, while Modern Satanists (at least, me) just agknowledge it as good advice regardless of its orgin, and perhaps use it as a starting point on our own personal philosophy. The majority these philosophies are very similar, hence the reason we are actually abe to join together in our little groups (or that big farce, the CoS).

regardless, why is it garbage? so what if he ripped it off? I know hes a liar, scam artist, what-have-you, but what is written in his Satanic Bible seems good like good sense to me. Im not giving him credit either way for writing it, I honestly dont give half a fuck. Ive more or less had the same basic philosophy since I was 14, and Ive been a MS for only just over a year.

[VinceZeb]

My dislike of satanism, if anyone really cares, is that its selfish and named after the biggest loser in the existance of reality. Why would you want to name your "religion" based on a being that loses in the end any way you slice it? That would be like if I named a religious group the Buffalo Billonians.

[Vibecrewangel]

It still makes me laugh......no one gets the joke.

[mburbank]

Is it just me or did Vinth utterly ignore that every single person in the conversation, while they may disagree strongly about the nature of the Crusades, all think Vinth is a simpleton for not just stating but inisting that if not for the Crusades we would all now be under the Muslim thumb?

I just keep trying to picture you in Seminary. Or did you mean something different when you claimed you studied for the Priesthood? Did you perhaps really mean you went to Catholic school and had vague power fantasies about being a priest?

[VinceZeb]

Are you drunk on that fermated Arab Children's blood again, Max?

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

[mburbank]

Yeah, you're right, Vinth. It's pretty hard to figure out.

IF YOU CAN'T READ.

1.) Everyone, including Eye Tie, knows you were totally wrong in your childish, uniformed take on the crusades.

2.) It's hard to picture a lightweight religous numbskull like you being allowed to study for the priesthood, so my guess is, like your Submarine letter, you took a fairly meaningless aspect of your life, ie. attending a religous school, and pretended it was something more impressive, like studying to be a priest. As opposed to just, you know, daydreaming about it.

Was that easy enough for you to understand? Here, here's a simpler version.

1.) Vince wrong crusades. Vince dumb.

2.) Vince to dumb to be priest. Vince lie.

[kellychaos]

I just keep trying to picture you in Seminary. Or did you mean something different when you claimed you studied for the Priesthood? Did you perhaps really mean you went to Catholic school and had vague power fantasies about being a priest?

If the question would have been about fashion, I'm sure Vinth would have had a history of walkin' the boards as a runway model.

[VinceZeb]

1.) Vince wrong crusades. Vince dumb.

2.) Vince to dumb to be priest. Vince lie.

Man, are you that drunk, Max? What do the people where you work think about your affliction?

[mburbank]

If anyone can explain or even guess what Vinth's problem understanding my last two posts is, chime in.

[The_voice_of_reason]

He's stupid.

[The_voice_of_reason]

And illiterate.

[Protoclown]

Correct on both counts. He is also afraid of being wrong to the point that his knees are knocking and the front of his trousers are soiled with the 'pee pee'.

[mburbank]

You don't suppose that Vith is just pretending to be this stupid? I mean, in this particular instance? 'Cause dumb as he is, it's really hard to believe he's this dumb.

[Protoclown]

I see it as more of the "Ronnie Raygun" syndrome. Where if he doesn't acknowledge the fact that the board collectively bitch-slapped him into oblivion and made him suck our great big juicy message board cock (I have to put this in Vince terms or it will be as Egyptian to him), he can hopefully, in his own twisted mind, pretend that it never happened. And on top of that, with even more hope, we will forget that it ever occurred.

[Zosimus]

Max, I would like to say (like V.O.R.) that its because vinth is stupid but, I don't completely believe that...you forget that this person, VinceZeb is a "board-child" that has been brought up in a very bad environment. He has been brought up to say "if you don't like what I'm saying, then I don't like you!" I often feel really sorry for him. He seems lost in a quest and being that he is searching desperately for somewhere to feel completely comfortable, he starts acting like an arrogant "fucktard" (vince-word-usage) whilst looking! And he still doesn't seem to know what he is looking for yet!

I say that vinth is a child with grand visions! Like you said earlier in the thread, he is a dreamer, and perhaps the things that he lied about are just reflections of things that he admires and would like to be a part of (ref. to the submarine latter and the priesthood).
I am sure that he if he just re-directed all his negative energy away from his "past" and instead focused himself on all the good he could do, then (and only then) would he be truly succesful in life.

The attacks and anger he displays here are childish reactions to the reality he is surrounded by and can't cope with.
Maybe, one (miraculous?) day he will understand what he has been saying AND that will be the day that he will personally apologize to you for all the childish, vile, meaningless shit he has said. And he REALLY does owe you a great big apology if you ask me!

To Vince:
Dear boy, personally,I think that you need your ass kicked something so hard! I also think that if you can't take what anyone else has to "educate" you with anywhere else but on those garbage site you frequent to, then you can TRULY (together with your dream/lies) SUCK MY ASS! >: Please GROW UP!!

[Helm]

LaVeyan Satanism is garbage. That scam artist Anton basically lifted the tenets straight out of Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy, Objectivism.

Good call. Threw some Quaballistic numerology and generic occult fiction in there for shock value too, but basically, you're right. But, what do you think of Crowley?

[UnDeath]

dont rub Crowley in, I was about to buy a bunch of his books at this book store in Seattle, but then I lost my job.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I personally like Ayn Rands philosphy but it really irks me how she tries to make capitalism seem like the most moral system.

[Sethomas]

Ayn Rand found a way to make a profit off of everyone's loyalty to themselves. Utter shit, simple as that.

[VinceZeb]

Rand was an atheist who thought capitalism was the best way to go at it in the world. Take out her atheistic beliefs and the woman was onto something.

[ItalianStereotype]

Have you any thoughts on Justinian and Theodora?

my apologies, Winston, I didn't notice your post. I'll get back to this.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Ayn Rand found a way to make a profit off of everyone's loyalty to themselves. Utter shit, simple as that.


Jesus found a way to make a profit off everyone's eagerness to be led.

[ItalianStereotype]

yeah, since Jesus died a fucking billionaire. he was the son of God, of course he people were going to follow him.

[The_voice_of_reason]

the fact that he is still know to this day is his profit. What about all those people who are followed who aren't the "son of God"? What about Mohammed, what about Buddha, what about fucking David Koresh?

[Sethomas]

Voxy poo, your point is utter shite until you find can find a way to substantiate your apparent assertion that being nailed to fucking chunk of wood is no big deal. If you had any awareness of the Gospel, you would know that Jesus didn't take advantage of anyone, shown especially in his precognition that almost all of his followers would betray him.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Voxy poo, your point is utter shite until you find can find a way to substantiate your apparent assertion that being nailed to fucking chunk of wood is no big deal. If you had any awareness of the Gospel, you would know that Jesus didn't take advantage of anyone, shown especially in his precognition that almost all of his followers would betray him.

Of course the Gospel isn't going to show how he subverted all his followers. Besides if Jesus knew that he was going to be killed he wouldn't of been so selfish as to let it happen deserting his "flock" while he gets to go chill in heaven.




Pardon me, I just like to be inflamitory even if I have to say things I don't believe.

[theapportioner]

Even if we grant you this, does it matter?

[theapportioner]

But, what do you think of Crowley?

Never looked into him, so I don't have any thoughts, really. You?

[Sethomas]

Pardon me, I just like to be inflamitory even if I have to say things I don't believe.

Yeah, and it's pretty transparent. What makes it obnoxious is that it's fucking stupid.

If Jesus was looking forward to a horrific death, how do you reconcile that with the agony in the garden, and that he asked his Father for a long life that he might "pass this Cup"? Dumbass.