This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"America's 5 Favorite Ways to Ignore Jesus"

#11kts123Posted 1/2/2013 12:15:22 PM
Judging is a Favourite Christian past time. Basically hell is for all non believers and blasphemers. Lets not forget infidels like gays, lesbians, Atheist, Agnostics, secularists, evolutionists, liberals, non Christians, democrats, women,..


Actually I've found, the new all-the-rage form of judging is judging other Christian's for judging. "Thank God I'm not a hypocrite, like that guy!"
#12mikmalotPosted 1/2/2013 12:16:05 PM
C_Mat posted...
*checks Republican Party platform*

Nope, none of them are there.

Both Republicans and Democrats can be materialistic, judgmental, selfish, violent and get divorced. Both Democrats and Republicans can also follow their platforms without exhibiting any of those behaviors.


-the Republican Party supports Capitalism and the Free Market, even though that system benefits the wealthy and exploits the poor. They also seek to defund programs that help the poor (food stamps, medicaid, Planned Parenthood etc) in the name of being "fiscally responsible", but in actuality it's in the name of saving the rich some tax money. Sounds like Selfishness and materialism. Let's also not forget the judgmentalism of the (flawed) attitude common among Republicans that the poor would not be poor if they just worked harder.
-The Republican Party supports out of control military spending, and "pre-emptive" invasions in the name of "defense." They also unquestioningly support the NRA and unregulated gun ownership. Sounds like "violence", to me.
-Pushing for abstinence only education is pretty much a bad idea on every level, but to the topic at hand, pushing "wait for marriage" just means kids get married young so they can have sex, and then get divorced when they realize they actually hate each other.

As a Christian Socialist, I recognize that Democrats are only marginally better on all of these fronts, seeing as how they are essentially the moderate wing of the (extremist, reactionary) Republican Party these days.
---
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he wants another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
#13Imperator420Posted 1/2/2013 4:02:34 PM
I get it. Making a list of way Americans ignore Jesus is funny, because in reality, Americans are far more religious than other groups of people with a comparable degree of education.

Actually, it's not that funny.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#14hunter_gohanPosted 1/2/2013 4:06:56 PM
Ivashanko posted...
The Crusades themselves only came as a response to the call of the Eastern Roman Empire, who's territory was under attack by Muslims.


While it is true the Roman Emperor asked for help in a defensive war against the Seljuq Turk from western Christians, it is also true that those Crusaders who answered the call went and attacked a completely un-involved 3rd party, the Fatimids.

"On 7 June, the crusaders reached Jerusalem, which had been recaptured from the Seljuqs by the Fatimids only the year before."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Continued_march_to_Jerusalem

They also of course didn't give back any of the land to the Romans. They used that as an excuse, but it obviously was not the actual reason they went.

But the mass majority of people talking about the Crusades are completely ignorant of them, which has long irritated me.


People attempting to use the "Oh it was only defensive. They went over their to help defend the Eastern Roman Empire" excuse has also long irritated me.
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#15IvashankoPosted 1/2/2013 5:30:28 PM(edited)
While it is true the Roman Emperor asked for help in a defensive war against the Seljuq Turk from western Christians, it is also true that those Crusaders who answered the call went and attacked a completely un-involved 3rd party, the Fatimids.

"On 7 June, the crusaders reached Jerusalem, which had been recaptured from the Seljuqs by the Fatimids only the year before."


If you've ever read the primary documents, you begin to realize that the Christians at the time did not really differentiate between the Seljuks and the Fatamids- many, including most of the leaders (except, ironically, the Papal Legate- who died before they reached the Holy Lands itself) didn't understand the political situation in the Middle East, and viewed the Sunni and the Shiite as being part of one Caliphate- something which the Muslims themselves often promoted, though not in the way the Christians took it. The Crusades attacked places in Antioch, and gave in to the Byzantines (though unwillingly). The attack on Jerusalem was seen as an extension of that attack- the Holy Lands had been under the control of Christians for long centuries, and the West still viewed it as being Christian. This was backed up when they reached the Holy City and, low and behold, the majority (during the First Crusade it was the mass majority) of people were still Christian. The Crusades were always viewed as being defensive- hence why Spaniards were never allowed to go on Crusades- they had the defense of Iberia to look to. The lands were seen as Christian, and, frankly, there *were* Christian (though not Catholic, or even Orthodox) at the time.

People attempting to use the "Oh it was only defensive. They went over their to help defend the Eastern Roman Empire" excuse has also long irritated me.

It was a reason for war. One of many. But the defensive poster wasn't to defend the Romans- it was to defend Christendom from centuries of conquest. I don't really see it as any better or any worse than nationalistic wars. Furthermore, many individuals went, because of the Pope's offer of salvation- something which, I believe, is actually fairly heretical to the Christian faith (this obviously is an over simplified description of the events of the southern Crusades).

In all honesty, the Northern Crusades are far more in line with what you view the southern Crusades to be, and even then things are a little more complicated than is commonly believed.
#16Imperator420Posted 1/2/2013 5:31:43 PM
What's all this talk about Christian land? Christians don't have a land; theirs is the kingdom of heaven. You already claimed the whole damn sky, let other people have something.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#17IvashankoPosted 1/2/2013 5:38:32 PM
Furthermore, many alliances were made between Crusader State and Muslims- famously the alliance with Damascus, and, indeed, for a while with one faction of the the Fatimid (during a period of extreme Fatimid weakness the effective political leader of the Fatamid's thought it prudent to offer an alliance with the Kingdom of Jerusalem in order to defeat his enemies). The Crusaders failed due to a mixture of factors, but the idea that the Crusaders and the Muslims were always at each other throats, locked into constant battle because of their religious differences, exists only in Crusader Kings 2. After the First Crusade the others were primarily political struggles, rather than religious.
#18Imperator420Posted 1/2/2013 5:40:06 PM
Ivashanko posted...
Furthermore, many alliances were made between Crusader State and Muslims- famously the alliance with Damascus, and, indeed, for a while with one faction of the the Fatimid (during a period of extreme Fatimid weakness the effective political leader of the Fatamid's thought it prudent to offer an alliance with the Kingdom of Jerusalem in order to defeat his enemies). The Crusaders failed due to a mixture of factors, but the idea that the Crusaders and the Muslims were always at each other throats, locked into constant battle because of their religious differences, exists only in Crusader Kings 2. After the First Crusade the others were primarily political struggles, rather than religious.


All wars are political struggles. Some of them have religious justifications.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#19IvashankoPosted 1/2/2013 5:45:40 PM(edited)
What's all this talk about Christian land? Christians don't have a land; theirs is the kingdom of heaven. You already claimed the whole damn sky, let other people have something.

Christendom- lands that have a majority of Christians, but usually only in the Medieval context. People by and large did not identify themselves with nations in the Medieval period and before, but rather by religion. Just as there were (and are) Buddhist Kingdoms, Islamic Caliphates, and the rest of it, there was a Christendom.

...Odds are you are trolling me though.

All wars are political struggles. Some of them have religious justifications.

It depends on how broadly you define 'political'. Was the Conquistadors conquest of the America's (done, in the words of many conquistadors, for 'gold and glory) political? They had political consequences though, but in many cases Spain did not direct them (Cortez famously was declared a criminal and 'outside the Spanish flag' when he invaded Mexico). Or the cases of legionaries of Rome revolting in order to receive more pay (rarely but occasionally leading to actual wars).
#20Imperator420Posted 1/2/2013 5:49:41 PM
Ivashanko posted...
What's all this talk about Christian land? Christians don't have a land; theirs is the kingdom of heaven. You already claimed the whole damn sky, let other people have something.

Christendom- lands that have a majority of Christians. People by and large did not identify themselves with nations in the Medieval period and before, but rather by religion. Just as there were (and are) Buddhist Kingdoms, Islamic Caliphates, and the rest of it, there was a Christendom.

...Odds are you are trolling me though. The information above is common knowledge. If so, you got me.


Thank you for assuming that I'm either an idiot or a troll. That's certainly one way of carrying on a productive discussion.

Christendom is antithetical to Christian theology whereas the Caliphate is compatible with Islam. 'Christendom' was also a loose collection of territories overrun by Germanic kings, who adopted the religion of their new subjects and then continued to behave in a manner befitting pagan rulers.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7