Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 4:16 am
BlueMax wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Also, christians totally NEVER do anything violent *cough* crusades *cough*
Don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic empire - two very, very different things.
Sadly, I fear if Islam really does come to full power, we're going to see an even bigger, darker, more violent Dark Ages than the last one.
Catholics aren't Christians?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Oct 2012, 6:53 am
13 Oct 2012, 8:12 am
13 Oct 2012, 1:31 pm
13 Oct 2012, 1:43 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
BlueMax wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Also, christians totally NEVER do anything violent *cough* crusades *cough*
Don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic empire - two very, very different things.
Sadly, I fear if Islam really does come to full power, we're going to see an even bigger, darker, more violent Dark Ages than the last one.
Catholics aren't Christians?
Short answer... sorta'. Around 500AD things took a drastic turn and Christianity was taken over by someone new, gave it an army and became the Holy Roman Catholic empire, ruling the land with an iron fist. Owning a Bible or having the literacy to READ it were punishable by painful death, mostly because the Catholic empire began making some serious changes, including making up a whole bunch of new laws and "religious stuff" not in the Bible at all (like Mary worship and even changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.)
They ran under the same premise of "convert or die painfully" methodology that a certain group would like to institute all over again.
13 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm
13 Oct 2012, 1:51 pm
BlueMax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BlueMax wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Also, christians totally NEVER do anything violent *cough* crusades *cough*
Don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic empire - two very, very different things.
Sadly, I fear if Islam really does come to full power, we're going to see an even bigger, darker, more violent Dark Ages than the last one.
Catholics aren't Christians?
Short answer... sorta'. Around 500AD things took a drastic turn and Christianity was taken over by someone new, gave it an army and became the Holy Roman Catholic empire, ruling the land with an iron fist. Owning a Bible or having the literacy to READ it were punishable by painful death, mostly because the Catholic empire began making some serious changes, including making up a whole bunch of new laws and "religious stuff" not in the Bible at all (like Mary worship and even changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.)
They ran under the same premise of "convert or die painfully" methodology that a certain group would like to institute all over again.
Catholism is a branch of Christianity, it always has been a branch. Eastern-Orthodox is the other branch of Christianity that is about as old as Catholism. However Catholism broke up into Catholism and Protestantism (which splintered into Lutherin, Methodist, Baptist, etc.).
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 2:19 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
BlueMax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BlueMax wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Also, christians totally NEVER do anything violent *cough* crusades *cough*
Don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic empire - two very, very different things.
Sadly, I fear if Islam really does come to full power, we're going to see an even bigger, darker, more violent Dark Ages than the last one.
Catholics aren't Christians?
Short answer... sorta'. Around 500AD things took a drastic turn and Christianity was taken over by someone new, gave it an army and became the Holy Roman Catholic empire, ruling the land with an iron fist. Owning a Bible or having the literacy to READ it were punishable by painful death, mostly because the Catholic empire began making some serious changes, including making up a whole bunch of new laws and "religious stuff" not in the Bible at all (like Mary worship and even changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.)
They ran under the same premise of "convert or die painfully" methodology that a certain group would like to institute all over again.
Catholism is a branch of Christianity, it always has been a branch. Eastern-Orthodox is the other branch of Christianity that is about as old as Catholism. However Catholism broke up into Catholism and Protestantism (which splintered into Lutherin, Methodist, Baptist, etc.).
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
One of the few instances we agree!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Oct 2012, 2:21 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Catholism is a branch of Christianity, it always has been a branch. Eastern-Orthodox is the other branch of Christianity that is about as old as Catholism. However Catholism broke up into Catholism and Protestantism (which splintered into Lutherin, Methodist, Baptist, etc.).
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
One of the few instances we agree!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Only reason you are agreeing is because politics aren't involved.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 2:23 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 2:35 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Billy Graham's kid tried to imply the same thing about President Obama, as his father had been raised a Muslim (I understand he was personally an atheist).
Is Barack Obama an apostate? If so, he is still a Muslim if neither he or his father have apostatised.
Not that I particularly care either way - it's pretty much irrelevant. What does matter is U.S. foreign policy.
As a matter of fact, MSNBC had asked a Muslim scholar if being the son of a Muslim makes you a Muslim was true according to the religion, and the answer was a definite no.
You do know that it is also okay to lie to infidels according to the Quran. Since I had to read the Quran for a medieval history class, I can safely say that either the scholar didn't know the book that well or he didn't tell MSNBC the truth.
Kraichgauer wrote:
And this notion that Obama is somehow Pro-Islam in his foreign policy is a load of crap. The fact of the matter is, the Islamic countries are a very unstable part of the world, and we need to handle them with kid gloves. Charging in with guns blazing like Bush had only makes things a lot worse.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer, it is highly likely that Iran wouldn't be continuing their path towards a Nuclear weapon if Bush were back in office. The reason Qaddaffi gave up his nuclear program was because after our invasion of Iraq taking down Saddam, Qaddaffi was scared the "gun toting maniac in a cowboy hat" would be coming for him next.
So do you seriously believe Obama is a Muslim because of accident of birth? And if so, is he really some sort of sleeper agent bent on destroying America?
And as for Bush's adventurism - - I don't see Iran having been slowed down by any rate due to Bush's posturing.
In fact, at the beginning of the Afghan war, Iran - which had actually been allied to our friends in the Northern Alliance - had made peaceful overtures to the Bush administration, as we and they had Bin Laden and the Taliban as common enemies. Bush brushed them aside, having the idea that if we ignore them enough, they'd have to come around to our way of thinking. Maybe nothing would have come of it - or maybe, we could have cooled down what has become a Middle Eastern cold war. But now we'll never know.
As for Gaddafi - from the footage of his corpse being stabbed in the ass by Libyan rebels, I doubt it would have mattered if he had stood down with his nucaler... er, I mean nuclear program at all.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 2:38 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Catholism is a branch of Christianity, it always has been a branch. Eastern-Orthodox is the other branch of Christianity that is about as old as Catholism. However Catholism broke up into Catholism and Protestantism (which splintered into Lutherin, Methodist, Baptist, etc.).
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
One could also argue Mormonism is the crazy uncle of Christianity.
One of the few instances we agree!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Only reason you are agreeing is because politics aren't involved.
Maybe so, maybe so.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 2:54 pm
BlueMax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BlueMax wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Also, christians totally NEVER do anything violent *cough* crusades *cough*
Don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic empire - two very, very different things.
Sadly, I fear if Islam really does come to full power, we're going to see an even bigger, darker, more violent Dark Ages than the last one.
Catholics aren't Christians?
Short answer... sorta'. Around 500AD things took a drastic turn and Christianity was taken over by someone new, gave it an army and became the Holy Roman Catholic empire, ruling the land with an iron fist. Owning a Bible or having the literacy to READ it were punishable by painful death, mostly because the Catholic empire began making some serious changes, including making up a whole bunch of new laws and "religious stuff" not in the Bible at all (like Mary worship and even changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.)
They ran under the same premise of "convert or die painfully" methodology that a certain group would like to institute all over again.
Forgive me, but I think your knowledge on this part of history is lacking. The Holy Roman Empire had been the Frankish kingdom under a new name when Charlemagne had been granted title of Emperor of the Romans. The Frankish kingdom in fact had had roots dating back to Pre-Christian times. The Papacy saw the Franks as valuable allies when they had converted to Christianity. The Frankish kings, and later Holy Roman Emperors had definitely had a beneficial relationship with the Popes, and vice versa, but never was it the case that the Popes controlled the Frankish empire. Rather, the Popes had gained quite a bit secular political power, which included acquisition of land known as the Papal States, defended by a mercenary army composed later by Germans and Swiss.
And while I'm a Lutheran, and am not one to defend Catholicism of that day, I don't recall any punishment by death for reading the Bible. Rather, the Bible of the time had been written in Vulgate Latin, a language incomprehensible to most Europeans of the day. I do concede, the Church of the day had discouraged the laity from reading the Bible. In fact, when Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, he found the Bible in his monastery had been chained to a desk - the obvious intent being that the Good Book was the sole property of the Church.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Oct 2012, 7:46 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Forgive me, but I think your knowledge on this part of history is lacking. The Holy Roman Empire had been the Frankish kingdom under a new name when Charlemagne had been granted title of Emperor of the Romans. The Frankish kingdom in fact had had roots dating back to Pre-Christian times. The Papacy saw the Franks as valuable allies when they had converted to Christianity. The Frankish kings, and later Holy Roman Emperors had definitely had a beneficial relationship with the Popes, and vice versa, but never was it the case that the Popes controlled the Frankish empire. Rather, the Popes had gained quite a bit secular political power, which included acquisition of land known as the Papal States, defended by a mercenary army composed later by Germans and Swiss.
And while I'm a Lutheran, and am not one to defend Catholicism of that day, I don't recall any punishment by death for reading the Bible. Rather, the Bible of the time had been written in Vulgate Latin, a language incomprehensible to most Europeans of the day. I do concede, the Church of the day had discouraged the laity from reading the Bible. In fact, when Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, he found the Bible in his monastery had been chained to a desk - the obvious intent being that the Good Book was the sole property of the Church.
And while I'm a Lutheran, and am not one to defend Catholicism of that day, I don't recall any punishment by death for reading the Bible. Rather, the Bible of the time had been written in Vulgate Latin, a language incomprehensible to most Europeans of the day. I do concede, the Church of the day had discouraged the laity from reading the Bible. In fact, when Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, he found the Bible in his monastery had been chained to a desk - the obvious intent being that the Good Book was the sole property of the Church.
Well, I know some details and you know some - maybe instead of insulting me we could put ALL the pieces together?
Kinda' hard to put that much information into one lousy paragraph! Suffice it to say, those 1500 years of Dark Ages and Caltholic rule were not pleasant... we don't want to see that happen again.
Rather than the stupid approach of "...therefore all religion is bad and should be banned" how about the sensible approach of simply not allowing people to harm each other?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2012, 8:27 pm
BlueMax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Forgive me, but I think your knowledge on this part of history is lacking. The Holy Roman Empire had been the Frankish kingdom under a new name when Charlemagne had been granted title of Emperor of the Romans. The Frankish kingdom in fact had had roots dating back to Pre-Christian times. The Papacy saw the Franks as valuable allies when they had converted to Christianity. The Frankish kings, and later Holy Roman Emperors had definitely had a beneficial relationship with the Popes, and vice versa, but never was it the case that the Popes controlled the Frankish empire. Rather, the Popes had gained quite a bit secular political power, which included acquisition of land known as the Papal States, defended by a mercenary army composed later by Germans and Swiss.
And while I'm a Lutheran, and am not one to defend Catholicism of that day, I don't recall any punishment by death for reading the Bible. Rather, the Bible of the time had been written in Vulgate Latin, a language incomprehensible to most Europeans of the day. I do concede, the Church of the day had discouraged the laity from reading the Bible. In fact, when Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, he found the Bible in his monastery had been chained to a desk - the obvious intent being that the Good Book was the sole property of the Church.
And while I'm a Lutheran, and am not one to defend Catholicism of that day, I don't recall any punishment by death for reading the Bible. Rather, the Bible of the time had been written in Vulgate Latin, a language incomprehensible to most Europeans of the day. I do concede, the Church of the day had discouraged the laity from reading the Bible. In fact, when Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, he found the Bible in his monastery had been chained to a desk - the obvious intent being that the Good Book was the sole property of the Church.
Well, I know some details and you know some - maybe instead of insulting me we could put ALL the pieces together?
Kinda' hard to put that much information into one lousy paragraph! Suffice it to say, those 1500 years of Dark Ages and Caltholic rule were not pleasant... we don't want to see that happen again.Rather than the stupid approach of "...therefore all religion is bad and should be banned" how about the sensible approach of simply not allowing people to harm each other?
My intention had never been to insult you - I'm sorry if it came across as that way.
And as a practicing Lutheran, I hardly think all religion is bad.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Oct 2012, 8:47 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
My intention had never been to insult you - I'm sorry if it came across as that way.
And as a practicing Lutheran, I hardly think all religion is bad.
And as a practicing Lutheran, I hardly think all religion is bad.
No offense was taken.
My "relijun iz bad" comment was more for others who have a little too much fun insulting others on a daily basis.
You of all people should know why what Martin Luther did was such a big deal... he risked a lot more than his life to challenge the church for all to see!
