Medieval Violence and its Link to Religion

[Invader Zim]

This thread is a responce to the ever growing number of times I here ignorant athiests claming that Christianity and Islam are bloodthirsty religions based on inaccurate views on medieval societies, medieval history and the codes and practises of the people who lived in the period.

In order to be taken seriously on the matter of 'religious intolerance' during this period I would expect people to have read the following, all important texts when understanding the age of the crusaders: -

Las Siete Partidas,
The pact of Umar,
Abraham Ibn Daud on Samuel Ha-Nagid.

During this period every culture and people were intolerant, irregardless of religion. This tells us thatt heir behaviour was simply a reflection of the period in which they lived. It is not a remotely valid reason to 'clock up' deaths caused by religions you wish to attack.

Indeed christianity in this period was instrumental in the rise of the 'chivalric code', which actually kept the former mounted warrior of the dark ages in relative check.

Note also that in the 20th century, the century of the rise of athiesm is the most bloodthirsty century in human history thus far. Regimes run by athiests have been more bloody and brutal than any religious regime in the past. This tells us not that athiesm is 'evil' or some other such nonsense. Rather it tells that those in a position of power all through history have been 'bloody', intolerant people. This is more a reflection on those who seek and obtain power than it does of the religious beliefs of society or those in power.

Thus in conclusion; murder, intolerance and reactionary belife are not a product of religion, nor is religion a product of these attributes. Rather these attributes are the prouct of the times and society in which people lived.

[LSD]

During this period every culture and people were intolerant, irregardless of religion. This tells us thatt heir behaviour was simply a reflection of the period in which they lived.

Absolutely, but what makes religion so dangerous is that it seeks to perpetuate that "reflection" by casting it as "divinely inspired".

You are of course correct, religions do not emerge magically, they are a memetic reflection of the era in which they are born. That's why Christianity allows slavery, but Islam doesn't; and why Islam

But once these values are integrated into the fabric of the religion, they become "holy" to it. They become the framework on which the doctrinal guidelines are constructed. Accordingly, they cannot be substantially changed without collapsing the entire institution.

This is why gays are still oppressed in the first world. There is no class motivation to oppose gay rights, rather it emerges from cultural norms institutionalized by Christian dogma. Had early Christian fathers had a different position on the issue 2000 years ago, we would not have to be fighting this reactionary campagin today.

That's the nature of religion, it stultifyies society by promulgating values that are no longer related to objective reality. "Faith" undermines reason and in so doing undermines reasonable accomplishment.

That is not to say that progress has not been made in religious eras. Humans a remarkably able species and we have managed to accomplish some increadible things despite religion, but we have done so despite religion.

If we are to continue developing, it is essential that we utilize all our available tools and eliminate the impedements in our path. Religion is not the "sole evil" of human history, but it is an innately destructive entity and a fundamental obstacle to social progress.

That's bad enough.


Note also that in the 20th century, the century of the rise of athiesm is the most bloodthirsty century in human history thus far.

Perhaps, but that can hardly be attributed to atheism. The twentieth century saw the greatest increase in technlogocial capacity and, accordingly, in the ability to deal out death.

Surely no one doubts that had he had the power, Genghis Kahn would have killed far more than he did. It was not the will that he lacked, but the weapons.

The reason that genocides were less complete in the past is not due to "religious charity" or "Christian love", but to the inefficacy of swords and axes.

A single T-34 could do far more damage than a legion of Crusaders. "Religion" really has nothing to do with it.


Regimes run by athiests have been more bloody and brutal than any religious regime in the past.

That really depends on how one defines "atheist". If one merely means an absense of traditional organized religion, then I suppose you have a point, but if one is more logical in one's usage, one quickly realizes that the line between "faith" and "belief" is an arbitrary one.

The racial beliefs of the Nazis were just as superstitious as any "traditional" religion. They may not fall into the category of conventional "faiths", but they were no less irrational.

Likewise Pol Pot's atrocities were not based on rationality or even self-interest, but rather a perverted "faith" in the "power" of the peasantry.

Look, no one is claiming that any specific religion is "evil", nor that only the "western" or "traditional" religions are guilty. On the contrary, all superstitions are corrosive institutions as they all run fundamentally contrary to human progress and development.

"Faith" nescessitates the solidification of mores and is predicated upon the suppression of change. As such, it's very subsistance is a direct thread to any human society.

You're correct, many ideologies have bloody records, including some very perverted branches of Marxism. But the differences is that, unlike religion, Marxism is not itself predicated on the perpetuation of that record.

Religion does not "evolve", it is suppressed. The Christianity of today is not "tolerant" of homosexuality, it has just been prevented from acting on its homophobia.

If true the Christian faithful were to gain significant power, do any of us really doubt what would happen to gay rights? Do we really "wonder" what would happen to free speech?

The "record" of Christianity is one of Christian doctrine being observed. Sure a lot of crimes are done in the name of a lot of things, but most of those things do not themselves order that these crimes be committed.

A belief system of "faith" is predicated on rejecting reason and submiting to blind adherence to the "word of God". Accordingly, if the Catholic Church were to gain actual political control, it would unilaterally and universally ban abortion, suppress gays, oppress women, and opose scientific advancement.

That's not the Church of the eleventh century, that's the Church of today.

And that's the point, you see. Religion does not "happen" to have a "bad record", it's oppressive by it's very nature. The "record" is just a convienent illustration.

[redstar2000]

Rubbish!

The bland admonishment that "all humans at all times are really beastly" is completely meaningless.

In addition to which, religions explicitly maintain that their followers are "better" than "that".

When in fact, they behave much worse than humans do "normally".

As to atheist "nastiness", where was Stalin's "Auschwitz" or Mao's "Hiroshima"?

Say what you wish about Pol Pot, but he is hardly a blip on the chart compared to the last two centuries of "Christian leaders" in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.


Originally posted by Enigma
Note also that in the 20th century, the century of the rise of atheism is the most bloodthirsty century in human history thus far.

Two world-wide imperialist wars will do that...pump up the numbers quite dramatically.

But check out the 16th-17th century religious wars in Europe. I've read that the Catholics and Protestants managed to kill off one-third of the population of Germany in the course of their godly labors.

While that's readily comparable to the toll of the bubonic plague, Stalin and Mao aren't even in the running! :lol:

It's disappointing to see that you have defected to the ranks of the "defenders of the faith"...but not entirely unexpected.

You do display a nose for what you perceive as "the winning side", don't you?

Perhaps you imagine that if you want to teach history in the U.K. a few years from now, it would be well for your career to "get right with God".

On this board, you're probably not the only one. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

Thus in conclusion; murder, intolerance and reactionary belife are not a product of religion, nor is religion a product of these attributes. Rather these attributes are the prouct of the times and society in which people lived.

Religion is always an influence on society, just as politics. Religion has often been a stronger influence than politics. We know this because religion was used by politicians as a tool to control or sway support, start wars etc. To say that the times in which people were living were for unknown natural reasons 'brutal' is borderline insane. There had to be specific reasons.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:55 AM

Thus in conclusion; murder, intolerance and reactionary belife are not a product of religion, nor is religion a product of these attributes. Rather these attributes are the prouct of the times and society in which people lived.

Religion is always an influence on society, just as politics. Religion has often been a stronger influence than politics. We know this because religion was used by politicians as a tool to control or sway support, start wars etc. To say that the times in which people were living were for unknown natural reasons 'brutal' is borderline insane. There had to be specific reasons.
The fact that you accept that religion was a tool of politics completely contradicts your view. If religion was more powerful then why was it a 'tool' of politics, as opposed to politics being being a tool of religion?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 23 2006, 09:34 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 23 2006, 09:34 PM) Rubbish!

The bland admonishment that "all humans at all times are really beastly" is completely meaningless.

In addition to which, religions explicitly maintain that their followers are "better" than "that".

When in fact, they behave much worse than humans do "normally".

As to atheist "nastiness", where was Stalin's "Auschwitz" or Mao's "Hiroshima"?

Say what you wish about Pol Pot, but he is hardly a blip on the chart compared to the last two centuries of "Christian leaders" in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.


Enigma
Note also that in the 20th century, the century of the rise of atheism is the most bloodthirsty century in human history thus far.

Two world-wide imperialist wars will do that...pump up the numbers quite dramatically.

But check out the 16th-17th century religious wars in Europe. I've read that the Catholics and Protestants managed to kill off one-third of the population of Germany in the course of their godly labors.

While that's readily comparable to the toll of the bubonic plague, Stalin and Mao aren't even in the running! :lol:

It's disappointing to see that you have defected to the ranks of the "defenders of the faith"...but not entirely unexpected.

You do display a nose for what you perceive as "the winning side", don't you?

Perhaps you imagine that if you want to teach history in the U.K. a few years from now, it would be well for your career to "get right with God".

On this board, you're probably not the only one. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]

Rubbish!


Please do post your objections; what I have seen of your posts thus far does nothing of the sort.




The bland admonishment that "all humans at all times are really beastly" is completely meaningless.

Is it? If you have a counter argument, please present it. But in any case that is not what I said or meant. I stated that 'leaders', (if you can call them that) are generally cruel people and dictate society in such a way, to suggest otherwise is a very reactionary view. I contend that the majority of world leaders, now and in the past, have been imperialistic, brutal, intolerant, bloodthirsty and corrupt as a rule. I see those who wish to obtain such a position as usually being this way inclined. I rather suspect that history supports my view, how often are leaders 'nice', I would suspect rarely.



In addition to which, religions explicitly maintain that their followers are "better" than "that".

None of them have been, but all of the major ones claim to be, which simply goes to further my case.



As to atheist "nastiness", where was Stalin's "Auschwitz" or Mao's "Hiroshima"?

I suppose you have heard of the 'cultural revolution' or the 'gulags'? Don't bore me with revisionist history on the matter; we both know that it collapses with very little pressure.



Say what you wish about Pol Pot, but he is hardly a blip on the chart compared to the last two centuries of "Christian leaders" in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Really? You care to state a few regimes which have amassed a kill tally as high as Pol-pot, considering the population size of his country? I can assure you will never find a higher ratio, none exist as far as I am aware. I also am willing to bet no individual regimes or wars have reached a tally that high, short of the Taiping rebellion.



Two world-wide imperialist wars will do that...pump up the numbers quite dramatically.

The second and most bloody of which, was started by a dictatorship controlled by an atheist. But I more than suspect you knew hat already, no doubt you have a 'cunning' response lined up for me.


I've read that the Catholics and Protestants managed to kill off one-third of the population of Germany in the course of their godly labors

Either you have read wrongly or you have read poor sources; there is no way that a nation of millions, the Holy Roman Empire could have suffered a minimum of 1 million casualties and not achieved a position in the record books.



It's disappointing to see that you have defected to the ranks of the "defenders of the faith"

I defend nothing, other than reality, which seam to have passed you by when it regards the subject of religion and its 'vices'; a sad factor when I consider the worth of many of your other opinions.


You do display a nose for what you perceive as "the winning side", don't you?

I am a radical leftist, and you speak to me of the 'winning side'? :lol:



Perhaps you imagine that if you want to teach history in the U.K. a few years from now, it would be well for your career to "get right with God".

I do not intend to get 'right' with anything that does not exist and I lack the patience to put up with children. These are two rather grievous flaws in your argument, but I will let them slide, we are all prone to misjudging character from one time or another. However, I must admit, I did at one stage entertain the view that I may teach, but I then came to my senses.

[Invader Zim]

Las Siete Partidas: Laws on Jews, 1265 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jews-sietepart.html)
Medieval Sourcebook: Pact of Umar, 7th Century (http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/pact-umar.html)
Samuel Ha-Nagid (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ha-nagid.html)

The Internet Medival Source Book (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html)

[Ele'ill]

The fact that you accept that religion was a tool of politics completely contradicts your view. If religion was more powerful then why was it a 'tool' of politics, as opposed to politics being being a tool of religion?

You have two armies. One army has sling shots. The other army has laser guided missle launchers mounted on the backs of mechanized wolverines with laser shooting eyes.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:53 AM

The fact that you accept that religion was a tool of politics completely contradicts your view. If religion was more powerful then why was it a 'tool' of politics, as opposed to politics being being a tool of religion?

You have two armies. One army has sling shots. The other army has laser guided missle launchers mounted on the backs of mechanized wolverines with laser shooting eyes.
What the fuck are you babbling about?

[Ele'ill]

The fact that you accept that religion was a tool of politics completely contradicts your view. If religion was more powerful then why was it a 'tool' of politics, as opposed to politics being being a tool of religion?

Sorry, I guess I got a little fuzzy on the first response; I was spacing out.

It isn't who's swinging the club it's how big the club is. (hang in there with me) You have two martial artists fighting eachother in a cage match, does it matter which party is in either side of the ring or does it matter what weapons they bring into the cage. One is a simple wrestler the other is BJJ and Muay Thai. Religion was so powerful that it would swing politics. Think of knights riding around in their armour as servants of the lord. Fat religious men drinking beer or other malt beverages of their choice controling the battle field from their tree houses or basements of castles or where ever the hell they decided to drink or not drink if they prefered non alcoholic beverages which i'm sure some of them did. You are not really wrong in what you said however religion does play a large part and always has played a large part in how the masses react to eachother socially. If religion wasn't an issue than i'm sure a lot of the people on this board wouldn't be so eager to gun down religious icons when 'the revolution' occurs. Now I know a lot of the instances in which those people typed those awful things about killing the religious 'if neccessary' was a rant of frustration based mainly around their moms not making them microwavable macaroni and cheese that night or bringing them a glass of milk heated to exactly below boiling point 3/4 filled on that nice yellow country dish with the cows and flowers that you see all over the place (I do anyway and it really bothers me, I can't go to a store anywhere around here without seeing stupid cows or bunny rabbits, it's about time to see some badgers with large canines or a fierce looking mink with it's neck all scruffed up) Essentially, religion just as politics causes people to foam at the mouth and not masturbate left handed or eat chicken on saturdays. It simply causes people to get confused and masturbate chickens on saturdays which is better than masturbating a mink but i'm getting confused now and I think I caught myself just starting to space out a little bit again so i'll end this post here.
This is what I said in the first response, just simplified this time. :)

[Ele'ill]

Breaking News: Before everyone starts yelling about how clear my posts are in this thread i'd like to settle the applause and explain myself. I was using a whole lot of sarcasm and irony in those posts and basically both politics and religion use eachother. Which was my main point all along but for some reason I just space out when i'm in this thread. It's a really good thread though. Any of you ever play the PC game 'Tribes'? I have since 1998. I'm also curious as to what you edited in your post. Did you edit it to bold the 'fuck' or did you un-underline it if so, either or neither, then how?

[mandangi]

In middle age, muslim fundamentalist kings from Arab countries used to invade India and raped lot of hindu women. They used to demolish hindu temples and forcibily converted hindus as muslims. Muslim kings ruled India for hundreds of years. They encouraged bloodshed, rapes, destructions and forcible conversions well in their era. Only few muslim kings like Sher Shah Suri etc were tolerant on hindus. Now, around 15% of people in India are muslims. Now hindu fundamentalists are destructing mosques, attacking churches and killing muslims and christians. Religion always generates hatred between people.

[chaval]

In middle age, muslim fundamentalist kings from Arab countries used to invade India and raped lot of hindu women. They used to demolish hindu temples and forcibily converted hindus as muslims. Muslim kings ruled India for hundreds of years. They encouraged bloodshed, rapes, destructions and forcible conversions well in their era. Only few muslim kings like Sher Shah Suri etc were tolerant on hindus. Now, around 15% of people in India are muslims. Now hindu fundamentalists are destructing mosques, attacking churches and killing muslims and christians. Religion always generates hatred between people.

the problem is people is misinterpreting religion, not the religion itself. you see everyone likes to take the religious books out of context. you must read them as a whole and not just one line. for instance you cant look for one sentence that interpreted in a certain way says you can kill your enemy. if you read the whole thing and try truly to get the essence of it its quite peaceful

religion, unfortunatley, has been greatly manipulated and used to mobilize the masses for whatever sick purposes political leaders have. the masses, being rather ignorant, buy in easily.

if religion wasnt there, there would be something else to take its place. if people arent fighting about religion, theylle fight about ideologies - hell look at the 20th century history, all bloody wars about ideology. if not ideology then man will think of something else

i dont know about muhammad but if we take jesus as the ideal christian. ie. the example that all christians must try to emulate in all aspects of life (as most christians would agree) then we see that true christians are peacefull. jesus didnt rape and pillage or force conversions

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval
The problem is people is misinterpreting religion, not the religion itself. You see everyone likes to take the religious books out of context. You must read them as a whole and not just one line.

Why are we obligated to do that when the believers themselves are perfectly willing to take "one line out of context" and murder people on the basis of "divine authority"!

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!

Aside from the minor detail that there's no such thing as a "witch", how many women were tortured and murdered by both Catholics and Protestants?

The estimates are "all over the place"...anywhere from 25-50,000 up to as high as a half million.

If a "holy book" is "truly holy", then doesn't that mean that every sentence of it is "holy"?

And if one is a "licensed holy man", then isn't it "impossible" for him to "misinterpret" the "holy book"?

Surely "God" would correct any "human error" he might make, right?

So what can we reasonably conclude?

"Holy books" are hate literature of the most venomous kind: atrocious behavior directed against the sinner/unbeliever is not only justified, it is commanded by "God"!


If religion wasn't there, there would be something else to take its place.

Indisputably. But it seems obvious to me that whatever that "replacement" might be, it wouldn't be nearly as bad!

There are lots of assholes in this world, but the worst ones are the ones "with God on their side".

There's nothing too horrible for them! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[chaval]

"Holy books" are hate literature of the most venomous kind: atrocious behavior directed against the sinner/unbeliever is not only justified, it is commanded by "God"!

redstar you're so cute sometimes, i actually think i've come to love it


Why are we obligated to do that when the believers themselves are perfectly willing to take "one line out of context" and murder people on the basis of "divine authority"!

they're wrong too and worse because they are the ones claiming to understand it. they should be slapped around


If a "holy book" is "truly holy", then doesn't that mean that every sentence of it is "holy"?

you missed my point, the book is indeed holy but it must be in one, not very individual parts. if the book is a reflection of god's will then it must be understood in its interity



There are lots of assholes in this world, but the worst ones are the ones "with God on their side".

the worst people i can think of in history werent religious. actually the worst ones i can think of were communist so i guess we can draw a parallel here cause they werent practicing "true" communism either

So what can we reasonably conclude?

"Communism" is evil ideology of the most venomous kind: atrocious opression directed against the capitalist/unsuspecting innocent farmer/worker is not only justified, it is commanded by "Marx"!

OMG!!!!!!!!1111oneoneuno

btw you didnt argue against my jesus point, argue against it please

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval
I don't know about Muhammad but if we take Jesus as the ideal Christian. i.e., the example that all Christians must try to emulate in all aspects of life (as most Christians would agree) then we see that true Christians are peaceful. Jesus didn't rape and pillage or force conversions.

First of all, the historical record of how "Jesus behaved" is extremely disputable...there are verses in the Gospels that are openly contemptuous of non-Jews.

Remember that "Jesus" did not consider himself a "Christian"...he was a pious Jew himself. It is most likely that he considered himself a prophet in the Jewish tradition...sent by "God" to recall the Jews to their "true religion".

As to Jesus never having "raped, pillaged, or forced conversions", keep in mind that he did not have an army!

As soon as Christians got armies, they cheerfully did all three!

Finally as to Christians "living like Jesus"...well, you know that's absurd on its face. There's no practical way to live "like" a first century Palestinian country preacher.

The record suggests that every religion wages "holy wars" when they have the chance to do that.

That is, whenever they think a "holy war" can be won!

"Peaceful" religions are the ones that don't have armies yet!


The worst people I can think of in history weren't religious. Actually the worst ones I can think of were communist...

Which is why you are quite properly restricted to Opposing Ideologies. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[chaval]

Remember that "Jesus" did not consider himself a "Christian"...he was a pious Jew himself. It is most likely that he considered himself a prophet in the Jewish tradition...sent by "God" to recall the Jews to their "true religion".

thanks for reminding me, now i may remind you that jesus opened the "good news" to the gentiles. doesnt matter if he didnt intend to divide the jews into another section called christians. the point is that as a "prophet" you deliver prophesies, his which was one about love and inclusion of all nations
obviously christians cant stay jewish if the jews are trying to beat them up


As to Jesus never having "raped, pillaged, or forced conversions", keep in mind that he did not have an army!

so if jesus had an army he would have done all three? interesting proposition. remember though that jesus had quite a following. assuming this following did exist then jesus could easily have stirred them to rape and pillage


The record suggests that every religion wages "holy wars" when they have the chance to do that.

every political nation wages wars when they have the chance too as well. even the "defender" of democracy most forum members live in


you are quite properly restricted to Opposing Ideologies
im politically quite leftist. im just more pragmatic than your typical raving ideologist.
i think you should be restricted to inane marxist rhetoric forum. too bad it doesnt exist

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval
Now I may remind you that Jesus opened the "good news" to the gentiles.

Unlikely...that appears to have been the work of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul").

Many scholars consider him the "inventor" of Christianity.

Makes sense to me.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[chaval]

many politicians, historians, scholars, economists consider command economies to be ineffective. didnt change your position

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:08 AM
many politicians, historians, scholars, economists consider command economies to be ineffective. didnt change your position
That's because I know something about the subject. It is contemporary.

"Command" economies delivered what was "commanded".

Now, there are no contemporary sources about "what Jesus thought"...the "authentic" letters of Saulos were written at least 20 years after the crucifixion and Saulos never claims to have been in the physical presence of "Jesus" during his lifetime.

The "gospels" were written down at least 50 years after the crucifixion by people who hadn't been alive when Jesus preached.

So Biblical scholars try to separate out the stuff that he "probably thought" and the stuff that was added after his death.

Jesus's message to the Jews: Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand!

It was Saulos who decided that gentiles should hear this message...and a lot of other stuff that he fabricated!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[chaval]

command economies delivered shit. the communist economies of the 20th century have been largely a complete failure. theyre only success has been in reducing inequaility and providing healthcare and education. but i wouldnt care less about free text books if i had to worry about the KGB coming to knok at my door for no good reason or worrying how im gonna get enough to feed my family.

"saulos" (or you can just call him paul cause no one uses his greek name anyways) never met jesus (unless you count the damascus incident) and no one pretends that he did (at least not anyone intelligible)

many of these "fabrications" seem highly unlikely. while most accept that he definately laxed the rules to make it easier for gentiles to convert (i.e. no circumcision) other texts tell us that many gentiles were accepted into the "ekklesia" i.e. pentacost even the gospels say it


i also have no idea what you mean by your "contemporary" argument. i said no one likes command economies and you say its contemporary so you know about it...i just dont know where you were going with it i figured you would defend them :S

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that the majority of priests, nuns, monks, and other "holy," folk back in the medieval times, and following centuries, DID have sex, and was as equally perverted, equal to but most often more so than the regular populace, the medieval world, was christian and muslims in name only, none of them actually practiced it fully.

Sure you probably had some religious zealots here and there, but the majority were just hypocritical con artists with any easy job, that feed of the prestige of their title, and the aristocracy it bought them.

The witch hunts were brought about by hysteria, due to failing crops, plague, famine, oppression, and was fueled by the stories the hypocrites in robes preached about.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cheval+--> (cheval)Command economies delivered shit.[/b]

No, they delivered what was "commanded".

You may not like what that was -- a "state-of-the-art" high tech military machine, for example -- but that's what the Russians planned for and that's what they got.

Had they planned for an abundance of consumer goodies, they could have had that.

"Command economies" work...the outcome always depends on "what you command".

A few years ago, I read that Cuba was the 77th largest planned economy in the world...the other 76 were large successful multi-national corporations. :lol:

I don't know why you bring up this irrelevancy...but there you are.


...if I had to worry about the KGB...

Most ordinary people never had to "worry about the KGB"...the vast majority of its victims were members of the party who got caught "on the wrong side" in inter-party squabbles.


"Saulos" (or you can just call him Paul cause no one uses his Greek name anyways)

I'm trying to "start a trend". :lol:

Saulos didn't like the Greek version of his name at all; it meant, roughly, "slut-assed" -- the exaggerated hip-swing used by prostitutes to attract customers.

Paulos, on the other hand, meant "shorty"...evidently the fellow was "vertically-challenged". :lol:

So Saulos it is!


I said no one likes command economies...

Except capitalists. That's what a corporation is!


Disciple of Prometheus
The witch hunts were brought about by hysteria, due to failing crops, plague, famine, oppression, and was fueled by the stories the hypocrites in robes preached about.

No doubt they often began with such motives; but the "war on witchcraft" provided that a convicted witch's property went to the Church.

Thus it was that what began with the torture and murder of some poor helpless old woman often "moved on" to some wealthy secular lord who, in the Church's eyes, had been insufficiently generous in his/her donations.

After all, the old woman, under torture, was pressed to name other witches...so she'd name anyone that her torturers suggested.

Neat racket, eh?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[eyedrop]

Redstar2000

I'm trying to "start a trend".

Saulos didn't like the Greek version of his name at all; it meant, roughly, "slut-assed" -- the exaggerated hip-swing used by prostitutes to attract customers.

Paulos, on the other hand, meant "shorty"...evidently the fellow was "vertically-challenged".

So Saulos it is!


Do you have a sourch for this? It is hilarious!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Wikipedia
However, he was born as Saul in Tarsus of Cilicia and received a Jewish education. He apparently originated the use of Paul as a first name. In Latin, Paulus was a family surname, never a first name. The Latin word paulus, related to the Koine Greek pauros, means small. The Greek word saulos, which was the common transliteration of the Hebrew Saul, means an immoral gait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul

You can see the author of this article is trying very hard not to offend the Christian reader.

"Immoral gait" indeed. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:40 PM
where was Stalin's "Auschwitz"
Perhaps somewhere among the twenty million victims of the purges?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Apr 28 2006, 05:46 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Apr 28 2006, 05:46 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 09:40 PM
where was Stalin's "Auschwitz"
Perhaps somewhere among the twenty million victims of the purges? [/b]
Were you standing there with a clipboard counting them off? :lol:

No one knows "how many people" were killed in Stalin's purges...but I suspect it was no more than one or two million people.

The "huge numbers" are a product of "cold war scholarship"...and not really taken seriously any longer.

And even the most vehement "cold warriors" never charged Stalin with the construction of "death camps" like Auschwitz.

Which is not to say that many innocent people were not killed under Stalin's rule. He was not a "nice guy".

But compared to the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, etc., Stalin is not even in the running for the title "Biggest Indiscriminate Murderer".

When the godly are "on the march", all may be slaughtered for their heathenish sins. :o

Their main "sin" is existing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif