The real history of the Crusades.....

[calitennis127]

Allow me to quote George Washington in his farewell address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


Clearly, there is no more powerful source of basic human decency and basic human morality than spiritual religion. Washington understood this. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have foolishly denied it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Allow me to quote Albert Einstein as well:

" If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ... "

Clearly, religion is totally unnecessary for human decency and morality. Einstein understood this.

 

[Kieran]

Murat, I'm confused. I know absolutely no Catholics who base their conscience and morality around "fear of being punished."

None at all.

Mostly it's to do with the interior spiritual life and the wisdom of the moral guidance. None of it is fear, so far as I can see, and certainly not with me or among my friends...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, I'm confused. I know absolutely no Catholics who base their conscience and morality around "fear of being punished."

None at all.

Mostly it's to do with the interior spiritual life and the wisdom of the moral guidance. None of it is fear, so far as I can see, and certainly not with me or among my friends...

You are lucky you have people around you that are doing or not doing stuff because of heaven or hell. I have seen the other end of that many times. Looks and feels ugly.

I have always claimed, with or without religion, good people are going to do good things, bad people are going to do bad things.

I know you are good people

 

[Kieran]

I try to be good because of my relationship with God. It's something atheists never understand, the interior life. I don't think I'm a good person, but I try. I still don't love Federer, for example. I must remember that in confession. Don't want to go to hell because of that ******! :devil

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I try to be good because of my relationship with God. It's something atheists never understand, the interior life. I don't think I'm a good person, but I try. I still don't love Federer, for example. I must remember that in confession. Don't want to go to hell because of that ******! :devil

I don't understand man...I am a musician, and I try to write here and there and I know I have a huge interior life. Sometimes more than I would like to. It is just that there is no room for mysticism in it. A song can bring me to tears. Just thinking about the universe fills me with awe. When I hear news about a new species being found at the bottom of the ocean or in the jungle, I feel like a kid on Christmas morning, I cannot wait to find out about it. I feel like I live a very full life internally. At no point I want or need a creator.

You better resolve your issues with Federer bro. Or you are going to the hottest corner of hell where his games are on a constant loop and you are forced to watch them for eternity...while burning :devil:devil:devil

 

[shawnbm]

For a Christian, it is allabout trying to emulate the Christ. It is not about fearing hill as some sort of inferno but, rather, not being enough like Christ such that we could be separated from him. What moves the Christian to take action or not take action flows from that, which, in essence, we believe is the working of the Holy Spirit within us.

 

[calitennis127]

It's news to me if people are unaware that the USSR killed millions more than the nazis.

Are you serious?

I have met numerous college students who had never even heard of the Ukrainian terror famine that killed 15 million people, but when it came to the Nazis and the Holocaust, they were all experts on it.

There is no comparison in the publicity that the Holocaust has gotten versus the crimes of the USSR and other Communist regimes.

Trotsky (although I am no Trotskyist, I am a Democratic Socialist, much more moderate) had his redeeming moments and was overall a well intentioned man, hence why he was exiled from a horribly corrupt government.

Please explain further.

I do think it's fair to guess that Marx himself would have opposed the USSR.

Why?

Most of the British communist party eventually disavowed the USSR although far too late.

Only because they absolutely had to in order to save face.

 

[Riotbeard]

It's news to me if people are unaware that the USSR killed millions more than the nazis.

Are you serious?

I have met numerous college students who had never even heard of the Ukrainian terror famine that killed 15 million people, but when it came to the Nazis and the Holocaust, they were all experts on it.

There is no comparison in the publicity that the Holocaust has gotten versus the crimes of the USSR and other Communist regimes.

Trotsky (although I am no Trotskyist, I am a Democratic Socialist, much more moderate) had his redeeming moments and was overall a well intentioned man, hence why he was exiled from a horribly corrupt government.

Please explain further.

I do think it's fair to guess that Marx himself would have opposed the USSR.

Why?

Most of the British communist party eventually disavowed the USSR although far too late.

Only because they absolutely had to in order to save face.

Point 1: no matter what it will be anecdotal so not much point in debating. At the very I would think we could agree that it is well publicized that both groups slaughtered millions.

Point 2: go read about Trotsky. He did not participate in the purges and left the ussr in the early 1920s and traveled the world trying to get help opposing the Stalin.

Point 3: even if you think it's theoretically unsound Marxism is at its based humanist, and Marx never advocated mass slaughter, so it is hard to imagine him advocating it in the 1920s.

Point 4: I agree that was the impetus for some, but many were just idealist reluctant to admit the corruption of the most prominent representative of their ideology.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[calitennis127]

Point 1: no matter what it will be anecdotal so not much point in debating. At the very I would think we could agree that it is well publicized that both groups slaughtered millions.

No, it's more than anecdotal. It is a widespread pattern among the intellectual and media powers. The crimes of the USSR are generally glossed over or downplayed. They are grudgingly acknowledged when someone brings them up since Robert Conquest's research was virtually irrefutable, but that's the extent of it.

Point 2: go read about Trotsky. He did not participate in the purges and left the ussr in the early 1920s and traveled the world trying to get help opposing the Stalin.

I have read a little bit about Trotsky and heard some lectures that mentioned him. The impression I got was more so that he had a theoretical clash with the other Bolsheviks and that there was somewhat of a power struggle within the party. I never got the impression that he was an honorable or virtuous person simply in pursuit of creating a better world.

Point 3: even if you think it's theoretically unsound Marxism is at its based humanist, and Marx never advocated mass slaughter, so it is hard to imagine him advocating it in the 1920s.

But the Bolsheviks never advocated mass slaughter themselves. When did they? They simply did it, and they came up with theoretical justifications for it given the challenges they were facing circa 1930. I don't know how you can be so sure that Marx would have condemned Lenin or Stalin if he was a contemporary of either.

What evidence can you offer that he would have?

 

[Riotbeard]

Well Lenin is very different from Stalin too. Not a fan of Lenin, but it is not clear he was a fan of mass murder. Supported killing people in the process of fighting a revolutionary war, and did some things I did not agree with, but he is not in the same category as someone who mass murdered the population he claimed to support.

Do you not find it significant that trotsky (and Marx for that matter) never supported mass slaughter nor supported governments that did? Isn't that proof. Why should Marx beheld responsible for what assholes did in his name. Unless Jesus should be held accountable for Christian acts of genocide? Not support mass slaughter in your life to me is pretty good evidence that you are not in favor of it.

 

[calitennis127]

Well Lenin is very different from Stalin too. Not a fan of Lenin, but it is not clear he was a fan of mass murder.

I completely disagree there. What I recall from reading Richard Pipes is that he was every bit a mass murderer to his political core and terror was part of his regime from Day 1.

Do you not find it significant that trotsky (and Marx for that matter) never supported mass slaughter nor supported governments that did?

When did Trotsky ever condemn the Bolsheviks for killing too many people? He was the Commissar of War up until January 1925 and his feud with Stalin was a power struggle more than a matter of principle.

Isn't that proof. Why should Marx beheld responsible for what assholes did in his name. Unless Jesus should be held accountable for Christian acts of genocide? Not support mass slaughter in your life to me is pretty good evidence that you are not in favor of it.

That is a fair point in general, but the question is whether Marx's ideas inevitably lead to genocide, and anyone who has read just a little bit of The Black Book of Communism can see that there is a strong case to be made for that. Marx introduced his ideas in the mid-19th century, and his ideas gained considerable popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What ensued was about 100 million deaths at the hands of his disciples in the first century of implementing his ideas. That isn't the greatest track record.