Islamic Rebels Burn Medieval Manuscript Library

[xbuzzerx]

By this, the right wingnuts are correct, and what the Democratic party is really about is racism and killing the unborn.

One does not define a thing by the accidental attachments to it, one defines a thing by its definition.

I haven't set any definition of Christianity. I've talked about its role in history.

It's irrelevant to me if the Bible itself says you're going to hell for killing anyone in any circumstance whatsoever if history is full of Christians killing a whole lot of peoples and justifying it with religion. It's equally irrelevant to me if the Quaker Bible does say killing is alright but the practice of its religion is moderate and nonviolent by preponderance of practice.

You frequently try to conflate the core message of a religion with how we should view its presence and role in human history. In other words we have to take the crusades and the inquisitions out of our consideration when we talk about Christianity's presence on the world stage in history, and that's simple revisionism.

 

[Kulindahr]

I haven't set any definition of Christianity. I've talked about its role in history.

It's irrelevant to me if the Bible itself says you're going to hell for killing anyone in any circumstance whatsoever if history is full of Christians killing a whole lot of peoples and justifying it with religion. It's equally irrelevant to me if the Quaker Bible does say killing is alright but the practice of its religion is moderate and nonviolent by preponderance of practice.

You frequently try to conflate the core message of a religion with how we should view its presence and role in human history. In other words we have to take the crusades and the inquisitions out of our consideration when we talk about Christianity's presence on the world stage in history, and that's simple revisionism.

No, I merely insist that when people talk about a given religion, they talk about that religion and not any attachments that have nothing to do with it. One may as well declare that someone who provided information enabling terrorists to kill a million people is actually a patriot, or that someone who blows up a library has respect for learning.

 

[CowboyBob]

Also the destruction of the 6th-century Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban.

Even Genghis Khan left them alone. Ain't religion wonderful.

I remember when this happened. I was fucking mad at these fanatics destroying antiquities in the name of "religion".

 

[bankside]

Revised for your prejudice, rather. History books do not define a religion or anything else, they merely show what people claiming to follow some system do. If we go by history books, what the US is about is genocide, racism, war and terror -- but to know what the US is really about, one must look at the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other core documents. In philosophical terms, it's the substance that defines a thing, not the accidents.

This is akin to the debate between British Common Law on one hand, and European Civil Codes and Constitutions on the other. I say a religion is as history reveals through the catalogue of things done in its name over the centuries. Your position that we can believe what religion says about itself without any reference to history is far too limited to be a guide to understanding.

 

[irydion]

Also the destruction of the 6th-century Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban.

Even Genghis Khan left them alone. Ain't religion wonderful.

If it wsn't for religion, there wouldn't be those sttues to destroy.