spin

How do you make the separation when the English monarch is the head of the church, when the US constitution assumes religion as its motivsting force, when in the centuries involved all heads of European states were professing umm, christians (of sorts)?

Christianity has been responsible for so many awful things, many of which continue to this day. What you miguidedly call "christian bashing" is an attempt to break the cloying shell of social constraints based on ancient ignorances and rigid lack of concern for the results of the positions they hold and have been foisted upon the whole society. Christians meddle with people's sexuality and with people's rights over their own bodies (including women's rights to terminate pregnancies), and they have fucked with people's minds for millennia, while doggedly supporting the powers that were or were the powers that were, who were responsible for the social crimes in the past, the brutal treatment of oppressed populations, from those in colonially held nations to those underpopulations which weren't christian such as the persecution of European Jews, the pogroms and the ghettoes.

What you call "christian bashing" is an effete piece of rhetoric which tacitly shows your adherence to the crimes of christianity. You know, while preaching love thy brother, they were slaving or starting wars -- crusades, holy wars for engrandizement, etc.

It's nice to forget the past and ignore the present. I don't want christians telling me or anyone else how to live. These days they have no interest in living, as it is the "kingdom to come" which matters. They still want to say how others should live. Why don't they (you?) piss off and contemplate their kingdom to come and leave us in our bed of unbelief? Militant christianity has an idiot at the helm of the most dangerous nation in the world, the only nation that has dropped nukes on people, a nation whose aggression is so manifest that they don't even pretend about their rape of Iraq. Good christians. Bash them? It might be nice to bash some sense and responsibility into them. As long as they are anaesthetized with god on their side, they are a menace to all non-christians and lots of christians as well.


spin

Lafcadio

A large number of kings were also high priests (including the Roman emperors as they were mentioned), still their political acts weren't seen as acts in the name of Jupiter, Marduk, whatever. If you can separate politics and religion for some parts of history, you'll surely be able to separate them in Christian history.
I can't believe some may think that US war in Iraq is religiously motivated because Bush is a (Fundamentalist?) Christian.

Other ideologies were responsible as well, but luckily sane people do not judge ideologies but the people. Is not Nietzsche's fault that Nazi Germany liked him. It's not atheism's or science's fault that some created the "scientific socialism". Btw, what do you understand by Christianity? What's the connection between Coptic Church and Mormon Church and how do they are reponsbile together by "awful" things? It's childish to talk about Big Evil Christianity, especially from history's point of view.


Have you read Llorente (as this was my example, in the first place)? Why a Christian lie is abominable, but an anti-Christian lie is a "break of social constraint"? Bias in its beauty!

Give me a break, these are not Christianity's inventions nor are patronaged by it. As for millenia, it weren't even two. Can't anyone analyse the phenomena of Christianity without slipping in rants and propaganda?

Those powers were supported also by Europeans freethinkers in certain places and ages, as well by people of different religions/ideologies (if there weren't such people, imagine that today that society would be, normally, still Christian). European colonialism ended in XXth century, not in Middle ages. To accuse such circumstantiality it's outrageous.

Learn the history since XIXth century onward. Social crimes are commited also not in Christianity's name. Learn the history of other continents, or before Christianity. Social crimes are commited as well. Isn't it rather human than Christian?

Especially the Soviet Union, "the Christian Nation" of the world Your propaganda is so confused it can't face recent facts.

No sir.
a) I haven't claimed that no Christian has killed/tortured/maimed/you name it. You're idiosyncratic and fallacious in many accounts - strawman is most obvious. Read better my words and put no other in my mouth (well, fingers).
b) Looking at your stereotypical arguments, I'd advice you to make your lessons about the history written in 18-19th century especially (but not only, like I said, even in 20th century some authors still take those ideas) and then we'll talk about it. You prove same irrationality as a Christian talking only by his Book and you apparently took a dogmatic position. I'd love to be proven wrong, especially that sometimes I liked your posts.

Tell me who didn't. If they all did, how's anything Christian about it? And if they all did, isn't it not Christian, but ... human? OMG humans kill. No way, they don't, they can't! History is written in blood since we know it, don't give me hippie speeches here.

If this isn't persecution mania, then can you tell me what it is? In the place where I live no one tells anybody how to live except parents and teachers. Where do you live?

Straw man again. You even haven't got a clue what's my belief. You haven't got a clue what's my point. I'm not here to get you from your bed of unbelief. Nor others that will tell you about an "anti-christian bias". Some of them may just want to learn and talk about history. How about that?
Some "free-thinkers" are so stuck in their anti-christian dogmatism they can't face a critique without labeling their opponents in the other side. How's that free thinking if you can't take from a(n assumed) free thinker an opposite opinion. How is that free thinking if some opinions are already labeled as "typical Christian" and people that embrace them become some Fundies that harass the others? That's certainly not free thinking. It's a dogma in the opposite corner with those that label with same ease but with "heretic"/"atheist".

Who's talking about good christians? Adding "good" and "bad" in a history related topic can't be anything else than bias.

Picturing them as you do is bashing. It's biased, it's untrue, it's unscientific, it's unhistorical, it's certainly not freethinking.

Not more than people like you are a menace to truth and honest exchange of opinions.

spin

How do you separate Augustus from his belief in Apollo?? How do you separate the shrub from his conservative christian support?

By their fruits shall you judge them.

I do like your contortions to separate state from religion.

Not knowing it I didn't comment on it. I don't cite obscure works to you.

You don't deserve a break. It is specifically large sections of the christian communities which are patrons of such things. I wouldn't deem to talk about Romania, because your experience is not a western one.

Be outraged. The reason is probably because it hits close to home.

You try very hard to detach christianity from the state when the state was what provided the opportunity for spreading the religion in other parts of the world. It is not sufficient to try to detach the executive power from the religion, you also have to detach those who fulfilled the executive orders. You end up with very little left after your surgery/butchery.

Please forgive me. I have been strictly talking about the western world.

I am talking of the western world.

The Soviet Union was not a western power. You are dropping red herrings.

Defending what christianity has done while lopping off things you can label "murder" or "torture" or "maiming" might make you feel better, but those are not really the things I have been looking at. I mentioned specifically sexuality and control over one's own body in this day and age. Times have changed since christianity went in for maiming and torturing -- not that those things are not done today (think of Abu Omar), but it isn't done with the volition of most people. (Hey, well, the shrub is killing both Iraqis and Americans in Iraq for the good of the nation.)

Pot trying to call me a kettle.

I couldn't parse this paragraph.

Love the cheesy patter there, fellah. OK, I don't mind if the bloodyminded christians of the past get sentenced to the past. That's where it belongs. Diseased pagan religion from another cultural context foisted until now on unsuspecting victims. Get rid of it. Get it out of schools. Protect children from its damage. Protect the poor from its oppression.

Your are probably living on the moon. If you can't see all the other influences, then I think you should get a new prescription for your glasses. Well, maybe, Romania or your version of it is the moon.

That's why I put "you" in parentheses with a question mark after it. I wondered if you fitted the category. So, your overreaction is a little too theatrical.

That's kind of you.

I seem to remember you were talking about "christian bashing". Don't get all hypocriitical all of a sudden.

Are you hung up about your lack of free thought, that you come here to project it? I asked about the separation of church from state and you talk lamely about those christians in power were not representatives of the christian states of which they had power. Free thought asks for more than cliched responses such as shifting the responsibility.

This seems to be self-satisfying rant.

That's how they see themselves. I don't see christians qua christians as good for anything. It's only when they are something else do they take on any semblance of being good.

Rubbish. You are performing this song and dance because you came with an attitude and that attitude has been pointed out. It has little to do with history or science.

Obviously not true. The past should tell you that. Western societies have been in christian hands one way or another in most part either since Constantine or since when the emerged out of a "savage" state. They have wielded a stultifying hand on their own populations all that time. These days they are one of the most powerful lobby entities in political grovelling. There are parties throughout western Europe with names that seem to be variations on the ironic name "Christian Democrat", all appealing to the christians in their nations. A few as you call them "free thinkers" are no menace whatsoever. And if you are really hung up on this hilarious "christian bashing" claim, you might consider what women had to do in western countries to gain partial liberation.

Unless change takes place we will remain in the mire of 2000 year old dogmas, tarted up over the centuries by a manipulative church, which has often had its hands directly on the power. Those dogmas dictate how many not only live their lives but expect how others should live theirs.


spin

Lafcadio

Very simple, if you're interested in history. Like physicists could separate Newton of his Christianity, like art criticists could separate Michelangelo of his Christianity. There's August the emperor, there's Newton the physicist, there's Michelangelo the artist. That you can't see them that way, it's your problem and your bias - do not project them on me.

I didn't understand your final answer - is it Iraq war a religious war?

Wrong, I"m not separating them, I'm nuancing some issues you like to see and label as one big block.

It's not obscure to a person interested in Inquisition history, but I can understand you have little knowledge in that domain. But if you don't know what I'm talking about, it's irrational from your side to deny anti-christian bias, it's a wild assertion to claim that these guys only broke some social constraints if you even didn't read them.

That was a form of speech

Ad hominem and straw man. How's own experience relevant to the historical issues we talk about? I'm not talking of last few years, I'm talking of the entire human history. You seem in this last message of yours to focus on recent western history, but that's your problem, I talked about something else, you replied me, mostly strawmanish, with universal accusations against Christianity, and I won't join you to witness your vehement arguments changing just to avoid the fallacies I'm exposing.

Strawman. I was just pointing out that the "abominable" side of Christianity, wasn't Christian but human. Analogously you should agree to blame atheism and science for being able to product monstruousities like Soviet Union, or in general to blame any systems of thought for the way they have been abused.
Also it requires little history knowledge to realize that the spreading of Christianity religion it's on a secondary spot in colonialistic history, while political and economical reasons come first. Religion was a handy tool at times, but you certainly can make a case that it was the reason, the engine of it. That you personally dislike that Christianity spreaded via colonialism it's a matter rather of mood which I can understand but can't accept as an argument.

That you talked about western world was so far an assumption and only now was specified, so I couldn't have dropped red herrings. A fallacious post hoc accusation. I couldn't have imagined particular meanings of your universal accusations.
Even so, there are social crimes not in the name of Christianity in western world. Some less impressive, some debatable (you may claim that Nazi crimes were Christian due to their mystic own beliefs, but I'd rather see them in the name of a misunderstood ideology and science).

You were also mentioning holy wars and persecution and crimes so I guess your specific mentions were a bit wider than you're arguing now. While about controling own body, just take a trip in ... Assyria as a slave? Oh no, you're talking about western world. Try a trip in ancient Europe then

With no further details I understand you're not really interested in what was written there - so be it.

Get rid of it, protect children! What does this have to do with christian bashing in history? I argued about bias in history (as you said "past") not about your current problems. That you can't talk emotionless about Christian history without remembering your current problems is another proof (if any is still needed) that you're biased in the Christianity question.

Ad hominem and argument from ignorance. If you can't get it, it doesn't mean I'm the one holding an unrealistic position. But I bet you'd like to live on my Moon as no Christian would give you unasked advices

Actually not. For the single fact that you suspected a person arguing from my position to be the way you categorized shows your bias. A honest debate partener would have asked about his opponents view before ranting and insinuating. In the same paragraph from where you stripped those two questions you can further read my argument on this issue.

Christian bashing is a description of a fact (i.e. talk with much exaggeration and bias about Christianity's flaws to make it look worse than it already is). I certainly didn't label my debate parteners as christian bashers before they actually engaged in bashing it. I actually added "what I have in mind .." just after I used that syntagm. You may want to improve your reading skills and see what it's my point before yelling your verdict.

Straw man and post hoc. You argued about church-state separation only from this post, and my point is certainly not the one you just described.

Wrong, sir. Don't be so conclusive. I already exposed your attempts to point out as straw men. In this message and in the previous one. Your intervention has little to do with history or science. My intervention was intented to have something to do with it, but because of such irrelevant interventions as yours my purpose has been undermined. What should I do? Ignore you? I can but as I already said, based on some previous quality posts of yours I decided you worth a reply.

I already pointed out some misconceptions and fallacies you embraced. Plain denial it's not an argument. But let's see what do you have to say about history:
Any absolutist state stultified their own populations. Again, irrelevant claims.

Straw man and equivocation. I called (people like) you (not free thinkers as a category) a menace to truth.

You obviously have a frustration on this topic. From the historiography of 18-19th centuries I see myself surrounded with feminist issues. Are you a female, spin?

Again I tell you, in many places of this world Church doesn't tell others how should live their lives. Come and live in my country if you just don't believe it.
As for Christianity as you pictured it, always the people lived their lives after a model. Religion was once of the main sources of such models. Again, you may not like it, but this is how it happened. If in your place religion still has control over these models I can only pity you but that wouldn't give you any right to bash Christianity throughout history. Go and open activist threads and leave history for those interested in its truth, not in propaganda.

Johnny Skeptic

Maybe yes and maybe no, but one thing for certain IS Bush's war against homosexuality, same sex marriage, suffering terminally ill people who want to die by means of physician assisted suicide, and millions of suffering people who might eventually be helped by stem cell research more quickly if government funding were available. Regarding the war in Iraq, are you aware that some time ago, Pat Robertson said that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and that instead President Bush should have tried to have Saddam Hussein and some of the other Iraqi government officials killed. Bush's ratings in polls regarding the war have dropped substantially, and public anti-war protests have increased dramatically. A commentator for National Public Radio who speaks Arabic and who has visited various places in Iraq during the past year was recently on a television program discussing his book. The title of the book is something like 'How the U.S. lost the war in Iraq.' He said that a lot of Iraqis told him that it is now much worse in Iraq than when Saddam Hussein was there. He said that the people told him that that power is turned off for half a day every day and that the temperatures are well above 90 degrees every day. The people also told him that they are afraid to send their children to school for fear that they will be injured or killed. The author did not oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq [however, a growing number American do protest the U.S. presence in Iraq], but rather the methods that the U.S. had used. The war might end up being a major contributing factor leading to Republicans losing the presidency and both houses of Congress. Regarding same sex marriage, a Gallup Poll showed that in the age group category 18-29, 61% percent of respondents support same sex marriage. A poll also showed that even the majority of people who oppose same sex marriage DID NOT support Bush's failed attempt to legislate an anti-same sex marriage amendment. Regarding physician assisted, it is legal in the U.S. only in Oregon, and it has a lot of support in some other states. It is also legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Over a year ago, Attorney General John Ashcroft, the devout son of a Pentecostal minister, filed suit in the courts in an attempt to get Oregon's law overturned. He has lost in every court through the ninth circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court will hear the case next fall.

When the Supreme Court ordered busing a number of decades ago, the state of Virginia, the home state of Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, closed down the public school system so that white children wouldn't have to go to school with black children, but I guess that that does not bother you at all. Such an atrocity could only have happened in a Southern state. Southern states have the highest percentage of conservative Christians. Oregon has a low percentage of conservative Christians, as does California, which recently legalized same sex marriage.

Believe it or not, about ten years ago, a gay couple living in Texas were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. The gay couple sued the state of Texas. Even the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gay couple, in the process striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas and twelve other states, most of the states predictably Southern States. Two exceptions were Utah and Idaho, which have a large percentage of conservative Christians. Wherever you go in the world, no matter what the religion, fundamentalists are always trouble. But of of course that doesn't both you at all. You and Ted M would make perfect discussion partners. Ted is a Deist. Neither of you care one bit about what is at stake regarding conservative Christian theology. You both have nothing better to do with your time than to casually talk about religion. Is there anything at all that you guys actually care about?

Lafcadio

Then I apologize, because from this quote:
I took it as it has something to do with Christianity. IMO you could replace "Christians" with "Europeans" or "Western Europeans" for a much better and unbiased description.

They are not hypocrites if they don't claim they want to live that way. Historically, not such claim can be supported as you don't have the testimonies of each Christian about how does he sees his Christianity.

Agree on the last, partly agree on the first. Maybe the conservative Christians of some countries/cultures/political systems do it, maybe if you count it as numbers for the entire Earth's Christian population would make your point true, but as I already told spin, in my country no one usurps my rights on a Bible based agenda and I think my country is not special.

That's a non answer. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands can be "not much". This is not the answer we look, but a an estimation in numbers and eventually episodes to give us a better picture of the phenomenon.

I don't see why this question is a good one.
And why not include Muslim, Buddhist and other "types" of researchers here because your two terms are not complementary. You could say Christians and non-Christians for an improved accuracy

Now let's see about war in Iraq:
Why yes?

Is US (and as I see, your country) an autocracy? What's the connection between this "war" and the war I asked about?

The rest of your message is too weird for me to reply. I am not sure that I'm that interested in gay problems in US, especially not when talking about an unsupported claimed religious nature of the war in Iraq or of the persecutions in Early Christianity.

spin

Nobody could separate Newton from his masonery. Separating Michaelangelo from his christianity is a little ridiculous in the sense that almost all of his art was religiously motivated. And no you can't separate Augustus from his religion, because much of his agenda was religiously based.

Religionists are involved in its progress all the way to the top.

Your nuancing is only sublimation.

This forum is called Biblical Criticism and History -- with the history part related to the biblical period. The inquisition may be of interest to you. I'm happy that it is, but it is not necessarily of interest to others here and certainly not central to the topics we are talking about.

Your claim of irrationality is simply absurd. I don't set out to cite obscure works to you and I don't expect you to do it to me. You harangue based on your personal interests is merely petty. Take it elsewhere if you must pursue it.

And it is just as vulnerable to comment as anything else you say.

Rubbish.

How is own experience relevant to understanding the world today should be included in your question, because we are dealing with present effects of almost two millennia of christian dominance of social mores, especially as evinced in western countries. Living in Romania doesn't give one a high exposure to western countries yet, living in the aftermath of state dictatorship.

The present is dictated by the past. Your desire to turn everything into strawmen is more the desire to avoid the consequences of the past as seen in the present.

Doh! What a chorus line.

I saw a lot of Jews persecuting christians over the last two millenia.

No, I blame christianity for the Soviet Union. The atheism stuff was merely a reaction to the effects of christianity.

You can put one thing or another first or second. It was still christians who were the colonists, who spread both religion and syphilis.

Grin. I cannot help your predicament of not living in the western world. Most people here do. I'm sorry, I was presumptuous to think that you would realise.

Christianity in the Nazi regime was indirect. It was its impact on society that was used by the Nazis.

Though one has interest in the present, it is the past that builds the present.

Ummm, there was no western world in ancient European times. Doh!

If you insist.

The present is dictated by the past. My interest in this is the present. It's not a new idea in my comments.

Demonstrate it.

I don't need to. I merely show most christians I come in contact with that they are idiots and irresponsible for they know so little about their own religion, yet foist it on others.

It is your problem if you take the possible and make it in your mind actual.

So now you're attempting ad hominem. Well, good try.

False. To underline what it is. An organised interference with anyone's lives that don't fulfill their mores.

The terminology is simply false. But if it makes you feel good, go ahead. Wake me when you've finished your persecution complex.

You merely state the start of a process. It doesn't mitigate your phraseology.

Again you need to do a bit of demonstrating your claims.

Perhaps you should go back and read the first post I wrote in response to your initial comment.

Sorry. I can only judge from what you say, not what you have in your head.

Calling something a strawman doesn't make it so.

Apologetic being tarted up now, eh?

You by separating what followed from this statement make it a plain denial. That's got nothing to do with me. That's your editing.

When the absolutist state is a church state, Spain, Portugal, France, England, etc, you are not saying much.

Yes, times past featured harshness everywhere. That doesn't change the fact that current society is based on the misapplication of concept in vogue 2000 years ago and perhaps applicable to that time. But the persecutions and the inquistitions and the ghettoes and pogroms are a reflection of that christianity and is its heritage.

You can call me whatever you like. It doesn't mean much.

And yes, yet again, the "strawman" chorus.

My sex has nothing to do with the conversation.

It has taken a bit of a hiding from the crypto-fascists. Give it time. Give it time.

I don't bash christians. This is your misconception. I provoke them, in an effort to restart the atrophied thinking processes.

It's very hard for a christian to unlobotomize.

When it does happen, the results can leave the person in a mess for some time. I.I. can help people who have escaped ease back into the real world. Showing christianity for what it is, a menace to today's society, will at least help them.

Have fun with your mania for strawmen.


spin

Lafcadio

When was the last time when you read a physics book? I noticed that you ignored the fact I mentioned "Christian".

I notice an equivocation on the first one (the artist and his art) and also unsupported assertions on the last.

You still haven't answer my question. Is it a religious war or not?

Can't force you to understand if you don't want to :huh:

And that's why you rant about women's rights in history or christianity's issues in US It's a hypocrisy to start off topic rants and then to complain about off topic.

You should shut up as almost anything of what you replied to me doesn't belong in this forum. Llorente was an example for the biased antichristian historiography. It was an example as a paranthesis in this discussion was about the christian and non-christian bias. If you didn't agree with the off-topic you could have said when this discussion started, not several posts later when your ignorance backed up by unjustified arrogance was exposed.

It's not an obscure work. It's a topic you don't have knowledge about it and you should refrain from talking about it, if you don't want to be ridiculous.

Ad hominem and straw man. It's not about my interests but about a literature you have no idea about.

You don't have to comment if you don't have anything to say, you know? Or probably you don't

Denial is not an argument. Hard to understand this basic rule in a debate?

We talked about history not about the understand of world today. Go and expose your frustration in an activist thread/forum. Learn your own words - this is BCH forum.

Ad hominem. You don't know my exposure to western world. You even don't know where I have lived. You also avoided the answer of my question. How's today's experience relevant to the issues I talked about?

It's not my desire, it's your action. The consequences of the past are not the issue discussed here, so arguing about them as a reply it's a strawman.


If you keep playing dirty you will always hear the chorus line of the whistle.

Selective observation. Read my argument again.

You can blame anyone you want. You can redefine atheism anyhow you want. These are not arguments, but moods.

So what? You can add all the evils from this world behind their back, that would only prove your bashing attitude and your bias. If you didn't bring any argument so far, I can't expect you will bring one from now on.

Don't worry, Mr. Ad Hominem. In France I wasn't assaulted by Christians. What other countries do you assume I know how's to live in, spin?

Again, don't miss an opportunity to load something on Christianity's shoulders. Like history gives a damn about your rants.

A true sentence, but that doesn't excuse the straw men you kept fighting so far. Open a discussion about Christianity in modern world and make your points there.

And I thought western civilization includes the Graeco-Roman. I also wonder what Renaissance ment and why the medieval philosophy was aristotelic.
The words just don't mean what you want to mean. Do your reading.

Straw man I'm not

The discussion was not about your interests but mainly about persecutions on Christians and particularily (at the point of your intervention) about bias in literature. Your last messages do not regard any of these two topics, so your interests are irrelevant.

Sorry? Your indecency doesn't deserve my benevolence. I will not demonstrate anything on your request.

Ad hominem and arguments from ignorance. You could rather demonstrate your unsupported insulting claims before ask others to demonstrate anything.

Straw man and equivocation. It's not a possibility but an insinuation. If you don't know the difference between the two, pick up a dictionary.

Well, my patience has a price.

Denial is not an argument. Like I already said, read some literature - read Llorente for start :rolling:

A terminology can't be false, rathern inadequate. Which obviously you didn't show, though I explained what's the meaning of the term. If you disagreed with it, you could just ask, instead of launching unsupported assertions.

You didn't understand what I stated. Straw man again. Better ask first, instead of embracing this fallacy so often.

As you haven't attempted any demonstration and more showed a total lack of respect to me, I won't demonstrate at your request, especially not a fallacy accusation. First just learn how to make a decent conversations about things you don't agree. Don't even bother with such requests unless you change your tone and your argumentation line.

I've read it. I see no arguments of such separation just some questions thrown at me.

True you can judge, but you don't understand.

Of course not. I just hoped you have the honesty to admit them.

I guess, again, you missed the point.

The following statements were not supporting it. Do you want me to add the accusation of non sequitur, too?

Selective observation. There are plenty of non-christian absolutist states that match your defintion. Just grab a history book.

That is true, but this fact is irrelevant to the points I made.

You keep repeating these without adding any arguments. I already pointed out that they exist outside Christian space, you claim you talk about western world while you showed that in most of your claims you didn't. I can't guess when you talk about western world and when about something else. FYI, "pogrom" is a russian term. Rephrase if you want an argument, otherwise you'll keep arguing from ignorance against a reality you don't or refuse to know.

Just a description.

You're committing it, I'm noticing it.

Nor women's rights. Again I have to tell you that's hypocritical to rant off topic and then complain about off topics been made.

Crypto-fascists? Read the history before you discuss it.

Only in this posts you called christians idiots and made them responsible for siphilis. You're again making an ad hominem on them. Indeed, these are provocations

I'm sure if such a statement would be addressed to you would be deleted as an insult

It's not my fault you don't like your face in a mirror. On the other hand, if it's unconfortable for you, I can stop arguing at your fallacious comments any time you wish, just say so.

Toto

Mod request - please keep personal attacks out of the discussion, and stick to BCH topics.

Thank you

spin

Perhaps you simply weren't interested in the man's beliefs, but merely attempted to ride your hobby horse.

Read what he wrote.

Irrelevant. Fruits are fruits.

Can't manipulate your conclusions. :huh:

What you call hypocrisy is merely an avoidance of the results of christianity in western society.

The crap about "christian bashing" certainly didn't belong here but showed your interests.

Hobby horses are not obscure to their proponents.

Straw man!!!!!!!

Interest is the word and the choice of words here merely reflects the bankruptcy of your position. Ride that hobby horse there pardner.

Juan Antonio LlorenteYou don't have to comment if you don't have anything to say, you know? Or probably you don't[/quote]
Why vituperate about ad hominems wi6th such hypocrisy?

Denial it wasn't. It was a classification of your refrain.

Christian bashing has nothing to do with BC&H.

How is christian bashing?

It's called projection.

"Christian bashing".

If you have nothing to say you repeat yourself.

As what interested me was the past's effect on the present, you can keep your argument and deal with one of its consequences.

There is no redefinition. You just need to provide meaningful examples.

You don't know what the argument is, otherwise you would partake in it.

Irony!

What do you need: that they torture a few witches for you or something?

Perhaps you should get out of Llorente and into the real world.

If you understood that "true sentence", you'd know why I originally challenged your thoughtless stuff about christian bashing and separating religion from politics.

When one talks of ancient Europe -- as an entity Europe didn't exist -- one indicates a grabbag of societies outside the classical world. You have improved your terminology with "western civilization".

And they don't necessarily mean what you want them to so your being presumptuous doesn't help you.

When you start throwing manure, you should learn to like wearing it.

My participation in the discussion was stimulated by your comments which were not strictly subject of the thread or the forum, your supposed bias in literature for which you threw up a whole one example upon which you made lavish claims.

When you yourself prove to be responsible for both, it's hard for you to apply your terms with clarity. Indecency it was not. I asked you to back up your claim in the particular case. If you don't like that, well, I'm sorry.

You are merely continuing your unsupported claims.

If you insist that it was an insinuation, that doesn't change the fact that it was perceived as a possibility at the time of writing.

Too costly for you to buy much.

Why don't you find a forum where Llorente would be more appropriate? :rolling:

When you have nothing better to say, quibble.

By talking about christian bashers here, you were deliberate in your provocation. Smile as you wear the manure.

More projection. If you cannot communicate your ideas, don't be surprised when you don't get the reactions you want. The distinction between intented communication and its realisation should be clear.

I won't hold your tone against you. I can't expect any better.

I wasn't arguing for separation, you wanted it. I questioned your notions.

You are in no position to know.

Pot trying to brand me a kettle again.

Sorry I'm not stimulating your ego.

You are having problems understanding what is and what is not a comment which follows, so I wouldn't put much weight in such accusations. Perhaps you simply didn't understand the discourse, which involved you trying to equate in weight the effects of christianising society through oppression with talking out against christianity. So, do what you like. You keep displaying a somewhat eccentric view of reality.

In dealing with the western world you have a delight in talkng about other worlds.

Your statements have consequences.

Do you need me to show that muslim societies were more tolerant in the past in comparison with christian ones?

Inquisitions were a western European phenomenon. Pogroms and ghettoes were found across Europe. By their fruits you shall judge them.

While you are correct with your origin of the term, you should realise that one of the Oxford Shorter's definitions of pogrom is "An organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group."

You should consult your dictionary before opening your mouth.

It's hard for you to give descriptions with your eyes wide shut.

First you open your eyes, then you put your mind in gear, then your noticing will be meaningful.

It's interesting that you pick on only one aspect of my comments.

I guess I'm only a christian basher to you.

What is your comment, that they were not crypto or not fascist? They certainly were not communist at least in deed.

Yup.

Do you understand the comment though?

I have no trouble with my face, just the artist.

How gracious of you. You run along and bitch about christian bashing and how you can't hold christianity responsible for the state of modern western society -- after all everybody committed persecutions, inquisitions, ghettoes, pogroms. Society changes, christianity is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Oh, and if you were interested in BC&H you would indulge in historical threads, wouldn't you?


spin