Re: Hell II (Was: Rational thought etc.)

On May 13, 9:48=A0am, misanthropic_curmudgeon  wrote:
> On May 12, 3:31 pm, swa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The Crusades were a response to the Islamic invasion of North Africa
> > through to Spain and south-east Europe.
>
> Are you seriously saying that it was OK to run ammock and slaughter
> people so they would not be slaughtered by the other varaint of your
> own faith?
>
Islam, from the teachings of Muhammed, contains about 70% of Old
Testament (Jewish) scriptures and about 7% New Testament (Christian)
scriptures. I haven't done that count myself; but from my readings of
the first three sections of the Koran I can believe that could be
correct. That leaves about 20% of Muhammed's own writings. Islam
cannot be said to be a variant of the Judeo-Christian scriptures as if
both are true.

The crux of the issue between the Moslems and the Christians was that
Jerusalem had been occupied. It was believed by some/all (I can't be
exact on that matter as I haven't found that information yet), that
Muhammed went up to the heavens on a horse from Jerusalem. The
information that I have found is that he dreamt it while sleeping on
the floor of his house in Mecca.

I have also read that the Christians did wait a considerable time
before mounting the Crusades. I take it that there had been diplomatic
negotations with Islamic authoriies about their occupation of
Jerusalem when for the previous three thousand years it was the holy
city of the Jews and for more than a thousand years the holy city also
of the Christians.

But as Atheists dwell on the issue of the Crusades and other similar
episodes that were not Christ-like in their implementations they
ignore all the good that Christians have done in the world - and, it
would seem to me, that has been a very deliberate intention.

> > the Inquisitions, [snip]. It was a matter of
> > obey the Vatican or else!
>
> IE Church sanctioned murder, theft, displacement and power-grabbing.
> Thanks for clearing that up, Gladys.
>
It was a reaction from the leaders at the Vatican at that time in the
hope of slowing down or even preventing the Protestant Reformation
which had been initiated by the action's of its own priests.

> > the Conquistadors came about as the Spaniards went
> > into parts of the Americas. Understandable that the
> > native peoples resisted, and the Spaniards fired back
> > with superior weapons. One of many tragedies as Europeans
> > moved out into the previously =A0unknown world =A0following
> > Columbus's voyage and motivated by the loss of access
> > to the east by the Moslem blockage of the trade routes.
>
> 1) Are you seriously saying it was accepatble for the
> =A0 =A0Conquistadors to shoot the natives because the
> =A0 =A0natives objected to the invasion?
>
> 2) Are you seriously saying that the Conquistador
> =A0 =A0invasion of South America was OK because they
> =A0 =A0could not invade elsewehere (because elsewhere
> =A0 =A0 was being invaded by a variant of that same
> =A0 =A0 religion!)

It was a period in world history as the nations of Europe had gained
the ability to build bigger and better ocean-going ****ps. It was
within the context also of the struggle between Protestanism and Roman
Catholicism. In hindsight, it can always be said that there were
better ways of acting.

But come to present times, the impementation of the non-physical
punishment of children from 1946 in the time of a  socialist-Labour
government was very badly handled and many (children, parents,
teachers and communities) suffered as a consequence.

The Second World War was a most shocking time for those of us who
lived through it (more difficult for some than for others).
Is it that Atheists/secularists have tried to gain more adherents to
their ideas by the information they give to the public? I can
understand how modern-day Atheists can make their *****sments from
their appraisal of selected events.

However, until the evidence is given for all points of view, incorrect
conclusions may be made.

Gladys Swager