Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Woah, woah. That doesn't make the crimes of Stalinist states the fault of atheism. The difference is that Stalinist regimes killed people for speaking against the state, not for speaking against the religious views. Medieval states killed people for speaking against religion specifically.
I clearly explained the reasons behind each. In both cases, the mandated belief system was used to prop up the authority of the state. Attacking the belief system became the same as an attack on the state.
Originally posted by: bluemax
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: bluemax
They don't call it the "Missing Link" for nothing.
And how's this for an egenda - every school under UN jurastiction is forced by law to teach Evolution or close. Period.
*FORCE*DOWN*THROAT!*ugh*push*
They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?
Lucy was monkey bones. Period. There's simply no difference. It wouldn't take much to kill every monkey in the world right now and find one whose bones are similar. Many of the other evolutionary steps were exactly the same story - one step made from a tiny fraction of skull plate (modern humans have deformities too) one from a single tooth (found to be a pig's tooth) another from what is exactly the same as an old man with bad arthritis. C'mon guys.... FACTS!
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Woah, woah. That doesn't make the crimes of Stalinist states the fault of atheism. The difference is that Stalinist regimes killed people for speaking against the state, not for speaking against the religious views. Medieval states killed people for speaking against religion specifically.
I clearly explained the reasons behind each. In both cases, the mandated belief system was used to prop up the authority of the state. Attacking the belief system became the same as an attack on the state.
True, and I agree the two are similar. And the psycological causes are virtually the same too. I'm just pointing out the subtle difference between the two. The real issue is that Stalinist regimes killed people for straying from the party line, but atheism itself wasn't thw cause. I'll concede that a state doing the same in the name of straying from its religious line is nearly the same, but, the church itself has burned people for deviating from the line. Therein lies a difference.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?
No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?
Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?
Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...
Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.
Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.
Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.
Uh... you might want to pay attention here... you made this personal, not I (and you should leave this personal attack BS in P&N). And my response is that you're a bigot. What little intelligence you have is overruled by your emotional prejudices.
There's a reason the humanist crowd is increasingly separating itself from the evangelical atheist crowd. You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism. You cite the harms caused by religion, I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. OTOH how many people did authoritarian atheism ala communism kill last century? Over 100 million.
Maybe now you might understand. I personally don't like religion. But authoritarian evangelical atheism certainly not the answer. Ask yourself, why do you care about other people's personal beliefs? What does it really matter if, despite our massive education efforts, a largish percentage of people insist on clinging to traditional beliefs even when those beliefs are scientifically wrong? Why do you care? Why do you want to force those people to change their beliefs?
I stated an opinion. Then, you asked a question, made up your own answer for me and then told me to "stfu"... that made it a personal attack on me.
I have the right to an opinion that you may not like. That doesn't mean you act aggressive and rude to me. You need to learn to deal with that without lashing out.
Your opinion was a crock of ignorant intolerance. I exposed its flaws in a logical manner, and you took offense to such, as bigots always do (as their intolerance always lacks the grounding of a logical premise).
I've quoted the whole chain of posts here, so kindly don't pretend that things happened differently than what is documented here.
It is a fact that there has not been a single religious war this past century. If it is not fact, then why don't you tell us which was it was that was fought over religion? C'mon, let's hear it.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. "
That is your opinion. Not fact. I view things differently.
Do you know what a bigot means? "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
Having an opinion that the bible is one of the biggest cons in history is a simple opinion. Unless I act prejudicial, it does not make me a bigot. However, your subsequent attacks on me(making up questions, then assuming an answer, then telling me to stfu, then calling me an asshole and a bigot) is what a bigot is. The irony is strong.
I am married to a christian btw. How could I be a bigot when I am tolerant enough of my wife's religion to marry her and have a baby?
Tolerance is not about opinion, it is about actions. Your actions were those of attacks. That is the definition of intolerance. You need to learn to accept other peoples' opinions.
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century. Theism or atheism, it doesn't really matter which one is "right." It's when you try to force people to believe like you do because you believe you're right that harm is done. That's the danger. So leave it alone. Who cares how many people believe in stupid religious traditions? The only important thing is that our system of government be limited enough that the rights of every single individual is respected. As I know well from P&N, you don't believe in such a system, which is why fear the beliefs of others so much.
And yeah, you expressed a bigotry. There's no irony, you're just so wrapped up in being right about your prejudices that you can't see it. But oh... when you switched the discussion from the substance of your statements to my character, that wasn't a personal attack, right? But I attacked you when I told you to STFU if you're going to keep making stupid statement, right?
And whooptie, you married a Christian! What's so big about that? 99% of them are decent people with decent values, despite the whacky beliefs and occassional brainwashing. And I'm sure you share your desires for moral authoritarianism in common.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.
anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!
Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.
Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.
The only thing left is agnostic, which you are not...unless you include Satanist? But then, I really don't believe that you would accept any label, because your only objective is your own amusement.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: torpid
Seeker,
Suppose for a moment that there was sealife on top of mountains, and that it demonstrates conclusively that there was a huge flood. Even then, that is not evidence that human-like species were wiped out by itself. Nor would it present a problem with the "fossil record". No matter how you look at it, the fossil record is pretty solid and strongly supports the notion of human evolution from non-human ancestors.
You can certainly state that we do not have a complete fossil record demonstrating precise geneaology of humans all the way through the period when you believe there was an extinguishing flood through neanderthal life. However, that is not a "problem" for science. Science does not require a full record of evidence in this manner. The theory of evolution as it relates to mankind predicts that if we did find these fossils, they would resemble what we would expect them to given evolutionary tendencies.
So if we combine these things together, the theory of man being evolved from primate-like ancestors has no problems or holes as far as science is concerned, but does have problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.
Your belief that primate like ancestors were extinct after a global flood and man was created from scratch has problems as far as science is concerned, but has no problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.
Right?
No. The only thing that the fossil record provides, is that there have been other lifeforms, some of which, have some similarities to humans. This in no way is evidence of evolution. There is not a single fossil found, that demonstrates any evolutionary process. Of course, if you believe in spontaneous evolution, where there this happens all at once, in giant leaps of transformation, then I wouldn't know what to say, because you would be too far gone for hope.
That is an *absolute* falsehood - take a trip to the american museum of natural history and check out the exhibit on equine evolution. And that is just one example - I could easily give you dozens. All of which I'm sure will be immediately dismissed based upon a narrow form of skepticism, that unless you can actually see them evolve in front of your eyes, the fossil evidence is useless.
There a lot of people that believe in creationism, and a lot of people that believe in evolution. Even though one is on the right track, both are equally ignorant. In my experience, there are very few that *understand* evolution.
The difference between understanding and belief in evolution is reaching the point where you can synthesize all that you *know* is true for a fact, and come to the realization that to dismiss evolution would be to dismiss things you could not possibly dismiss without ignoring your basic everyday experience and logic.
You'll pretty much need a formal education in life and physical science in order to get to this point, but when you finally do, it's *incredibly* frustrating to watch the ignorant creationists combat the armchair scientists. The creationists are just beyond reason, yet still continue to spout their rhetoric and actually manage to have a debate with the amateur evolutionists only because they don't fully understand what they're talking about. It's like watching a cripple try to break through a brick wall with his stumps.
I've personally never met anyone who *actually* believes the earth is 10,000 years old. Wherever they are, they've very far from me, and I'm thankful for that. But it's still sobering to know they're out there.
You are mixing agnosticism and atheism together.Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
not true, atheist means without theism ..you dont believe in god because you dont see evidence for one..that doesnt mean there isnt one, you just dont see it and dont believe it..its hardly self righteous
atheism
Main Entry:
athe·ism
Pronunciation:
\'a-the-?i-z?m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The only thing left is agnostic, which you are not...unless you include Satanist? But then, I really don't believe that you would accept any label, because your only objective is your own amusement.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
You are mixing agnosticism and atheism together.Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
not true, atheist means without theism ..you dont believe in god because you dont see evidence for one..that doesnt mean there isnt one, you just dont see it and dont believe it..its hardly self righteous
atheism
Main Entry:
athe·ism
Pronunciation:
\'a-the-?i-z?m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.
anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!
Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.
Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.
Ill take a small stab.
First, What is God? And how do you know? And then after you answer that..provide me with any evidence of your claims.
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.
Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.
Really? Because actual history teaches that the Crusades were fought by the Europeans to steal the wealth of the Holy Land and to secure the trade routes to Asia (in fact, this is how the Knights Templar became the wealthiest organization of the time, and the founders of modern banking). In the meantime, atheism is a fundamental tenet of communism. But go on, please, I find your revisionist history fascinating...Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.
Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.
Oh no! The Church told the Faithful, Go and kill the infidels, and the Faithful answered the call. That's all there was to it! Really!Originally posted by: BD2003
The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.
Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!
Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:
edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.
Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.
That's like arguing that Lincoln was gung-ho about freeing the slaves, and was willing to take the country into war to do so.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.
Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.
Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.
Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.
The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.
Originally posted by: Vic
Oh no! The Church told the Faithful, Go and kill the infidels, and the Faithful answered the call. That's all there was to it! Really!Originally posted by: BD2003
The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.