• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

Terrorist or Not

  • Yes, A terrorist Attack

    Votes: 38 54.3%
  • no

    Votes: 32 45.7%

  • Total voters
    70
The Crusades were essentially counter-offenses to Muslim insurgences into Europe.
 
My apologies if I misconstrued your earlier statement. I thought that you were arguing that an act should be classified differently depending on whether the religious motivation was Islam or Christianity, due to the way in which each is interpreted across the globe.

I won't accept your apology because there's no need for one. It's all gravy baby. :D It's actually a common misconception (or shall I say prejudice); Religion isn't the main, or driving, reason for terrorism. A front maybe, but the real reason is control. Control by an essentially smaller or weaker force over a larger one by means of fear.
 
Please point out where in the NT it says to go and conquer the Holy land or any such nonsense.

Well, you are talking about the Bible, which is more than just the NT.

Your argument thus far is not only weak, but just plane uninformed and ridicules.

You're the one picking at percieved weak points in my argument without bringing anything new to the table.
 
The Papal Archives part was a joke, but you said Christian texts. This would include Christian writings, books, Letters from the Papacy, and other religious-based documentation. I even italicized it in my qoute.

Those are not considered cannon, sorry that does not float. Hell, anyone can right a letter from a position of authority, does not make it religious text.

And let's see. Who called for each Crusade? You do realize there were Convert-or-Kill clauses attached to, not only the purpose of the Crusades, but many of the "Mission Statements" of Knightly Orders as well?

And this has something to do with the teachings of Christ how? I mean that is what you follow or you are not a Christan.

As I said much evil has been done in the name of God, for mans own purpose.
 
Well, you are talking about the Bible, which is more than just the NT.

The OT does not apply to Christians in any way. It is the old covenant with Gods chosen people, not gentiles. Any biblical scholar or practicing Jew can tell you that.

You're the one picking at percieved weak points in my argument without bringing anything new to the table.

You made a sweeping generalization about the Christian religion which is in fact not true. I don't need to bring anything new.

The Bible pretty much spells out to forgive and not kill for conversion, pretty simple.
 
Those are not considered cannon, sorry that does not float. Hell, anyone can right a letter from a position of authority, does not make it religious text.

It's Canon, and yes many of them are considered canon, otherwise they'd have been thrown out. Papal infallibility is a lovely thing. Secondly, While we do admit we've had bad Popes (I'm Roman Catholic btw) unless the Vatican says otherwise, it stays canon, even if it is outdated or not accepted by the rest of Society.



And this has something to do with the teachings of Christ how? I mean that is what you follow or you are not a Christan.

As I said much evil has been done in the name of God, for mans own purpose.

It has everything to do with how they were interpreted.
And as you might have noticed, mankind is pretty crappy at interpretation sometimes. Now, back to my original point: Christianity and Islam both have promoted violence in their texts, Obviously Islam more so in their Holy Book than Christianity, but each side have had their moments with violence. Christianity has come out of that with the exception of a few radical groups. Islam is the other way around: There are a few 'radical' Muslims who don't take the Koran literally and they're the ones that are your friends, own businesses, and in general don't Jihad on your ass.
 
The OT does not apply to Christians in any way. It is the old covenant with Gods chosen people, not gentiles. Any biblical scholar or practicing Jew can tell you that.

You are bat**** insane, sir or madame.

You made a sweeping generalization about the Christian religion which is in fact not true. I don't need to bring anything new.

The Bible pretty much spells out to forgive and not kill for conversion, pretty simple.

Yeah, I said Christians used to be more violent and now they aren't. How dare I.
 
You are bat**** insane, sir or madame.



Yeah, I said Christians used to be more violent and now they aren't. How dare I.

I think insulting people is a no-no here, if I'm not mistaken. They encourage attacks of ideas, but not other posters.
 
I think insulting people is a no-no here, if I'm not mistaken. They encourage attacks of ideas, but not other posters.

It was merely an observation. I did add 'sir or madame' so it was a little more respectful.
 
It was merely an observation. I did add 'sir or madame' so it was a little more respectful.
I think it is an observation that you are supposed to keep to yourself at this particular website. ;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks.
 
I would like to extend my apologies to Blackdog and the Forum as a whole for directing my insult at the personage, rather than the opinion.
 
It's Canon, and yes many of them are considered canon, otherwise they'd have been thrown out. Papal infallibility is a lovely thing. Secondly, While we do admit we've had bad Popes (I'm Roman Catholic btw) unless the Vatican says otherwise, it stays canon, even if it is outdated or not accepted by the rest of Society.

Well that is the problem then. I don't consider Catholics Christians, they are Catholics. They follow the commands of a man over God. This does not mean they are hell bound or anything. It just means they are wrong on allot of things biblical.

This is not an insult in any way, just a perfect example of how they consider their traditions more important than the words of Christ. Hence the Crusades and support of Nazi's etc.

It has everything to do with how they were interpreted.
And as you might have noticed, mankind is pretty crappy at interpretation sometimes. Now, back to my original point: Christianity and Islam both have promoted violence in their texts, Obviously Islam more so in their Holy Book than Christianity, but each side have had their moments with violence.

The violence by Islam is justified in there holy book, it is not in the Bible. HUGE difference. You are basically making the "look Christan's did it" argument. That argument has been debunked around here more times than I care to remember.

Christianity has come out of that with the exception of a few radical groups. Islam is the other way around: There are a few 'radical' Muslims who don't take the Koran literally and they're the ones that are your friends, own businesses, and in general don't Jihad on your ass.

This is not about Islam, I have no problem with freedom of religion. My problem is blanket statements that are not true.

PS this is not an attack on Catholics, just an observation by a non-denominational Protestant.
 
Last edited:
I would like to extend my apologies to Blackdog and the Forum as a whole for directing my insult at the personage, rather than the opinion.

No big deal man, allot of us have been there. I am most definitely guilty, lol.
 
Last edited:
Neither did Washington. Which is why they got away with it since Beirut.

Just because I don't think it was a terrorist attack doesn't mean I believe that whatever group was behind it (if there was one) shouldn't be punished.
 
Well that is the problem then. I don't consider Catholics Christians, they are Catholics. They follow the commands of a man over God. This does not mean they are hell bound or anything. It just means they are wrong on allot of things biblical.

I always thought that was kind of a pompous opinion to have of Catholics. How the heck are you going to call the Second branch of Christians (behind the original Christian Jews), NOT Christians? Have you BEEN to mass lately? It's JESUS this, and JESUS that. Oi. Longest hour of the week, some might say. Catholics follow the 10 commandments, with guidance from the Bible. I suppose you think we worship Mary and all the Icons in our churches, too?

Christianity n. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament

Now tell me, by definition, that Catholics aren't Christian.

Now, I'm assuming (very risky maneuver here) you're of a Protestant or Evangelical branch of Christianity, which ironically, Catholics don't recognize as actual churches. Catholicism sees them as Christians, just not an actual Church (Guess it has something to do with that One True Church doctrine or some jazz like that. Odd that we still recognize the Eastern Orthodox fellas...but that's a whooole 'nother story)

This is not an insult in any way, just a perfect example of how they consider there traditions more important than the words of Christ. Hence the Crusades and support of Nazi's etc.

Protestantism is the reason Christianity is in such tatters today. It essentially opened the door from having 2 major sects of Christianity to HEY ANYONE CAN CREATE THEIR OWN BRANCH! and now we have even MORE abuse and 'tradition of Man' put into the churches. i.e. I don't see any Priests rollin' around in Escalades or collecting a mandatory 10% tithe from the congregation...

And while I respect what Martin Luther did, I think he did more harm than good by underestimating what man would do. He thought that if he were to bring to light the flaws of the Church, the people would fix them, instead, it opened the floodgates for people to interpret the Bible ANY way they pleased. Which is essentially doing more harm than good these days, for example the Westboro Baptist Church. While I know they aren't a real Baptist congregation, they are an example of the further abuses of Christianity.

The Crusades were driven by both men who honestly believed they were doing the will of God and...well...I'll just say it...Italians who were trying to make some moolah, and if they praised God along the way then BENE!

The Catholic Church also helped Jews and other persecuted groups escape Germany. But no one seems to remember that. Nor do they remember the Priests who were imprisoned for resisting the Nazi regimes.


The violence by Islam is justified in there holy book, it is not in the Bible. HUGE difference. You are basically making the "look Christan's did it" argument. That argument has been debunked around here more times than I care to remember.

But it parallels. Hence my juxtaposition of the two. (YAY! Word of the Day!)

This is not about Islam, I have no problem with freedom of religion. My problem is blanket statements that are not true.

Who did I blanket because I hate blanket terms too, and I certainly would hate it if I did or said anything hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
I thought Christians were those who believed in the divinity and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
I thought Christians were those who believed in the divinity and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

All of which Catholics profess/follow.

Edit: I once had this delusional idea of being the Unifier of the Christian Church. I really had it in my mind that I could bring everyone back together and make Christianity whole again. And then I grew up and found out why we had split, and why we remain split.

With the Protestant Reformation, which in my opinion was largely a 'fad' or bandwagon movement, came the idea that Man could interpret the Bible for himself, and while that's a great idea, it soon became bastardized. One of the bi-products of this split, Calvinism, was a good example. (They were sort of Elitists, that didn't know for sure if they were elite or not lol, we can get into that later though) And essentially, People began creating their own VERSIONS of Christianity, adding and subtracting as they saw fit, soon a unifying Faith became "Well, I personally believe it goes like this..." Now, do we have evangelicals today who are true to the Bible and values of Christianity? Of Course. Do we also have Corporate Christianity? "Super" churches? Satin suit wearing evangelicals who don't practice what they preach? Yes. (That's not to say that the Catholic or Orthodox Church have been without their share of troubles by any means.) A lot of good in spreading Christianity came with Martin Luther, practically the same that came from the Catholic Church, however, A lot of detriment to Christianity arose from the split as well. I think "Divided we Fall" is an appropriate slogan here. Where WE is ALL Christians, not just one sect or branch. And ironically, for being followers of Christ, we're not a very Christian bunch, and the hypocrisy is astounding. Now as far as I am concerned, I have some issues with dogma and canon, but I take this up with Priests and religious scholars and such, and I either come to accept it or continue to form my beliefs around the new information gained. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians, and Catholics included, would simply go, "well that's not how I want to believe it" or "that doesn't make sense to me" and so they think "I'm going to change it to better fit ME."
 
Last edited:
I thought Christians were those who believed in the divinity and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Oh good Christ; not another "Catholics aren't real Christians" proponent.
Who do you think the original Christians were? :roll:
You Protestants are Johnny-come-lately's.
 
I always thought that was kind of a pompous opinion to have of Catholics. How the heck are you going to call the Second branch of Christians (behind the original Christian Jews), NOT Christians? Have you BEEN to mass lately? It's JESUS this, and JESUS that. Oi. Longest hour of the week, some might say. Catholics follow the 10 commandments, with guidance from the Bible. I suppose you think we worship Mary and all the Icons in our churches, too?

I don't go to mass as I am not a Catholic.

I was raised Catholic, baptized and had my first holy communion, confirmation at Our Lady of Peace in Chicago.

As I grew older and studied the Bible, I realized 2nd church or not, they got allot of things wrong according to scripture. From praying to dead people (necromancy) to statues (idles) praying to them or not makes them no less idles. The bloody history of the leadership of the church did not help.

As soon as the Pope can do the miracles of the Apostles, I will follow his word over the scripture. Until that time he is just a man who has no right to change God's word.

Christianity n. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament

Now tell me, by definition, that Catholics aren't Christian.

They are, but for the sake of argument I differentiate the two. As I said no insult was intended.

Now, I'm assuming (very risky maneuver here) you're of a Protestant or Evangelical branch of Christianity, which ironically, Catholics don't recognize as actual churches. Catholicism sees them as Christians, just not an actual Church (Guess it has something to do with that One True Church doctrine or some jazz like that. Odd that we still recognize the Eastern Orthodox fellas...but that's a whooole 'nother story)

No I am not an "Evangelical" at all. I am closer to a run of the mill Baptist.

My only beef with the Catholic church outside of it's un-Christ like history is it's not following biblical precedent vs man's traditions.

Protestantism is the reason Christianity is in such tatters today. It essentially opened the door from having 2 major sects of Christianity to HEY ANYONE CAN CREATE THEIR OWN BRANCH! and now we have even MORE abuse and 'tradition of Man' put into the churches. i.e. I don't see any Priests rollin' around in Escalades or collecting a mandatory 10% tithe from the congregation...

I agree, I think both churches have it wrong.

Everyman should read the Bible for himself and not let the traditions of mans church dictate his religion.

And while I respect what Martin Luther did, I think he did more harm than good by underestimating what man would do. He thought that if he were to bring to light the flaws of the Church, the people would fix them, instead, it opened the floodgates for people to interpret the Bible ANY way they pleased. Which is essentially doing more harm than good these days, for example the Westboro Baptist Church. While I know they aren't a real Baptist congregation, they are an example of the further abuses of Christianity.

Again I agee. No argument here.

The Crusades were driven by both men who honestly believed they were doing the will of God and...well...I'll just say it...Italians who were trying to make some moolah, and if they praised God along the way then BENE!

The Catholic Church also helped Jews and other persecuted groups escape Germany. But no one seems to remember that. Nor do they remember the Priests who were imprisoned for resisting the Nazi regimes.

Irrelevant. They were not of nor condoned by God, period. It was man, not God or the Bible that set any of the atrocities in motion. It was the greed and ambitions of man perverting God's word.

But it parallels. Hence my juxtaposition of the two. (YAY! Word of the Day!)

Again the Koran says to convert via the sword, the Bible does not, period.

Who did I blanket because I hate blanket terms too, and I certainly would hate it if I did or said anything hypocritical.

You said it, not me. ;)
 
Oh good Christ; not another "Catholics aren't real Christians" proponent.
Who do you think the original Christians were? :roll:
You Protestants are Johnny-come-lately's.

I thought that the original Christians were the Orthodox!!
 
Back
Top Bottom