69 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

WarlordThor wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

atheists have been responsible for the largest mass murders in recorded history.

One word, backed up by history and statistics, to prove this is untrue.

Crusades.

That is all.

Read this and learn how unenlighted you really are:
www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

That is all.

[Erakleitos]

The "you killed more people than me" should be an american argument because i never heard it before... which is kind of weird, you just need to be human to be capable as mass murderer, religion (or the absence of a religion) it's not relevant...

[WarlordThor]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Read this and learn how unenlighted you really are:
www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

That is all.

Yes, you know your argument is infallible when you link an opiion piece that fails to cite sources. That's ok though.

[WarlordThor]

Erakleitos wrote...

The "you killed more people than me" should be an american argument because i never heard it before... which is kind of weird, you just need to be human to be capable as mass murderer, religion (or the absence of a religion) it's not relevant...

Agreed. Too many people view religion in the wrong way in my opinion. They view it as a set of moral beliefs, which is incorrect. Religions do include moral beliefs, but you can have morals without religion and religion has many facets to it beyond morals.

It waas a decent funny tropic until someone had to jump on the lets fight atheists or other religions boat.

I think the discussion on the chantry and its viability as a religion is a decent discussion as it discusses the quality of BW writing. I like the "chant" aspect. Seems a bit original, a type of scripture that is meant more as a lyrical composition then just to be read like a book. I'mn slightly bothered by the revered father and mother aspect. Apparently all revered fathers lead to horrible things. I think it would have been cool to see a village opposing that or one of the chantry's other little rules, but being pious good folk anyway (and not cannibal cultists)

[MatronAdena]

in the whole history of the Judaeo–Christian existence, yes there has been countless amounts of blood spilled " and considering the Crusades ( all of them ) involved three major branches of the Judaeo–Christian family you need to count fatalities on all the sides " and lets not forget the inquisition, and what they did to anyone , including jews, scientists, etc who did something they saw as a threat to the church" the plague was stated to be the doing of jews by the pope at the time, and this goes on to the witch hunts " if you think what happened in the America's was bad, you should look into what happened in Europe...one German village of several hundred rounded up and burned alive EVERY female, regardless of age ...supposedly estimated at around 400 killed...and THAT was not the only reported case. The beloved king james the first " you know the guy who re-wrote the bible in his own liking" was said to have promised the jews in england amnesty, and a free ride to an island so save them from prosecution...only to maroon them on a sand bar to drown.

HOWEVER....most cultures and faith have untold amounts of blood on their hands, and lots of it...more so when it comes to blood spilled between branches of the same parent faith.

so it really all matters where one chooses to look to find their examples, but war, murder etc done in the name of _____________ is something that predates humanity itself

Modifié par MatronAdena, 11 janvier 2010 - 01:16 .

[ShaggyWolf]

elys wrote...

"If the Andraste faith were a real religion..."

.. then I would be a Witch of the Wild.

You're a...sneaky... witch-thief!

[Lotion Soronarr]

WarlordThor wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Read this and learn how unenlighted you really are:
www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

That is all.

Yes, you know your argument is infallible when you link an opiion piece that fails to cite sources. That's ok though.

Did you even bother to check the site?
There is far more information on methods and soruces. Over the years, I found that site to be extreemely accurate and reliable.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

WarlordThor wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Read this and learn how unenlighted you really are:
www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

That is all.

Yes, you know your argument is infallible when you link an opiion piece that fails to cite sources. That's ok though.

Did you even bother to check the site?
There is far more information on methods and soruces. Over the years, I found that site to be extreemely accurate and reliable.

Your source is very vague and innacurate about the Islamic spread and wants to portray the Crusades as purely self-defense. He forgets that the Byzantines were an oppressive, alien, force that were hated in the Middle East and that both Christians and Jews saw the Arabs as liberators: From The history of the Arabs, Bernard Lewis.
""A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: "Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creator, blessed be he, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness (ie Byzantium). The Holy One, blessed be He..., will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them." We may compare it to the words of a later Syriac Christian historian: "Therefor the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hands of the Romans by means of the Arabs...it profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us.""

And I find it interesting that your article doesn't mention the mass murder of 30000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem in one night, that even priests were happy about.
 
Both the Crusades and ISlamic conquest were invasions, just like al our history is full of invasions. But one only needs to look at the differences to judge which was better.
When the Muslims conquered Spain, they created one of the waelthiest, most open and most intellectually advanced and tolerant nations in the world. What did the Crusaders do that was of any significance except killing?
When the Muslims retook Palestine, they didn't exterminate the local Christians, they didn't commit mass murder. What did the Christians do after the Reconquiesta? They created the inquisition and anniuhilated the Muslims and Jews from Iberia.

Your article is accurate on some points, but is obviously too biased to proivde a true historical account of what happened.

And I find it laughable that the last Crusade was aimed at Constantinople, which was the most important Christian city at that time. Of course, it was Orthodox and not Catholic.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2010 - 02:08 .

[BroBear Berbil]

WarlordThor wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

atheists have been responsible for the largest mass murders in recorded history.

One word, backed up by history and statistics, to prove this is untrue.

Crusades.

That is all.

Really? So the Crusades were comparable in loss of life to the Holocaust or the Gulags or to the Cultural Revolution? I think not.

And why is it that when people talk about religious wars it always seems to go to the Crusades? Nobody ever mentions the Umayyad occupation of the Iberian Peninsula that happened long before the Crusades and lasted for over 3 centuries. It could be said a lot of good came from the Crusades and the Caliphate as well. I certainly think Andalusia is one of the most beautiful places on earth.

Were the Andrastian Chantry a real religion I probably wouldn't be a participant as I consider myself an agnostic. I don't want to completely rule out a higher/cosmic power but I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy.

Modifié par OnionXI, 11 janvier 2010 - 03:41 .

[Creature 1]

OnionXI wrote...
Really? So the Crusades were comparable in loss of life to the Holocaust or the Gulags or to the Cultural Revolution? I think not.

Not for lack of trying.  Good thing they didn't have nukes. 

[WarlordThor]

OnionXI wrote...

Really? So the Crusades were comparable in loss of life to the Holocaust or the Gulags or to the Cultural Revolution? I think not.

And why is it that when people talk about religious wars it always seems to go to the Crusades? Nobody ever mentions the Umayyad occupation of the Iberian Peninsula that happened long before the Crusades and lasted for over 3 centuries. It could be said a lot of good came from the Crusades and the Caliphate as well. I certainly think Andalusia is one of the most beautiful places on earth.

Were the Andrastian Chantry a real religion I probably wouldn't be a participant as I consider myself an agnostic. I don't want to completely rule out a higher/cosmic power but I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy.

Perhaps you do not understand just how many crusades there were, and the many offshot unofficial ones like the children crusades. Overall, a large number of people dead on both sides. I'm not going to go digging for official numbers because they are unnecessary.

The point simply is it is human nature to make poor decisions and to hurt others. It does not matter what religion or ethnicity or favorite type of food. Someone's character is all that matters between them doing something horrible or something just. This character may be innfluenced by many other factors, but we all should know that things influence people differently. One person can be the greatest without the influence, another can be a great person with the influence, and someone else with the influence can distort it and become a horrible individual.

Again to keep it on topic, maybe we should discuss the exalted marches in the game. I do believe they were mostly political decisions and showed a harshness to the Chantry.

[menasure]

the chantry? no thanks. if i have to choose one then i rather settle for some sort of pagan belief ... much more appealing because of benefits for your sex life which is also proven to have a beneficial effect on life span and so many other things ... at least in theory because std's are not appealing at all

Modifié par menasure, 11 janvier 2010 - 05:42 .

[Raoune]

Erakleitos wrote...



hey think about scientology ;p

How did it take this long for this to come up!



I find the Dwarven paragons a much more sensible idea. That's probably because my family believe that anyway.

[Creature 1]

Raoune wrote...
I find the Dwarven paragons a much more sensible idea. That's probably because my family believe that anyway.

I agree with Morrigan, personally. 

[gx99-nq9y]

the golden, blackcity darkspawn, fade maker thing reminds of the viking paganisme abouth age of ragnarok and walhala, odin

fiew vikings tryd to find a way to walhala being alive the found a way into walhala they got into the city and got cast back by odin and the age of ragnarok started

[Godak]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Read this and learn how unenlighted you really are:
www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

That is all.

Christians: "Grr! Pre-emptive strike! We won't let them take our land, despite the fact that it isn't our land! It's their land!"

Muslims: "Curses! They attacked us, after we attacked them, after they attacked us, after we attacked them, after..."

Two religions that fall under the Judeo-Christian faith, killing each other over land.

That sounds EXACTLY  like what you were trying to disprove.

Also, that article is pretty BS-ish. The crusades weren't launched in response to some feared Muslim take-over of Europe...the Byzantines were weak, and they couldn't deal with fighting the Muslims, so they convinced the Pope to declare the crusades. Of course, it was all an attempt at gaining land. If Muslims won, they get Constatinople and the rest of the Byzantine empire, plus access to the weak Eastern European states. If the Christians won...Well, we would get access to the Middle East, and the lands beyond. Of course, that didn't happen. So, what did they do? They sailed around the Muslims.


EDIT:

OnionXI wrote...

Really? So the Crusades were comparable in loss of life to the Holocaust or the Gulags or to the Cultural Revolution? I think not.

If you add up all the deaths caused by all of the crusades, then yes. Remember, you have 9 primary crusades, plus crusades waged against the Eastern European Orthodox church. Also, there were many massacres of European Jews. The crusading period encompasses around 200 years. It's not surprising that it came with a great loss of life.

Modifié par Godak, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:51 .

[IronVanguard]

InvaderErl wrote...

Facial hair of any sort increases your capacity for evil.

Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Mirror Spock.

Truth.


Eh, already a Christian, so in less it replaced it, well...
I'd totally be a mage though. Magic is awesome. Plus, a giant stone tower is a great way to avoid people!

[Kimarous]

I'm a Christian and I see the Chantry as "Christianity + extreme politics - God's love". No thanks.

[Xandurpein]

At least the Chantry is better than the christian church was during the Middle Ages on one account. Leliana would have ended up burned as a heretic for arguing about the faith the way she does in the real Middle Ages.

[MGeezer]

I guess I would point out that one can distinguish the Andraste faith (the original question) from the Chantry. Like many relegions, the views of the Founders frequently make sense and are moving, while the formal organizations that follow have a lot to answer for. I am sure the writers of DAO intnded us to reflect on this tendency. They even give us Lelina to remind of the differene between faith and organized churhes.



One thing that interest me about the world of DAO is that its own people view it as literally God-forsaken. The dwarves and Qun don't beleive in conventional divinities. The Chantry and the traditional elven religion both hold, for different reaons, that God(s) was once active in the world, and may be in the future, but is not now active. This struck me as an intersting theme of the DAO universe.