Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, if you do get drunk you can always try and pass it off as the Pentecost.

yikes... *laughing on the inside*

If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.


Some even believe that this current world is hell itself and we are all in it. That would explain the evilness of the world. Some also believe that punishment in hell is only temporary. The good die young, and a-holes live forever. I do believe that homicides and suicides screw up the natural plan though.

So good news is we may already be in hell, enjoy your stay.

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

... ... ...

.

The Japanese can. Surveys of religious membership in Japan regularly find that about 75% of the people are Shinto, and about 67% are Buddhist. There are also some Taoists, a fair number of Christians and a few Jews.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

... ... ...

.

The Japanese can. Surveys of religious membership in Japan regularly find that about 75% of the people are Shinto, and about 67% are Buddhist. There are also some Taoists, a fair number of Christians and a few Jews.

Yup. The lines aren't as clearly drawn for religion in the East. It is more of a layer cake. Generally speaking it is a combination of (not Zen) Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

Also, this is the thread that will not die!

I believe then that they are doing it wrong. But then again, you forgot islam and mormons.



If you want to see a fight over whose imaginary friend was cooler that caused thousands of people to die, look up crusades in the dictionary.

I like that joke.

halonachos wrote:If you want to see a fight over whose imaginary friend was cooler that caused thousands of people to die, look up crusades in the dictionary.

Didn't we have like three pages in this thread where people pointed out the crusades were not actually about the Crusades, or was that another thread?

possibly, this thread has been going on for so long i forget

It's a mystery for the ages, because I'm not going back to look and I doubt anyone else will either.

Meanwhile, according to my post above the crusades were apparently not about the crusades, which is either a profound insight or possibly a typo. I think maybe I meant to say the crusades were not about religion. That'd be a bit of an exageration, better to say that religion was not the primary driver.

The crusades were initiated by a pope for geopolitical reasons. He wanted to get some kind of help out to the Byzantine Empire which was under severe pressure from Islam. He dressed it up with a religious justification and granted remission of sins to all true crusaders.

While a lot of the early crusaders may well have gone for religious reasons, there was certainly an element of land grabbing involved especially in later crusades, for example, when the crusaders stormed and sacked Byzantium.

Hey guys, it was a freakin joke. It doesn't need to be correct, it just needs to grasp at the top of the matter, not dig into the meat of it.

I think it would be better to look The Crusades up in an Encyclopedia than a Dictionary.

That particular joke has created an entire generation of quasi-religious atheists; worshiping at the Church of Dawkins.

This post is also a joke, though not a funny one.

Yeah, I can't believe it is still going...and going....and going.


GG

Its the thread that never ends so long as there is more than 1 religion or a lack thereof.

halonachos wrote:Hey guys, it was a freakin joke. It doesn't need to be correct, it just needs to grasp at the top of the matter, not dig into the meat of it.

It's about as funny as saying WWII was just another war about oil. It isn't funny because it isn't true.

Oh wah, stop being elitist sebster.

halonachos wrote:Oh wah, stop being elitist sebster.

If you think being elitist is telling it how it is, then you're right on the mickey.

sA

Nope, just saying to stop thinking too much about a joke and go to the basics. Humor doesn't always have to be all hoity-toity, it can be crude and grasp basic concepts to be funny.

Again, don't read too much into it.

halonachos wrote:Nope, just saying to stop thinking too much about a joke and go to the basics. Humor doesn't always have to be all hoity-toity, it can be crude and grasp basic concepts to be funny.

Again, don't read too much into it.

It's not a question of elitism but that the joke wasn't funny.

sebster wrote:It's about as funny as saying WWII was just another war about oil. It isn't funny because it isn't true.

It's partially true.

Our oil embargo was one of the biggest reasons Japan attacked the US.

halonachos wrote:Oh wah, stop being elitist sebster.

Yeah, this is one of those things that's crept in lately. Elitist means differentiating yourself as part of a special group. Which is very different to expecting people to, like, know stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's partially true.

Our oil embargo was one of the biggest reasons Japan attacked the US.

Yeah, I typed it and then thought of that, and considered changing the analogy. Then I thought that religion did also play a part in the crusades, but it was about so much more than that, just as oil was a factor in limiting Japanese expansionism which was a key issue for war in the Pacific theatre, and so maybe the analogy worked quite well afterall.

Hmm, good thinking.

The Crusades were started by a few individuals that were in power at the time, but were embraced by the masses under the guise of religion. The Crusades were not because of religion but the because of the greed and desire for power of church leaders (namely Pope Urban II and his succesors) and European monarchs.

That and the muslims closed off travel to the Holy land, and Europe was still under the threat of jihad. Indeed that threat didn't disappear for centuries.

Some would argue that the threat of Jihad still hasn't disapeared.

rubiksnoob wrote:The Crusades were started by a few individuals that were in power at the time, but were embraced by the masses under the guise of religion.

It wasn't all religion. Everyone, even the peasants, who went on campaign had the opportunity to enhance their wealth/status. Just like the modern military, everyone had a different reason for participating.

dogma wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:The Crusades were started by a few individuals that were in power at the time, but were embraced by the masses under the guise of religion.

It wasn't all religion. Everyone, even the peasants, who went on campaign had the opportunity to enhance their wealth/status. Just like the modern military, everyone had a different reason for participating.

I agree and let us also not forget that that was a time in which you can't really separate religion from the government as much as we do now. Saying it was the people and not the religion is a bit disingenuous to the time frame in which the state and religion were tied together almost completely.

Please stop quoting Halonachos, you are throwing off my ignore function.

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

I've been taught that God is a loving father that will not cast his children off if they didn't have a chance to learn about him or just because they belong to another religion. He doesn't have us to play shell games over religion with a burning eternal Hell the punishment for a wrong guess.

Relapse wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

I've been taught that God is a loving father that will not cast his children off if they didn't have a chance to learn about him or just because they belong to another religion. He doesn't have us to play shell games over religion with a burning eternal Hell the punishment for a wrong guess.

Christianity is generally not inclusive, along with Islam and Judaism. Seems you're different, and I'm glad to hear it.

Many Eastern religions are quite different. For example, Buddhists have no creation stories and nothing about life after death. They just don't care about metaphysics, which I find very interesting. It seems that a lot of the Christians I know are coming around to the inclusive side.

(For those who don't know, inclusive=any good person can receive "Heaven" or its equivalent. Exclusive=Hell for all non-believers)

I consider myself a devout atheist, but I also consider myself a follower of the words of Lao Tzu and the Buddha. Both are more philosophies than religions (minus Tibetan Buddhism). Taoism grew into part of the traditional Chinese religion, but I follow its founding works rather than the ancestor worship and pantheon of gods that it became.
I recommend the Tao Te Ching to anyone who is interested in philosophy. It's probably the most important work I've read, even though my translation is crap. It's full of wisdom, not commandments. Between that and Thich Nhat Hanh's writings on Buddhism is where I find myself "religiously," even though I don't believe in any sort of higher power or life after death.
If anyone would like to discuss any of the above, let's do it. I love philosophy.