what about the other religion?

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*

You asked, "So out of the blue, pope urban calls for a religious war? "  It doesn't matter.  But for the sake of debate, let's give your argument it's best case.  Let's say that he was influenced.  The result is still that he called it.

You asked, "You blame on the chicken or the egg?"  Well, this question makes no sense. 

You wrote, " If you call me a dummy, you should and could always get schooling from a dummy."  No one called you a dummy.  It's all in your own head. 

Now let's see you dance around the issue and questions.   

Just answer my question, it is not hard.  Who is the dumb dumb that says that the pope calls for the first crusade like it is his own project to do so?  It was not his project to begin with.   You and the rest of your ill informed kind needs re education.  It is not hard or you can always learn something from me.  If you call me a dummy, you should and could always get schooling from a dummy.   

[bulbasaur]

You don't like me yawning?  Would you prefer I call you ignorant?  That's what you do, right?   

You admit, "You make a good point about the Pope being Infallibility and his command was a religious command."

Now, it doesn't matter what other people do.  Re-read the issue.  Someone stated that there was not an established religion that does not degrade others.  Yet, here we have an example.

And to further destroy any hope you have in winning this debate, look at the Galileo affair.  This was clearly a degradation of a person by the pope, who had Papal Infallibility, and who personally had a hand in the affair.  The list of examples go on and on.  Even if I concede the First Crusade as an example, there are many many many more examples.  Thus, that is why I yawn. 

Please come down from your high horse with this "yawn".  Get in with reality and stop living in your facade. You make a good point about the Pope being Infallibility and his command was a religious command. However, based on your reasoning, there were not more than 60,000 Christians in all of European Christendom. That was roughly the size of the first true Crusader army. 60,000 thousand.... out of millions of Christians.... .let that sink in.

Now you still think men were moved by a Papal command or their own ambitions?

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*

What agenda do I have?  Let's see which one of us is making huge assumptions. 

You already admitted I am right.

Let's look at your Hmong vs. Muslim example.  If Hmong Animism had a Hmong Animism Pope who had Religious Infallibility, and if that person said to cleanse the world of Muslims, then yes, Hmong Animism degrades Muslims.  However, that is not the case.  But, that is the case with Catholicism. 

You are trying to argue people, but I am arguing theology.  Papal decrees are religious, and popes have decreed some controversial things throughout history. 

Once again, your using minor details to fit your agenda. The Utashi were made of Nationalists, Facists and Catholics. Aren't you painting a broad brush here?

This broad stroke is the same as saying that if a Hmong person killed a Muslim out of hate and that Hmong person also happens to believe in Animism, than all people who practice Animism are at fault and share the same hate sentimentality towards Muslims. Yeah right...

Please bring up all those other examples, there are so many many out there. The fact of the matter is, religion doesn't factor into the actions of men. Men have freedom of choice, and they are responsible for their own actions.

[bulbasaur]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Duma and flyin15sec, who are both arguing against me and name-calling me, are also disagreeing with each other.  Guess what,  that proves hmgrock right.  All of this is ambiguous. 

Dummy.  Ignorant.   

[bulbasaur]

Let's just illustrate the argument. 

Someone wrote, "I can't think of established religions that says it's okay to degrade people.  And that doesn't include people who misread/misinterpret what they are being taught."

Papal decrees are religious because of Papal Infallibility.  True. 
 
The Pope decreed that Galileo should stop his research or face harsher treatment.  True. 

Can this be viewed as some kind of degradation?  Yes. 

If this can be viewed as some kind of degradation, and if the Pope has Papal Infallibility, then this is an example of an established religion degrading a person. 

And this is just one example.  Of course, the church did apologize a few hundred years later, but come on....

[hmgROCK]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Duma and flyin15sec, who are both arguing against me and name-calling me, are also disagreeing with each other.  Guess what,  that proves hmgrock right.  All of this is ambiguous. 

Dummy.  Ignorant.   

Lol

Those two will tell you it is wrong to eat pork
Than go and eat baby back ribs afterwards


According to wiki there are over 4200 religion
Since alot of people here are Christian

I just want to ask


What about the other religion?

[flyin15sec]

You don't like me yawning?  Would you prefer I call you ignorant?  That's what you do, right?   

You admit, "You make a good point about the Pope being Infallibility and his command was a religious command."

Now, it doesn't matter what other people do.  Re-read the issue.  Someone stated that there was not an established religion that does not degrade others.  Yet, here we have an example.

And to further destroy any hope you have in winning this debate, look at the Galileo affair.  This was clearly a degradation of a person by the pope, who had Papal Infallibility, and who personally had a hand in the affair.  The list of examples go on and on.  Even if I concede the First Crusade as an example, there are many many many more examples.  Thus, that is why I yawn.

And your yawn example is not a good one. We established that The Byzantium King asked for help and the Pope urged. There's no denying that. However, it is not religion that forces a man to kill someone else. It's irrefutable that the leaders of the First Crusade did for their own ambitions. I already disprove your assertion that it was not a "Religious Command", hence only 60K soliders were part of the First Crusade. If you can refute the fact that it wasn't for Land then I'll rest and concede.

[flyin15sec]

*yawns*

What agenda do I have?  Let's see which one of us is making huge assumptions. 

You already admitted I am right.

Let's look at your Hmong vs. Muslim example.  If Hmong Animism had a Hmong Animism Pope who had Religious Infallibility, and if that person said to cleanse the world of Muslims, then yes, Hmong Animism degrades Muslims.  However, that is not the case.  But, that is the case with Catholicism. 

You are trying to argue people, but I am arguing theology.  Papal decrees are religious, and popes have decreed some controversial things throughout history.

We were talking about the Ustashi right.. yes, so why are you bringing up the Papal decree here? Show me proof that the Papacy order the Ustashi movement to kill all Muslims.

You are still painting a broad brush. By your example you are only painting a broad brush if there is a Pope involved only? So my assertion that you spin an event to your needs is correct. Hello, there was no Pope involved in the Ustashi movement, so your example I quoted above has no prejudice with the discussion at hand here. My example is a clear representation of what you are trying to portray, by painting a broad brush to make your point.

[flyin15sec]

I am talking to you about the ludicrous things he said.   I am talking to all that agrees to such commands or there lack off. 

Politically correctness is what it is called.  Free education for those that do not yet know like dude.

And what did I agree to... ? I missed something obviously.

[flyin15sec]

Lol

Those two will tell you it is wrong to eat pork
Than go and eat baby back ribs afterwards


According to wiki there are over 4200 religion
Since alot of people here are Christian

I just want to ask


What about the other religion?

Oh please, I don't know anything about you and you don't know anything about me. Don't make assertions about people. So just stop here.

I don't give a 'hoot' about the Pope. Catholicism is a wolf in disguise, Islam is controlled opposition, most Protestant Christians are sheeple. Buddhism and Hindu, I don't know enough about yet. Judaism is nothing more than a puppet religion.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns* 

1.  This has nothing to do with what "the masses" think and do in the name religion because they may or may not represent a religion.  However, the pope does represent the religion. Which leads us to...

2.  The pope has Papal Infallibility, according to its own religion.

3.  The pope made the decision to support the First Crusade.  It doesn't matter if it was originally his idea or not.  That decision represents the religion. 

4.  Does the decision to support the First Crusade degrade anyone?  Yes, because they feel that the "holy lands" shouldn't be occupied by certain people. 

You should note that it doesn't matter what other people wanted from the crusade.  Some wanted land.  Some wanted riches.  It doesn't matter because all those people do not hold any religious infallibility.  However, the pope does. 

Moving on...

5.  Maybe you are too young or simply not read in the topic, but the pope was criticized for not responding to the Ustashi movement.  Why?  Because of the events leading up to it, and what happened afterwards.  After a papal blessing,  Ante Pavelić and his Ustaša lieutenants went on the killing spree.  Look it up. 

Let's not just look at wars...

6. The Galileo affair.  It is quite clear he was mistreated. 

7.  In 1179, Pope Alexander virtually denounced gays.  That's a bit degrading. 

8.  And how long have women been banned from ordination?

Should we keep the list going? 

And BTW, you already conceded.  You just don't want to admit it. 

[flyin15sec]

*yawns* 

1.  This has nothing to do with what "the masses" think and do in the name religion because they may or may not represent a religion.  However, the pope does represent the religion. Which leads us to...

2.  The pope has Papal Infallibility, according to its own religion.

3.  The pope made the decision to support the First Crusade.  It doesn't matter if it was originally his idea or not.  That decision represents the religion. 

4.  Does the decision to support the First Crusade degrade anyone?  Yes, because they feel that the "holy lands" shouldn't be occupied by certain people. 

You should note that it doesn't matter what other people wanted from the crusade.  Some wanted land.  Some wanted riches.  It doesn't matter because all those people do not hold any religious infallibility.  However, the pope does. 

Moving on...

5.  Maybe you are too young or simply not read in the topic, but the pope was criticized for not responding to the Ustashi movement.  Why?  Because of the events leading up to it, and what happened afterwards.  After a papal blessing,  Ante Pavelić and his Ustaša lieutenants went on the killing spree.  Look it up. 

Let's not just look at wars...

6. The Galileo affair.  It is quite clear he was mistreated. 

7.  In 1179, Pope Alexander virtually denounced gays.  That's a bit degrading. 

8.  And how long have women been banned from ordination?

Should we keep the list going? 

And BTW, you already conceded.  You just don't want to admit it.

I wrote a long reply, but let's just keep it this simple.

People often use the 10 commandments as the defacto moral and religious way to act for Christians, Jews and Muslims. If the 10 commandments represent what Christians should do, then don't you think what the Pope says or decree is wrong. He in fact does not represent the religion. So the Pope really has no bearing on his own religion if he counters what his own religion teaches.

You can give all the examples you want, but religion does not degrade anyone. Man does.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns* 

I see you are grasping at straws.  You lost on the argument, and now you want to bring in another argument.  If you don't believe the Pope is infallible, then that is fine.  In fact, there is an entire group of Christians who don't think the Pope is infallible; they are called Protestants.  Unfortunately for you, it doesn't help your argument.  I only need to state ONE example from ONE established religion to prove my point.  Pick your favorite example.  If you don't like the Crusades, then pick the Ustashi movement.  Don't like that? Pick Galileo.  Pick gays.  Pick women. 

And BTW, I don't even need to try to hard to rebuttal you.  I'll let you rebuttal yourself:
You argue, "So the Pope really has no bearing on his own religion if he counters what his own religion teaches."
You wrote, "You make a good point about the Pope being Infallibility and his command was a religious command."

Maybe you should stick with name-calling.   You seem better at that. 

I wrote a long reply, but let's just keep it this simple.

People often use the 10 commandments as the defacto moral and religious way to act for Christians, Jews and Muslims. If the 10 commandments represent what Christians should do, then don't you think what the Pope says or decree is wrong. He in fact does not represent the religion. So the Pope really has no bearing on his own religion if he counters what his own religion teaches.

You can give all the examples you want, but religion does not degrade anyone. Man does.

[hmgROCK]

Oh please, I don't know anything about you and you don't know anything about me. Don't make assertions about people. So just stop here.

I don't give a 'hoot' about the Pope. Catholicism is a wolf in disguise, Islam is controlled opposition, most Protestant Christians are sheeple. Buddhism and Hindu, I don't know enough about yet. Judaism is nothing more than a puppet religion.

Your the type of person who will suck the head juice out of those jumbo shrimp
I don't blame you
Them shrimp are delicious



Practice what you preach
Why go every Sunday if you not going follow the rules

[FetishDream]

*yawns*

You asked, "So out of the blue, pope urban calls for a religious war? "  It doesn't matter.  But for the sake of debate, let's give your argument it's best case.  Let's say that he was influenced.  The result is still that he called it.

You asked, "You blame on the chicken or the egg?"  Well, this question makes no sense. 

You wrote, " If you call me a dummy, you should and could always get schooling from a dummy."  No one called you a dummy.  It's all in your own head. 

Now let's see you dance around the issue and questions.   

I'm calling you out on your facts.  They are not even accurate.  You probably did not even know that it was a call to aid the Byzantine emperor's request had you were not educated in this one thread alone. 

I saw what you did there.  YOu better edited your reply because you said something stupid again.  The catholic church has an army huh?  Check your facts before you typed stupid.