Jihad 101

[Plane]

and??? your point, Plane?

Fat finger flub.

[Michael Tee]

<<So you think Christians are just murderers by nature?>>

No, I made it very clear in one of my recent posts that, given the lie at the very centre of their religion, they really have no option but to kill those who will not be convinced by their lies.  I guess I should have been a little clearer in ascribing the policy to the leaders only, since the rank and file really don't give a shit and may in fact be taken in by all the "peace and love" that the killingest religion in history loves to bedeck itself in.

<<I don't think your game of "they started it" is a very well respected analytical view of history. The original Crusade was in fact called because the leader of the Byzantine Empire asked for help from Latin Christendom, to help fight the invading Muslims. >>

That's exactly what I mean.  As the successors to the Roman Empire in the East, the Byzantine Emperor had a lot of land to defend, none of it his by any right except that of conquest.  The actual target of the First Crusade, for example, was the Jewish Homeland, which neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims had any God-damn right to.  The Crusaders jumped into this on behalf of their fellow Christians, and along the way tortured, raped and slaughtered thousands of defenceless Jews.  But I suppose that was OK because the Byzantine Emperor must have signed off on that too.

<<Before you jump down my throat again . . . >>

Sorry if I seemed to be jumping down your throat, I detected or thought I detected a patronizing note in your post and reacted accordingly.  Next time I'll just turn the other cheek. 

<<I'm not saying that justifies anything, but the Byzantine Empire was being invaded and did ask for aid.>>

We should get back to the original point at issue here.  It was whether the Christian religion (as opposed to the Fountain of Evil Muslim religion) is or is not the "Religion of Peace."  I'm sure that ANY belligerent can justify its belligerence one way or another - - my friend was being attacked, they were hiding weapons of mass destruction, we had to bring them democracy, etc., etc., etc.   Rarely if ever has a belligerent justified its actions with morally disreputable reasons:  We wanted their oil, God told us to kill them, etc.  In other words, I don't think we were discussing whether Christianity was a peaceful religion with some really nifty reasons for making war, just simply was it peaceful or not.  They can find as many good reasons for going to war as there are hairs in the beards of all their saints.  They are true geniuses at finding a cause for war in any situation.  But surely none of that is relevant to the point.

<< It was not as simple as you make it out to be, where a bunch of Christians with blood dripping from their teeth dragged their knuckles down to Jerusalem out of sheer hatred mixed with greed and envy.>>

Well, let's say they went to Jerusalem with motives so lofty and noble that even Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky would have given their seal of approval.  The fact remains that in fulfilling all this noble and lofty dream, they stacked up a whole lot of dead bodies of Jews and other infidels, as they have done in over 2,000 years of unrelieved slaughter, and at the end of the day, the Religion of Peace through some strange irony of history has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions.  Am I allowed to at least comment on the irony of the situation?

<<In fact, many of the cases you discuss are rather complex, such as the Spanish Inquisition. Saying they are complex, does not justify what happened . . . >>

So why mention it?

<< . . .  but it does acknowledge that the Church wasn't simply impaling everyone with a cross because they were different.>>

Got it.  Their motives could have been worse.  And the body count is: ________

[Plane]

"has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions"


I can understand this being your opinion , but do you have a real comparison to make?

Do you have the figures on how many Indians died while the Mongols were takeing it for Allah?

[Michael Tee]

<<Get DOWN, we agree!

<<Am I now then an Honorary Canadian?>>

Professor, I had to laugh at the very thought that you would even show a passing interest in honorary citizenship in such a hell-hole of socialism and moral depravity, but geeze, yeah, even with your bizarre social values, this country would be honoured to have you.  We need to know first if you know how to get into a canoe.

[The_Professor]

Depends upon the SIZE of the canoe...lol

[Plane]

I have a canoe , made in Canada , it makes my Toyota look like a turtle.

[Michael Tee]

<<Where Jews were allowed to live in peace amoung the Muslims in anchient times were they subject to Dimi?

<< I don't think we want to be Dimi.>>

plane, I don't think you got my point.  It was not that the Muslims were perfect and treated Jews or Christians among them the way my aunts and uncles treated me and my folks when we came to visit.  There were some rough spots.  Granted.  But on a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is the absolute rock-bottom worst in the way human beings can be treated, I would say, very roughly, the Muslims were at about 20 and the Christians were close to 100.  You simply have no idea of the scope of the massacres, the expulsions, the robberies - - the Christians conducted massacres on the level of the Crusades or the Holocaust, the Muslims might in one BIG riot in a city, one time, maybe kill a couple of thousand.  Much less frequently too, I might add.

So while Dimi is not an ideal way to go, it sure as hell beats massacres and pogroms hands-down.


<<Also , Zen Buddism was the favoriate of the Saumari . . . >>

maybe just for its meditative techniques?

<< . . . and was commoinly practiced in the Japaneese Imperial Army, there is no requirement in Buddism or Shinto that requires exclusivity.>>

Well, I realize that exclusivity is not required in either Buddhism or Shinto  but one of the key tenets of Buddhism, one of the eight steps in the Eightfold Path, is ahimsa, or harmlessness.  It's really kind of hard to see how a Buddhhist can practice ahimsa and be a soldier.  Whereas Shinto places no such limitation on conduct.  The shrine to the deceased war criminals is definitely a Shinto and not a Buddhist shrine.

<<One of the best books on Military Zen is the"Book of Five Rings " by Miyamoto Musashi and I must admit it is a good read, even though  Miyamoto Musashi is also famous for killing the Christians of Nagasaki.>>

Are you sure that it's Buddhist?  Does it mention the Eightfold Path?  Does it mention ahimsa?  And if so, how does it reconcile ahimsa with the military?

[Michael Tee]

<<I have a canoe , made in Canada , it makes my Toyota look like a turtle.>>

Yeah?  Who made it?  Fabric or aluminum?

[Michael Tee]

<<I concur. Interesting how you post an expert, a gentleman who has authored seven books and people rip into him as if he's a schmuck. How many of YOU have authored even ONE? (self-publishing doesn't count)>>

My daughter wrote one, published in Canada and the U.S.A.  My first cousin wrote one, published in the U.S.A.  My dad never wrote a book but some of his business letters were collected by people he did business with and published in a style book, a sort of how-to for writing business correspondence that was published here in Canada.  He was a great letter writer, not only for business letters.  My ex-secretary wrote two books, both self-published but one has already paid for its production costs and is still flying off the shelves. 

People here have often told me I oughtta write a book, and you know what, I fully intend to.  I know all about the business, I helped with all the books that my friends and family wrote and I don't think it's all that difficult.  The one I'd really like to write about is about some sexual adventures with older married women that I let slip through my fingers when I was a teenager just through sheer inexperience and stupidity and then some later more successful adventures with strippers and dancers before I got married,because there's a ton of lessons in those experiences, but I'm afraid my wife would get really pissed off, also some of the family of the two older women, one of whom is still alive; also a book about the Jews and the Palestinian issue, but then nobody would ever want to speak to me again.  I need to find a good subject that isn't gonna get me in hot water and then cut loose.  Believe it or not, the hardest fucking thing is to find a subject.  I just can't get this thing off the ground.  But I know it's gonna happen.

[Michael Tee]

<<I can understand this being your opinion [that Christianity has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions] but do you have a real comparison to make?

<<Do you have the figures on how many Indians died while the Mongols were takeing it for Allah?>>

Jeeziz, plane, you have got to stop taking me so literally.  I am trying to make a point here, that Christianity is NOT the "Religion of Peace," whatever else it may or may not be.  I mean, THINK about it:  if we really could do an accurate count, and Christianity only came in second or third, would THAT make it the "Religion of Peace?" 

(Although I still believe, given the Holocaust and the Crusades, the pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition and the extermination of the North and South American Indians and other stuff, that I can't even think of another religion that comes close,)

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, groups like Jews for Jesus have converted many Jews into Messianic Jews.>>

The only Jews I know who have been converted like that (there are two of them, sisters) are pathetic losers, lost souls.  I really feel sorry for them.  Plus one other guy, also a loser.  A nice guy, but . . .  It kind of reminds me of the Duke of Windsor -- after he made his choice, which was basically to walk away from his responsibilities, nobody had any respect for him any more.  Jewish converts to Christianity are sad, sad people.

<<And, as you know, it all comes down to faith anyway.>>

Honest to God, Professor, I don't know what it comes down to.  In the case of the two women I know, I think it really came down to loneliness.  In the case of the male, he was cheated by his own father.

<<I postulate, MT, that looking at the created versus the Creator is a typcial, if misguided, approach, e.g do you also take excpetion with with what Jesus Christ said, or the actions of His followers?>>

As I understand it, Professor, it was Jesus' followers and not Jesus who claimed he was of divine origin, but whoever said it, I certainly take exception.  That is absolutely blasphemous for a Jew to say, although it's OK for a gentile to say it because they're not God's people anyway so they can worship whoever or whatever they like.  Also I take exception to some of the things Jesus said, like it's better to rip out your own eye than to look lustfully at a woman, which is so fucking stupid I can't understand why his followers would even publish it, also "turn the other cheek," which is a recipe for suicide.  But as stupid and misguided as Jesus' sayings (some of them) may be, they're as nothing compared to the horrendous actions of his followers.  But I don't expect better, really - - since the religion is based on a lie, I don't expect a whole lot of good to come from it.  Actually, it's amazing that ANYTHING good has come out of it.  But even religions based on truth (Buddhism for example) don't always produce good results, however you can certainly expect more good to come from them than, say, from Christianity.

BTW, I don't object to EVERYTHING Jesus said, some of it was OK - - like when he tells the Jews, don't worry so much about what goes INTO your mouths, worry more about what comes out of them.  I loved that.  Or when the guy asks you to carry his pack a half-mile, you should carry it a mile.  And what Lanya quoted, Whosoever harmest the least of us . . .  And one of my dad's favourites, and mine, "Sufficient unto the day . . . "

[Michael Tee]

<<That is certainly not what Jesus promised or proposed [that the Messiah would usher in an era of everlasting peace] he told his deciples that they would suffer and that suffering in his name was blessed.>>

What I meant was that the Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament (from the very little that I know of these things) was going to usher in a new era of peace and love - - therefore, that Jesus, who so far has ushered in about two thousand years of torture and murder and mayhem - - could not possibly be the Messiah of the Old Testament.

<<On this subject , do you know who Wiliam Wilberforce is?>>

Wasn't he an Englishman who campaigned for an end to slavery in the Empire or an end to the slave trade or something like that?

<<Do you know of any people, religion or group other then Christians ,who haveing Slaves gave them up ?>>

Yeah the Jubilee - - weren't the Jews supposed to free all their slaves every 50 years or some such nonsense?  I'll bet anything they figured out some way to get around it.  Actually the only slave-holding religions I know about in modern times are the Muslims and the Christians.  I can't really think of any decent religion that would permit anyone to own a slave.  The fact that the Christians gave them up - - INVOLUNTARILY, at the point of a G.A.R. bayonet - - is nothing to be proud of.  It's like the Germans boasting "Do you know any other people who shut down an extermination camp?"

<<WW of course would have given all the glory to God , but I still admire him too.>>

I'm sure he was a good man in a society of bad men.

[Richpo64]

>>  I'm not knocking your right to express an opinion but could you at least put a little meat on it next time?<<

Why? You're predictable and a prick.

Why shoud I bother?

[Richpo64]

>>As you might notice, a whole bunch of posts are missing here. I asked JS to remove them. I was OK answering general questions in a public forum, but when you start asking about my child, you've gone too far.<<

What did I ask about your child? You brought him up, not me.

Nice censorship though. Reminds me of an article I posted. I think I know enough about you without going any further.

[Richpo64]

>>The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views.<<

What nonsense.