Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Does "god" have a sense of humour?
Topic Started: Aug 29 2017, 11:13 AM (509 Views)
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I saw this in the Independent, and it made me chuckle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christian-home-destroyed-flood-tony-perkins-natural-disasters-gods-punishment-homosexuality-a7196786.html

Quote:
 
Louisiana floods destroy home of Christian leader who says God sends natural disasters to punish gay people


A flood has destroyed the home of a Christian lobbyist who preached that God sends natural disasters to punish gays.

President of the controversial Christian group Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, described a deluge of “near biblical proportions” hitting his Louisiana home.

During a broadcast on the group’s radio station, he told how he and his family had fled in a canoe.



So, does God have a sense of humour, or has Mr Perkins got some skeletons he wants to get out of the closet?

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 6 2017, 10:13 AM
Curious Cdn
Sep 6 2017, 10:10 AM
C-too
Sep 6 2017, 07:14 AM
We all carry fear at some level we just deal with it in many different ways. Believing in God is one way, owning various guns is another.
I believe in a god that has guns.

It's an American Evangelical thing.
Quite.
Posted Image
Reference the picture - how very fundamentalist Islam - except they haven't got A10s with GAU8s.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Sep 6 2017, 06:59 PM
Reference the picture - how very fundamentalist Islam - except they haven't got A10s with GAU8s.
Yeah because the Crusaders spread Christianity via peace - right.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 6 2017, 09:31 PM
Oddball
Sep 6 2017, 06:59 PM
Reference the picture - how very fundamentalist Islam - except they haven't got A10s with GAU8s.
Yeah because the Crusaders spread Christianity via peace - right.

All The Best
What nationalities did the Crusaders consist of?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 6 2017, 09:31 PM
Oddball
Sep 6 2017, 06:59 PM
Reference the picture - how very fundamentalist Islam - except they haven't got A10s with GAU8s.
Yeah because the Crusaders spread Christianity via peace - right.

All The Best
Yeh, and if you care to skirt all the bullshit spoken of the Crusades you might just become aware that the core reason was to secure the safty of Christian pilgrims. Yes, some Crusaders lost the plot a bit, but then so did the naughty Saracens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Sep 7 2017, 02:35 AM
Yeh, and if you care to skirt all the bullshit spoken of the Crusades you might just become aware that the core reason was to secure the safty of Christian pilgrims. Yes, some Crusaders lost the plot a bit, but then so did the naughty Saracens.
Yeah, the "safety of pilgrims" who though they had a right to just wander through another country and demand control of parts of that county.

Here's the opening paragraph of wiki on the Crusades:
Quote:
 
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The most commonly known are the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule but the term "Crusades" is also applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns. These were fought for a variety of reasons including suppressing paganism and heresy, the resolution of conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups, or for political and territorial advantage. At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades


I see mention of suppressing ideas the church didn't like and the mealy-mouthed "recovering the holy land" to cover stealing land that someone else had but they wanted.

Don't see any mention of securing the safety of anything.

Then we have the Northern Crusades that really only continued the violence against non-Christians that Charlemagne started a few hundred years earlier, with the intent of forcibly converting Germany to Catholicism.


The Reconquista may be the only Crusade that had a "recovery" aim rather than an expansionist, conversion-ist, or suppression-ist aim; but even then Catholicism was not the native religion of the Iberian Peninsular.


All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 7 2017, 05:45 AM
Oddball
Sep 7 2017, 02:35 AM
Yeh, and if you care to skirt all the bullshit spoken of the Crusades you might just become aware that the core reason was to secure the safety of Christian pilgrims. Yes, some Crusaders lost the plot a bit, but then so did the naughty Saracens.
Yeah, the "safety of pilgrims" who though they had a right to just wander through another country and demand control of parts of that county.

Here's the opening paragraph of wiki on the Crusades:
Quote:
 
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The most commonly known are the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule but the term "Crusades" is also applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns. These were fought for a variety of reasons including suppressing paganism and heresy, the resolution of conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups, or for political and territorial advantage. At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades


I see mention of suppressing ideas the church didn't like and the mealy-mouthed "recovering the holy land" to cover stealing land that someone else had but they wanted.

Don't see any mention of securing the safety of anything.


Then we have the Northern Crusades that really only continued the violence against non-Christians that Charlemagne started a few hundred years earlier, with the intent of forcibly converting Germany to Catholicism.


The Reconquista may be the only Crusade that had a "recovery" aim rather than an expansionist, conversion-ist, or suppression-ist aim; but even then Catholicism was not the native religion of the Iberian Peninsular.


All The Best
'The First Crusade (1096-1099 CE)

The spark that set off the Crusades was struck in the East, when the Byzantines first confronted a new Moslem force, the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuk Turks were originally an Asian horde which, like the Huns of earlier times, had penetrated far into the West. By the eleventh century the Seljuk Turks controlled much of the Levant. With Persia in their control, including Baghdad, the capital of the Moslem world, they presented a terrifying prospect: of "Moslem Huns," or Mongol jihadis.

Byzantine concern turned to panic when Turkish forces began expanding into eastern Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Byzantines were defeated by the Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071and stood on the verge of losing the whole of Asia Minor. Casting about for help and finding none nearby, they were forced to go for their last resort, appealing for aid from the Catholic West.'


Do you reckon it was OK for the Arabs to expand, plunder and pillage, 'coz that was OK, so long as it was at least nominally in the name of their cobbled up 'Allah'? Actually, when the A-rabs first swept into Jerusalem and the Holy Land, it seems it wasn't even nominally in the name of 'Allah', it seems his name, and indeed Big Mo's, only appeared some while later.
Edited by Oddball, Sep 7 2017, 07:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Sep 7 2017, 07:03 AM
Do you reckon it was OK for the Arabs to expand, plunder and pillage, 'coz that was OK, so long as it was at least nominally in the name of their cobbled up 'Allah'?
I was no more or less OK that the Crusaders doing exactly the same to expand the power of the church under the guise of doing in the name of their cobbled up "god".

Here's the thing you miss: Judaism, Christianity, Islam - three corrupt fruits, from the same corrupt tree, worshiping the same barbaric deity.



All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yep ^

Oddball's post reeks of the 'I see someone doing bad so now it's OK for me and my mates to do loads of bad things' school of thought

Otherwise known as evil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2017, 08:14 AM
Yep ^

Oddball's post reeks of the 'I see someone doing bad so now it's OK for me and my mates to do loads of bad things' school of thought

Otherwise known as evil
Nowt of the sort - on the 'Christian side' it appears more to have been pilgrims and Byzantine interests in the Holy Land being threatened, and a reluctant appeal for aid to a rival in the area of Christianity - things initially being relatively OK, then the Kings, and Lords being tempted by more worldly gains and going a bit pear-shaped.

Steve - I would like to give you a blasting, but, you hold the POWER.

PV - Islam does not hold to the same 'God' as Judaism or Christianity - you really need to do your homework.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Sep 7 2017, 03:16 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2017, 08:14 AM
Yep ^

Oddball's post reeks of the 'I see someone doing bad so now it's OK for me and my mates to do loads of bad things' school of thought

Otherwise known as evil
Nowt of the sort - on the 'Christian side' it appears more to have been pilgrims and Byzantine interests in the Holy Land being threatened, and a reluctant appeal for aid to a rival in the area of Christianity - things initially being relatively OK, then the Kings, and Lords being tempted by more worldly gains and going a bit pear-shaped.

Steve - I would like to give you a blasting, but, you hold the POWER.

PV - Islam does not hold to the same 'God' as Judaism or Christianity - you really need to do your homework.
Blast? Well you're free to attack the message. That's what I did

And if someone posts "Do you reckon it was OK for the Arabs to expand, plunder and pillage, . ." in response to someone outlining the atrocities of the Crusaders, then that post is very much is going to reek of the 'I see someone doing bad so now it's OK for me and my mates to do loads of bad things' philosophy isn't it. Especially when said post offers not a hint of condemnation of the Crusader atrocities.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply