This makes one wonder...

[Iceweasel]

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

So now you have established that you have a comprehension problem exacerbated by an inability to apply logic and reason. No point in wasting any further time and effort with someone who doesn't understands the basics of debating and lacks the skills to engage in them. Have a nice day.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your source is RBC Ministeries which has a religious agenda as stated right on the top of the webpage your link goes to.

That doesn't make them liars or wrong. The content makes them right or wrong.
So ministries are in the business of rewritting history? Interesting. Can you back that up. I mean with something other than a braindead wikilink. I have no idea what you find intolerant, you don't say but it took several posts to figure out what wars you were talking about.

Furthermore he quotes someone making an utterly false equivalence and an equally erroneous conclusion which all goes to the motivation of whitewashing history.

Obviously you "fall" for what was written in your link but others prefer to have facts that don't come with an inbuilt bias towards a religious agenda.

You still need to come up with an unbiased source to support your position. So far you haven't.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

That's it...When the facts don't fit your narrative, attack the source.
Lame.

When you cannot produce unbiased facts to substantiate your allegation you have nothing but your opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

So now you have established that you have a comprehension problem exacerbated by an inability to apply logic and reason. No point in wasting any further time and effort with someone who doesn't understands the basics of debating and lacks the skills to engage in them. Have a nice day.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

You haven't established that any bigotry is involved whereas I have established that your source has an obvious bias and therefore lacks credibility. You were challenged to find an unbiased source to support your position. You have failed to do so and therefore you have conceded.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's it...When the facts don't fit your narrative, attack the source.
Lame.

And it was an article on a book that was written, not their own stance on the subject and is apparently pretty well documented. If the author is wrong I'd like to see a good rebuttal.

I said it was 1,000 years since any real Christian wars went on but I would sure change that to 400 years or whatever. It was a minor point to the issue but saying wrong because it's on a Christian site isn't intellectually honest.

 

[Iceweasel]

So now you have established that you have a comprehension problem exacerbated by an inability to apply logic and reason. No point in wasting any further time and effort with someone who doesn't understands the basics of debating and lacks the skills to engage in them. Have a nice day.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

You haven't established that any bigotry is involved whereas I have established that your source has an obvious bias and therefore lacks credibility. You were challenged to find an unbiased source to support your position. You have failed to do so and therefore you have conceded.

I did indeed. You could point to any bias or error in the article of the book, the sfact that it was on a Christian site was good enough for you to dismiss. How can Wikipedia be unbiased anyway since anyone can contribute? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

You haven't established that any bigotry is involved whereas I have established that your source has an obvious bias and therefore lacks credibility. You were challenged to find an unbiased source to support your position. You have failed to do so and therefore you have conceded.

I did indeed. You could point to any bias or error in the article of the book, the sfact that it was on a Christian site was good enough for you to dismiss. How can Wikipedia be unbiased anyway since anyone can contribute? It doesn't make sense.

Sure I can!

If there truly were a war of all sects against all, one would expect that war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions.

The statement above is a completely baseless assumption. What is the basis for the assumption that the "war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions"? Why does it have to be "soon after"?

This second one is even more telling;

Cavanaugh provides massive documentation showing that rather than the state being the peace-making force that eventually solved the problem of religiously motivated violence, the process of centralizing public authority in a secular state was itself the most significant cause of violence. “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transfer of power to the emergent state was a cause, not the solution, to the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ibid., p. 162).

Placing the blame on the state rather than dealing with the underlying cause of the Protestant Reformation is disingenuous. It was the advent of the printing press and the availability of the bible to the masses that enabled individuals to read for themselves what it contained rather than having to be told what it contained by the Catholic church.

So the author of that book was rewriting history so as to remove the blame from Christians warring between Catholic and Protestant and instead trying to find an alternative scapegoat.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

You haven't established that any bigotry is involved whereas I have established that your source has an obvious bias and therefore lacks credibility. You were challenged to find an unbiased source to support your position. You have failed to do so and therefore you have conceded.

I did indeed. You could point to any bias or error in the article of the book, the sfact that it was on a Christian site was good enough for you to dismiss. How can Wikipedia be unbiased anyway since anyone can contribute? It doesn't make sense.

The concept of Wikipedia is that it is self correcting. All sources in Wikipedia must be quoted. Failure to quote a source is always highlighted by the editors. If an error is identified in Wikipedia it is corrected as soon as it is verified.

That anyone can contribute does not invalidate Wikipedia. If someone were to contribute something that was factually incorrect it would first have to get past the editors. In the event that it did slip through then if anyone who was reading it finds the error and notifies Wikipedia it will be corrected.

So it does make perfect sense to anyone who understands how it works.

 

[Iceweasel]

If there truly were a war of all sects against all, one would expect that war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions.

The statement above is a completely baseless assumption. What is the basis for the assumption that the "war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions"? Why does it have to be "soon after"?

It's an assumption but not 'baseless'. He says:
"Two well-known examples involved the establishment of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s reasons for breaking with the Catholic Church were theological, but the Reformation would have been quickly crushed if it hadn’t been supported by powerful European rulers whose motivations were primarily political and economic."

So the rulers kept things in check for political and economic reasons for a while. Then he says:

"King Henry VIII of England separated from Rome and formed the Anglican Church for pragmatic, nonreligious reasons—largely due to the refusal of the pope to grant an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He believed the Catholic Church was interfering with the internal affairs of his kingdom. He also wanted to nationalize the vast holdings of the Catholic Church in England to consolidate his power."

So there was a power shift away from the Catholic Church, not just theological. And the war wasn't even with the Lutherans:

"The Catholic prosecutor of the Schmalkaldic War, Holy Roman emperor Charles V, spent much of the decade following Luther’s excommunication in 1520 at war not against Lutherans, but against the pope.

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1540s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories (The Myth of Religious Violence, 143-44)."

Over theology? I don't think so.

This second one is even more telling;

Cavanaugh provides massive documentation showing that rather than the state being the peace-making force that eventually solved the problem of religiously motivated violence, the process of centralizing public authority in a secular state was itself the most significant cause of violence. “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transfer of power to the emergent state was a cause, not the solution, to the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ibid., p. 162).

Placing the blame on the state rather than dealing with the underlying cause of the Protestant Reformation is disingenuous. It was the advent of the printing press and the availability of the bible to the masses that enabled individuals to read for themselves what it contained rather than having to be told what it contained by the Catholic church.

So the author of that book was rewriting history so as to remove the blame from Christians warring between Catholic and Protestant and instead trying to find an alternative scapegoat.

He wasn't rewriting history, he was pointing some history worth considering. And in order to understand history the more you know the better you'll understand it.

"The historical evidence renders . . . the idea that the modern state saved Europe from religious violence . . . unbelievable. State building . . . was a significant cause of the violence. An important aspect of state building was the absorption of the church by the state, which exacerbated and enforced ecclesial differences and therefore contributed to warfare between Catholics and Protestants. In the process, the state did not rein in and tame religion but became itself sacralized. The transfer of power from the church to the state was accompanied by a migration of the holy from church to state (ibid., p. 176)."

Which lines up with history as I understand it. The "religious wars" seem to have started with Charles V, which looks more like a power and control (by the state) than a war over doctrine.

Martin Luther . The Characters . Charles V | PBS
Charles V settled in Germany and sought to become the leader of a universal empire. Through his reign he would face ongoing battles with France, resist the advance of the Ottoman Turks and for the sake of political expediency and inattention failed to check the Reformation.

Like many others, Charles underestimated the dissatisfaction of his Catholic subjects and the influence a humble German monk would wield through his defiant pen.

Despite being a devout Catholic Charles V was acutely conscious of Papal power and it was in his interest for the Vatican to be destabilised.

At the Diet of Worms Charles absolutely opposed Luther but did not rescind an undertaking that he could leave safely thus saving Luther from execution as a heretic.

Charles was soon preoccupied by battles with France and the Ottoman Turks and did not check the spread of Protestantism sweeping his Empire.

He spent the rest of his life waging war in France, Germany and Spain, indeed it was only after his death in 1558 that a peace treaty was signed with France.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The same thing that makes you and everyone else ‘tick.’

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

True, instead we pick up a gun and start shooting people. Deaths by terrorism are on a par with being struck by lightning.

Guns, cars, smoking, obesity kill off way more people each year.

So what makes Americans "tick" so that they overlook the self inflicted carnage on our doorsteps and point a finger at others?

Lightning doesn't do it on purpose and select opponents of its faith as targets.
What an incredible crock of excuse-making for murderers. An accomplice.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That doesn't make them liars or wrong. The content makes them right or wrong.
So ministries are in the business of rewritting history? Interesting. Can you back that up. I mean with something other than a braindead wikilink. I have no idea what you find intolerant, you don't say but it took several posts to figure out what wars you were talking about.
You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

That's it...When the facts don't fit your narrative, attack the source.
Lame.

When you cannot produce unbiased facts to substantiate your allegation you have nothing but your opinion.

"Unbiased"....That is YOUR opinion...The OP is under obligation to make you feel happy. Nor is anyone here going to kiss your ass.
Your demands are dismissed. Stand down.

 

[thereisnospoon]

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

True, instead we pick up a gun and start shooting people. Deaths by terrorism are on a par with being struck by lightning.

Guns, cars, smoking, obesity kill off way more people each year.

So what makes Americans "tick" so that they overlook the self inflicted carnage on our doorsteps and point a finger at others?

Lightning doesn't do it on purpose and select opponents of its faith as targets.
What an incredible crock of excuse-making for murderers. An accomplice.

Derideo is chasing his tail.

 

[Connery]

True, 99% of muslims are descent folk. The question is what makes the 1% who would be willing to put on a vest packed with explosives tick?

I would to see the source for which 99% is claimed. Regardless, for those of us who have suffered at the hands of these scumbags percentage points do not mean shit!

Don't always believe statistics, they will tell you that the average human has one breast and one testicle.

How did you find out? I have never shared that information with anyone!

​

 

[Quadravius]

Nobody here should really give a damn about what another people does in a country on the other side of the world from you. Islam is a peaceful religion, far more so than christianity. And people in muslim countries live simple, happy lives. Does anyone wanna bet which religion has killed the most people in the name of God? I guarantee you its christianity, and not islam.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nobody here should really give a damn about what another people does in a country on the other side of the world from you. Islam is a peaceful religion, far more so than christianity. And people in muslim countries live simple, happy lives. Does anyone wanna bet which religion has killed the most people in the name of God? I guarantee you its christianity, and not islam.

"]Nobody here should really give a damn about what another people does in a country on the other side of the world from you."

So when was Downtown Boston and the World Trade Center annexed by another country(ies)

" Islam is a peaceful religion"....For the most part, the people are indeed peaceful...Until they perceive the slightest insult. Then they become raving lunatics swearing revenge.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's it...When the facts don't fit your narrative, attack the source.
Lame.

When you cannot produce unbiased facts to substantiate your allegation you have nothing but your opinion.

"Unbiased"....That is YOUR opinion...The OP is under obligation to make you feel happy. Nor is anyone here going to kiss your ass.
Your demands are dismissed. Stand down.

You tacit admission of failure to substantiate your position is duly noted for the record. Later!

 

[Derideo_Te]

True, 99% of muslims are descent folk. The question is what makes the 1% who would be willing to put on a vest packed with explosives tick?

I would to see the source for which 99% is claimed. Regardless, for those of us who have suffered at the hands of these scumbags percentage points do not mean shit!

Don't always believe statistics, they will tell you that the average human has one breast and one testicle.

To be accurate the average human has slightly more than one breast and slightly less than one testicle statistically speaking!

 

[Noomi]

...what makes Muslims tick..

The same thing that makes you and everyone else ‘tick.’

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

Neither do 99% of Muslims. Just like 99% of Catholic priests don't molest children.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When you cannot produce unbiased facts to substantiate your allegation you have nothing but your opinion.

"Unbiased"....That is YOUR opinion...The OP is under obligation to make you feel happy. Nor is anyone here going to kiss your ass.
Your demands are dismissed. Stand down.

You tacit admission of failure to substantiate your position is duly noted for the record. Later!

Your failure.
I've presented all the facts necessary to support the OP..
You are in an excuse vortex because you spouted off in defense of Islam.
You will not be permitted to use circular logic to derail the thread.
You're over.

 

[Jughead]

The same thing that makes you and everyone else ‘tick.’

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

Neither do 99% of Muslims. Just like 99% of Catholic priests don't molest children.

As for what makes the 1% (just an estimate) of Muslims tick (and go off on suicide missions), my guess is it may be related to propaganda that they hear from leaders of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah. The influence is obviously greater in countries where these terrorist organizations are allowed to operate.

 

[Esmeralda]

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

Neither do 99% of Muslims. Just like 99% of Catholic priests don't molest children.

As for what makes the 1% (just an estimate) of Muslims tick (and go off on suicide missions), my guess is it may be related to propaganda that they hear from leaders of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah. The influence is obviously greater in countries where these terrorist organizations are allowed to operate.

The impetus for terrorists who claim to be fighting for Muslims and Allah is the Palestinian situation. Take that away and the terrorism groups will fade away. Palestine is the issue.