There are examples in this thread of Christians being murdered because of their faith in those countries.Sapient wrote:Actually, many countries don't have a problem with Christians in the middle east, such as the Levant. Syria and Egypt.
Moderator: Community Team
There are examples in this thread of Christians being murdered because of their faith in those countries.Sapient wrote:Actually, many countries don't have a problem with Christians in the middle east, such as the Levant. Syria and Egypt.
You can find outliers anywhere.mrswdk wrote:There are examples in this thread of Christians being murdered because of their faith in those countries.Sapient wrote:Actually, many countries don't have a problem with Christians in the middle east, such as the Levant. Syria and Egypt.
You seem to have missed the point about how that figure of 100,000 per year is vastly exaggerated, so I'll quote it again.mrswdk wrote:I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of grieving family members would be comforted by your assurances that their relatives were just 'outliers'.
Metsfanmax wrote:That's not the original source; that's secondhand information. Since no one was looking it up, I googled the quote. And lo and behold, the BBC did our job for us:mrswdk wrote:The Vatican is the source. I told you exactly who I was quoting in my OP.
Its researchers started by estimating the number of Christians who died as martyrs between 2000 and 2010 - about one million by their reckoning - and divided that number by 10 to get an annual number, 100,000.
But how do they reach that figure of one million?
When you dig down, you see that the majority died in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
More than four million are estimated to have been killed in that war between 2000 and 2010, and CSGC counts 900,000 of them - or 20% - as martyrs.
Over 10 years, that averages out at 90,000 per year.
So when you hear that 100,000 Christians are dying for their faith, you need to keep in mind that the vast majority - 90,000 - are people who were killed in DR Congo.
This means we can say right away that the internet rumours of Muslims being behind the killing of 100,000 Christian martyrs are nonsense. The DRC is a Christian country. In the civil war, Christians were killing Christians.

So true,the cartoon captures the 'spoilt brat mentality' of so many of the religious,born out of getting their own way for millennia,and their extraordinary sense of their own specialness.If you have a direct personal relationship with the divine and you somehow delude yourself that you know what she wants it's only to be expected you would have contempt for those of us that are so less fortunate.Sapient wrote:

No, not religious. Just Christians. You clearly did not understand the comic.chang50 wrote:So true,the cartoon captures the 'spoilt brat mentality' of so many of the religious,born out of getting their own way for millennia,and their extraordinary sense of their own specialness.If you have a direct personal relationship with the divine and you somehow delude yourself that you know what she wants it's only to be expected you would have contempt for those of us that are so less fortunate.Sapient wrote:
Woah. I live in a Christian theocracy? Do tell!GeneralMao wrote:I don't think Muslims invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and want to blow up Iran recently. Last time I checked it was the Christian Americans and George evangelical Bush that killed thousands of Muslims, invaded their land for oil and Israel.
True the cartoon singles out Christians,but to be fair to them it describes a mentality common to a lot of religious adherents..thegreekdog wrote:No, not religious. Just Christians. You clearly did not understand the comic.chang50 wrote:So true,the cartoon captures the 'spoilt brat mentality' of so many of the religious,born out of getting their own way for millennia,and their extraordinary sense of their own specialness.If you have a direct personal relationship with the divine and you somehow delude yourself that you know what she wants it's only to be expected you would have contempt for those of us that are so less fortunate.Sapient wrote:
What do you mean by "a lot?" 90%? 40%?chang50 wrote:True the cartoon singles out Christians,but to be fair to them it describes a mentality common to a lot of religious adherents..thegreekdog wrote:No, not religious. Just Christians. You clearly did not understand the comic.chang50 wrote:So true,the cartoon captures the 'spoilt brat mentality' of so many of the religious,born out of getting their own way for millennia,and their extraordinary sense of their own specialness.If you have a direct personal relationship with the divine and you somehow delude yourself that you know what she wants it's only to be expected you would have contempt for those of us that are so less fortunate.Sapient wrote:
Hmm, I get that you're annoyed, but consider at least that I made the effort to work out a reasonable discussion.thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think putting the question a different way is going to get you to answer it. So, I'll say again, you're wrong.
I'm not annoyed. There is nothing to be annoyed about. Typically, when I'm correct about something, I'm happy, not annoyed. That is the case here. I'm happy.Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I get that you're annoyed, but consider at least that I made the effort to work out a reasonable discussion.thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think putting the question a different way is going to get you to answer it. So, I'll say again, you're wrong.
What would we have to do to establish a reasonable discussion? Assuming you would like one, of course.thegreekdog wrote:I'm not annoyed. There is nothing to be annoyed about. Typically, when I'm correct about something, I'm happy, not annoyed. That is the case here. I'm happy.Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I get that you're annoyed, but consider at least that I made the effort to work out a reasonable discussion.thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think putting the question a different way is going to get you to answer it. So, I'll say again, you're wrong.
And no, you did not make an effort at a reasonable discussion.
How about we start back here?Symmetry wrote:What would we have to do to establish a reasonable discussion? Assuming you would like one, of course.thegreekdog wrote:I'm not annoyed. There is nothing to be annoyed about. Typically, when I'm correct about something, I'm happy, not annoyed. That is the case here. I'm happy.Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I get that you're annoyed, but consider at least that I made the effort to work out a reasonable discussion.thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think putting the question a different way is going to get you to answer it. So, I'll say again, you're wrong.
And no, you did not make an effort at a reasonable discussion.
Ok dude, as I replied earlier, I hadn't considered those wars. I'm willing to consider them if you let me know of a conflict you consider to be a crusade.thegreekdog wrote:How about we start back here?Symmetry wrote:What would we have to do to establish a reasonable discussion? Assuming you would like one, of course.thegreekdog wrote:I'm not annoyed. There is nothing to be annoyed about. Typically, when I'm correct about something, I'm happy, not annoyed. That is the case here. I'm happy.Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I get that you're annoyed, but consider at least that I made the effort to work out a reasonable discussion.thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think putting the question a different way is going to get you to answer it. So, I'll say again, you're wrong.
And no, you did not make an effort at a reasonable discussion.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p4343123
Well, I agree with the free dictionary's definitions of the term crusade:Symmetry wrote:The short of it is, if you don't think anything is a crusade then there is no point in further discussion- you will always say that anything declared as a crusade is not a crusade, but you won't give an example of a crusade.
Thanks for the web dictionary definition and all, but it sort of seems like you just googled "crusade" and went with whatever you could find first.thegreekdog wrote:Well, I agree with the free dictionary's definitions of the term crusade:Symmetry wrote:The short of it is, if you don't think anything is a crusade then there is no point in further discussion- you will always say that anything declared as a crusade is not a crusade, but you won't give an example of a crusade.
1. often Crusade - any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.Symmetry wrote:Urgh
2. a holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
3. a vigorous, concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.
A religious crusade (recall that this is a thread with a religious context) would fit into definitions 1. and 2. World War 2 (and, to sabotage's point, your posts in this thread maybe) were crusades as defined by 3. But not religious crusades. Perhaps the war in Afghanistan is a vigorous, concerted movement for a cause or against abuse. But you called it a religious crusade in a thread about religion, so you appear to think that the war in Afghanistan falls into the 1. and 2. definitions.
Sapient wrote:Lets see, I was born in Detroit, lived in Michigan for a while. Went to high school in North Carolina. Joined the Air Force, became an Airborne Cryptologic Linguist in Levantine Arabic (dialects of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine). Did that for a bit. Left. Now I'm going to school for computer engineering (only working on my associate's) as I work at a movie theater for pennies.![]()
Oh, and I'm living in Charlotte, NC currently. How about yourself, Utah?
