joe4christ:

Maybe you should ask Ogaga4luv and Unitedsatanist to tell you more about satan, and if you realy want to meet lucifer in person they can help book a meeting for the both of you, maybe then you would believe me cos i'm not sure your shallow mind could reasonably grasp the fact that we aint joking here, so dont get entangled on what you're not ready for.

You fear much to Satan ... Is it because their god is not strong enough to master what he created?
Will you learned very well the philosophy of fear they teach in your church?
I do not believe in demons, much less in gods creator of demons.
Go on with your Bible and fear, education of Europeans in Africa and America.
You are one of the good students ...

logicboy: Religion will always cause war and division. Most christians and muslims deny this fact.

Religion is a tool. Christianity and islam have been used to enslave people and also to free people.


The moment we accept this as a fact, we would all be better off

I disagree. That is like saying land will always cause War, or Resources will always cause war.

I wonder if anyone here is actually reading any of the write ups that I'm writing or am I just wasting my time. Has there ever been a religious war that didn't have a strong political dimension?

Pastor AIO:

I disagree. That is like saying land will always cause War, or Resources will always cause war.

You are one of those christian apologists, arent you? Defending your religion at any cost- even going as far as to deny christianity's evil actions.


1) Land and resources are physical- they are the reason but not the cause. The cause is greed for land/resources. Religion is not physical. Religion is also the cause of fighting. There are people who kill for God, who hate unbelievers and competing religions. They kill because of something they read in a book.

2)Christianity and Islam supported slavery. This is a fact. You can try to deny it but you will always be hit by this fact

Pastor AIO: I wonder if anyone here is actually reading any of the write ups that I'm writing or am I just wasting my time. Has there ever been a religious war that didn't have a strong political dimension?

Dear friend:
I agree with you. Religious wars have political undertones, and possibly even economic well.
But I understand that the problem is not that "for political reasons a religious war breaks out," but most of the time, war breaks out for religious reasons explained seeking political reasons. That is, religious hatred is to be explained by political means.
Although each case is unique.
(Yes, I always read your comments and appreciate)

Pastor AIO: I wonder if anyone here is actually reading any of the write ups that I'm writing or am I just wasting my time. Has there ever been a religious war that didn't have a strong political dimension?

Lol... the thread is likely to be derailed (if it isn't already) probably because you take a while to update.. interesting thread anyway..

Pastor AIO:

This might actually exacerbate the problem. How do you intend to bring about this 'One Type of Religion'?

ELIMINATE FOREIGN CHRISITANITY AND ISLAM. [size=32pt]ALL TRIBES UNITE UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS![/size] When one sets an example, all will follow.

PAGAN 9JA:



ELIMINATE FOREIGN CHRISITANITY AND ISLAM. [size=32pt]ALL TRIBES UNITE UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS![/size] When one sets an example, all will follow.

So those who refuse to give up Christianity and Islam will be..... ?
Good thread, good thread....

musKeeto:
So those who refuse to give up Christianity and Islam will be..... ?
Good thread, good thread....

.............then they can wallow in their own poo. when they see progress and development around them and all their fellow tribe memebers reverting to the old Gods, they too will follow. its all human nature.

"When I see those poor people burnt, beaten and tormented, simply for upholding their religious opinions…….I am forced to believe that there is something in this which transcends human understanding." 
(Catherine de Medici)

Poor Catherine de Medici, she was too much of a politique to truly understand religious conflict. What is a politique?

Politique (French pronunciation: [pɔlitik]) is a term that was used during the sixteenth and seventeenth century Wars of Religion, to describe moderates of both religious faiths (Huguenots and Catholics) who held that only the restoration of a strong monarchy could save France from total collapse. It frequently included a pejorative connotation of moral or religious indifference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique

In other words a politique is someone who is only interested in secular political goals and does not take religion seriously enough to take it as a factor in politics. Queen Elizabeth I of England was a politique too, but she was one that appreciated the power of religion to stir people to act above and beyond what they are normally capable of. It is for this reason that Elizabeth would not entertain any religious discussion when it came to politics in her realm. She would not even discuss it casually. She said that she had no desire to open that window into the souls of men.
Catherine de Medici didn't quite grasp the explosive potentials of religion and treated it too lightly, subsequently resulting in some of the most gruesome and bloody conflicts that Europe had ever seen. Added to her superficial grasp for religious passions, she was also quite a hapless person generally.

I believe that Catherine was actually just simply intellectually interested in the standpoint of the protestant movements. She invited discussion and got involved in them herself (before things got out of hand and she realised the can of worms that she had opened). By the time she realised the danger of what she was dealing with it was too late. Amongst her mistakes was openly discussing and associating with a guy called Theodore Beza who was Calvinist preacher. She even allowed her children (three of whom were to go on to become Kings of France) to flirt with Calvinist attire and mannerisms in full view of the court.

One of her dumbest moves was to invite the representatives of the various religious factions to a symposium discussion in Poissy. This was called the Poissy Colloquy. It was the exact opposite of what Queen Elizabeth I of England would have done. Catherine was hoping to stimulate discussion as if religion is something rational that people can discuss amongst themselves sensibly. Nothing made it more clear to all parties involved that their positions were irreconcilable and it was time for each party to arm themselves to the teeth.

But let us first look at the situation on the ground at the time that Catherine became the ruler in France. Catherine was not a noble, she didn't have a single drop of noble blood in her and this would be a major disadavantage for her. Her family were actually Bankers, The Medici of Florence, who made so much money and gained so much political power that they managed to get two members of the family installed as Popes, and marry her into royalty. Her Uncle was Pope when, in a bid to form a stronger political alliance between the Papacy and the King of France, her uncle married her to the second son of King Francis I of France, Henry.
King Francis was struggling and only just managing to contain the political ambitions of his nobles. The Monarchy itself was weak and the power lay mainly with the nobles. The main players were the Guise Family, who were catholics and controlled most of Eastern France, The Montmorency family were mostly protestant huguenots, but the leader of the family, Anne (this is a man's name), was a staunch catholic. The Montmorencys controlled the center and north of France. Then last but not least was the Bourbon Family which was the senior family in France. In other words if the Valois family (the current Kings of france) were to die out then the Bourbons would provide the next Kings. The Bourbons already ruled a kingdom of their own called Navarre which was in the south of France on the border with spain.

Francis I maintained power and stability by playing these families off against each other. He made Anne de Montmorency his chief adviser and gave him the title of Constable of France. But he would very publicly listen to and seek out the advise of Francis of Guise so that everybody could see that he sought a balanced viewpoint. The Guise and the Montmorency hated each other was a great passion.
In order to contain the power of these great families, especially the Guise who were Catholics, Francis intentionally tolerated the Huguenots (protestants) and allowed them to establish themselves in France as a force to counter the Guises. By the time the Crown realised the destructive potential of trying to manipulate religious camps it was already too late and the Huguenots were already well established in France.
When I say that the huguenots were well established it is important to note that I only mean amongst the nobles cos this was a Nobilities conflict. Half the Nobles in France had converted to Calvinism, yet the population of the common people was still 90% catholic. Again it was a case of the Nobles claiming their historic right to choose their own religion.

Now back to hapless Catherine. Hardly had she married Henry than her uncle the Pope died, so another Pope was appointed (who knew not the Medici). Her marriage became politically pointless. She was a waste of space in the court. A liability even. Yet her father in law, Francis I, was fond of her and would spend time with her and even teach her things about politics and running the state. Then Francis I died and his son, Henry II took over. Henry continued his father's policies of knocking the opposing factions of noble's heads together to maintain balance in the state.
But then Henry II died, leaving the throne to Francis II, his 15 year old son with Catherine. This was when things started to get very shaky. Francis was married to Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, who was an ardent Catholic and a member of the Guise family( her mother was Guise). She had the poor 15 year old boy wrapped around her little finger. She got him to appoint her uncle Francis of Guise as his main adviser. The Montmorency lost all their influence. Francis even stopped listening to his own mother too, in favour of the Guises. During his reign the Huguenots became very persecuted.
Then Francis, who was a sickling, died and the crown was passed on to his brother Charles IX who was only 9 years old. Too young to rule. Catherine moved fast and got herself installed as the Regent (caretaker) of her son's rule. Then she moved on the nobles. She kicked the Guise family out of court, and installed Anthony of Bourbon as the Lieutenant General of the Kingdom. The Bourbon are protestant, remember. Basically she was trying to curtail the power of the Guises, but the risk was that she was now fanning the ambitions of the Bourbons who were the senior family of France.
Meanwhile the Guises were not just going to take it sitting down. 90% of France was catholic and the Guises went to work on building their popularity and power base amongst the common people. Yet it was a big humiliation. Plus none of the nobles could ignore the fact that this woman was not even a Noble. She didn't have a drop of noble blood, her family were bankers and merchants. 'Imagine a duke being told what to do by a merchant'!!. Plus, she wasn't even French, she was Italian!!!! The Guises became her die hard enemies.
Remember that Catherine was a Catholic, her uncle had been a Pope, so once she alienated herself from the Catholics by entertaining Calvinist preachers like Beza and appointing a Huguenot to the position of Lieutenant General, she was between a rock and a hard place. The Guises hated her now and if they rose then they would destroy her, even before she insulted them they had already sidelined her to a position of irrelevance during the reign of her first son. Yet she was a catholic so the Huguenots would destroy her too if she allowed them to have too much power. Survival was a matter of managing the balance of power between the 2 factions.

Yet Catherine continued to remain naive when it came to understanding the fervour of religious passions. She was one of those people that just throws their hands up and says, 'why can't we all just get along, why'? She just didn't seem to get why people would fight over their religious beliefs. People will fight you just simply because they see you talking or shaking hands with someone from another religion.
So one day she plans a visit with her daughter, Elizabeth, who is married to the King of Spain. Present at the meeting was the Duke of Alba a catholic military leader. That impolitic decision to meet her daughter was the spark that ignited a big conflagration.
The Huguenots saw them, and thought, 'look she is planning with the Spanish Catholics to invade us and kill us all'. The Huguenots over reacted and decided to strike first. They attempted to kidnap the young King though he was surrounded by his catholic guards. They failed by it was a very bloody affair. Shocked and very vexed Catherine launched a counter attack against the Huguenots. She totally forgot about her attempts at religious toleration. She withdrew all her edicts of religious toleration and joined the Catholics. However, by this time the Guises hated her. Her only allies hated her. She couldn't do anything that didn't arouse suspicion and any attempt to settle with the Huguenots would only make her position worse.
By the time this latest war cooled down Catherine still had not learned her lesson. Trying to reconcile with the Huguenots she married one of her daughters to Henry of Navarre, a Bourbon and a protestant. It was not known at the time but he would eventually become the first Bourbon King of France after the Valois had died out. At the time though he was a protestant noble and his marriage to the royal princess angered many Catholics (90% of the country).

Again the Protestants started flexing their influence. The young king became spellbound by Coligny, the protestant noble, and fell under his influence. This happened at the expense of Catherine who was once again losing the trust of one of her own sons. Coligny convinced the King to attack Netherlands on the side of the protestants. Remember Netherlands was Spanish and the Dutch nobles were trying to try to free themselves from the rule of the Spanish King, using religion as their excuse. The French army was defeated in Netherlands and now France was afraid that Spain would attack France in retaliation. Remember that Spain was the greatest super power at the time.

Catherine decided on a drastic solution to get her son back from the influence of Coligny. The wedding of her daughter Princess Margaret and Henry prince of Navarre was an occasion that required the presence of all the protestant nobles in Paris for the celebrations. Remember that Paris was a Catholic stronghold. Henry of Navarre was a protestant noble so all his allies and friends, the protestants, would be at the wedding.
Catherine decided to use this opportunity to order the assassination of Coligny. The assassination attempt was botched. Coligny was only wounded. Paris was abuzz. 'who did it'? Investigations began. Catherine panicked. If her son found out she was involved he might not even spare her. She quickly convinced him that the protestants were behind all his problems and that this was the best chance in the world to deal with them once and for all while they were all here in Paris, unarmed. What followed is known today as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. It was a free for all, open season of frenzy against protestants.

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy in French) in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations, followed by a wave of Roman Catholic mob violence, both directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de' Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place six days after the wedding of the king's sister Margaret to the Protestant Henry III of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). This marriage was an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris.
The massacre began on 23 August 1572 (the eve of the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle), two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military and political leader of the Huguenots. The king ordered the killing of a group of Huguenot leaders, including Coligny, and the slaughter spread throughout Paris. Lasting several weeks, the massacre expanded outward to other urban centres and the countryside. Modern estimates for the number of dead vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000.
The massacre also marked a turning point in the French Wars of Religion. The Huguenot political movement was crippled by the loss of many of its prominent aristocratic leaders, as well as many re-conversions by the rank and file, and those who remained were increasingly radicalized. Though by no means unique, it "was the worst of the century's religious massacres." [2] Throughout Europe, it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion".[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

Now Catherine was once again firmly in the camp and at the mercy of the Guises and the Catholics. No protestant would ever trust her again, and her memory would go down in protestant lore as one of the bloodiest of anti-protestants. Henry of Navarre escaped the massacre by quickly converting to Catholicism. He was then allowed to leave Paris. Once he returned to the safety of the south of France he reconverted back to protestantism. Funny enough, when he became King he was told that France would not tolerate a King that wasn't catholic. He didn't flinch. He promptly reconverted back to Catholicism. He famously said, "Paris is worth a Mass". In other words, if the price of owning Paris is for me to start taking mass again, then it is worth it. Now that's what I call a Politique.

logicboy:

You are one of those christian apologists, arent you? Defending your religion at any cost- even going as far as to deny christianity's evil actions.


1) Land and resources are physical- they are the reason but not the cause. The cause is greed for land/resources. Religion is not physical. Religion is also the cause of fighting. There are people who kill for God, who hate unbelievers and competing religions. They kill because of something they read in a book.

2)Christianity and Islam supported slavery. This is a fact. You can try to deny it but you will always be hit by this fact

You are one of those Hot heads, aren't you? Attacking everything at any cost, just to ease your sense of malaise. Even going as far as denying yourself the opportunity to read my posts carefully and learn something about me.

What is the difference between a Reason and a Cause? Please consider this carefully because I have a feeling it might come up in a future discussion between you and me. I am actually quite glad that you make the distinction even though it is a false dichotomy.

I have yet to hear in all the annals of history of a war that is fought against another religion that didn't have resources that the attacker would gain if they won the war. For a start War is not a cheap enterprise. Anybody that goes to war without hope of recompensing their expenses is nothing but a fool.

Even in the bible na the same. Why didn't children of Israel attack Egypt? Why is it the weakened Canaanite cities that they attacked and took over? Land flowing with milk and honey? Why didn't they attack Sumeria? Mesopotamia is much more fertile than Canaan, more milk and honey there.

Why don't evangelist preach in areas where there is little wealth? Why do our pastors go to America and Europe to save souls? Why don't they go into the Bush? I can bet my bottom dollar that if some great resource like oil is found in some wilderness somewhere, suddenly the spirit will inspire our preachers to go and save the souls of the people living there.

Who is denying that xtianity and Islam support slavery? Who? (looks around baffled). Explain yourself sir.

Pastor AIO:

You are one of those Hot heads, aren't you? Attacking everything at any cost, just to ease your sense of malaise. Even going as far as denying yourself the opportunity to read my posts carefully and learn something about me.

What is the difference between a Reason and a Cause? Please consider this carefully because I have a feeling it might come up in a future discussion between you and me. I am actually quite glad that you make the distinction even though it is a false dichotomy.

I have yet to hear in all the annals of history of a war that is fought against another religion that didn't have resources that the attacker would gain if they won the war. For a start War is not a cheap enterprise. Anybody that goes to war without hope of recompensing their expenses is nothing but a fool.

Even in the bible na the same. Why didn't children of Israel attack Egypt? Why is it the weakened Canaanite cities that they attacked and took over? Land flowing with milk and honey? Why didn't they attack Sumeria? Mesopotamia is much more fertile than Canaan, more milk and honey there.

Why don't evangelist preach in areas where there is little wealth? Why do our pastors go to America and Europe to save souls? Why don't they go into the Bush? I can bet my bottom dollar that if some great resource like oil is found in some wilderness somewhere, suddenly the spirit will inspire our preachers to go and save the souls of the people living there.

Who is denying that xtianity and Islam support slavery? Who? (looks around baffled). Explain yourself sir.

the underdeveloped world is filled with missionaries. they are swarming like ants, bribing natives to convert. what is your point please deal with facts, Sir.

PAGAN 9JA:


the underdeveloped world is filled with missionaries. they are swarming like ants, bribing natives to convert. what is your point please deal with facts, Sir.

No sir, What is YOUR point? Does underdeveloped mean lacking in resources? Does it mean lacking in wealth? What is your point?

Pastor AIO:

You are one of those Hot heads, aren't you? Attacking everything at any cost, just to ease your sense of malaise. Even going as far as denying yourself the opportunity to read my posts carefully and learn something about me.

What is the difference between a Reason and a Cause? Please consider this carefully because I have a feeling it might come up in a future discussion between you and me. I am actually quite glad that you make the distinction even though it is a false dichotomy.

I have yet to hear in all the annals of history of a war that is fought against another religion that didn't have resources that the attacker would gain if they won the war. For a start War is not a cheap enterprise. Anybody that goes to war without hope of recompensing their expenses is nothing but a fool.

Even in the bible na the same. Why didn't children of Israel attack Egypt? Why is it the weakened Canaanite cities that they attacked and took over? Land flowing with milk and honey? Why didn't they attack Sumeria? Mesopotamia is much more fertile than Canaan, more milk and honey there.

Why don't evangelist preach in areas where there is little wealth? Why do our pastors go to America and Europe to save souls? Why don't they go into the Bush? I can bet my bottom dollar that if some great resource like oil is found in some wilderness somewhere, suddenly the spirit will inspire our preachers to go and save the souls of the people living there.

Who is denying that xtianity and Islam support slavery? Who? (looks around baffled). Explain yourself sir.

So at least, you know that your religion supprts slavery and you still call yourself a pastor? Shameful

Pastor AIO:

You are one of those Hot heads, aren't you? Attacking everything at any cost, just to ease your sense of malaise. Even going as far as denying yourself the opportunity to read my posts carefully and learn something about me.

What is the difference between a Reason and a Cause? Please consider this carefully because I have a feeling it might come up in a future discussion between you and me. I am actually quite glad that you make the distinction even though it is a false dichotomy.

I have yet to hear in all the annals of history of a war that is fought against another religion that didn't have resources that the attacker would gain if they won the war. For a start War is not a cheap enterprise. Anybody that goes to war without hope of recompensing their expenses is nothing but a fool.

Even in the bible na the same. Why didn't children of Israel attack Egypt? Why is it the weakened Canaanite cities that they attacked and took over? Land flowing with milk and honey? Why didn't they attack Sumeria? Mesopotamia is much more fertile than Canaan, more milk and honey there.

Why don't evangelist preach in areas where there is little wealth? Why do our pastors go to America and Europe to save souls? Why don't they go into the Bush? I can bet my bottom dollar that if some great resource like oil is found in some wilderness somewhere, suddenly the spirit will inspire our preachers to go and save the souls of the people living there.

Who is denying that xtianity and Islam support slavery? Who? (looks around baffled). Explain yourself sir.

The crusades were more religious than political

That's the point Pastor is making. WHT?

E be like say some people 'login' button for nairaland na 'enter the ring'... always looking for a fight..

musKeeto: That's the point Pastor is making. WHT?

E be like say some people 'login' button for nairaland na 'enter the ring'... always looking for a fight..

I doubt that that was the point he was making

Pastor AIO:


Then I want to talk about what I call the Atheist Wars, which I think is very important because a lot of atheist like to go on about religion causing too much wars in history when some of the most violent wars were a result of Atheist proselytism. It is in actual fact the[b] issue of Religion that drives men to such violent fervour, not theism particularly. And the Atheists have been just as guilty and the sentiments that bring such violence about can be clearly seen in the behaviour of many of the Atheist on NL.

Please I know you're much more better than this

From his opening post..

Pastor AIO: [color=#006600]
I am starting this thread on the Religious wars of Europe because I think that there is a good chance that Nigeria is heading towards it's own Wars of Religion and it will do us all good to acquaint ourselves with the ins and outs of such a conflict.

Also..

Then I want to talk about [/b]what I call the Atheist Wars, which I think is very important because a lot of atheist like to go on about religion causing too much wars in history when some of the most violent wars were a result of Atheist proselytism. It is in actual fact the [b]issue of Religion that drives men to such violent fervour, not theism particularly. And the Atheists have been just as guilty and the sentiments that bring such violence about can be clearly seen in the behaviour of many of the Atheist on NL.

I know you seek to derail the thread.. please be good at what you do..

musKeeto: Please I know you're much more better than this

From his opening post..


Also..

I know you seek to derail the thread.. please be good at what you do..

How do those relate to wars being more religious than political when he is saying thar atheist have the same tendency to violence?

@ Logicboy, I am quite sure that you and I will have our day one day soon. But till then can we please stay on track for this thread. The Crusades is in the medieval era and I do not want to discuss it on this thread. Perhaps you could open another thread if you want to discuss it right away.

Could you kindly consider this when you 're-enter the ring'.

musKeeto:

E be like say some people 'login' button for nairaland na 'enter the ring'... always looking for a fight..

Pastor AIO: @ Logicboy, I am quite sure that you and I will have our day one day soon. But till then can we please stay on track for this thread. The Crusades is in the medieval era and I do not want to discuss it on this thread. Perhaps you could open another thread if you want to discuss it right away.

Could you kindly consider this when you 're-enter the ring'.

Why do you see it as a fight? There is no ring. There is just truth and lies.

Please, do not lie that I was not on topic. Crusades was just one of my examples on relion and war

logicboy:



Why do you see it as a fight? There is no ring. There is just truth and lies.

Please, do not lie that I was not on topic. Crusades was just one of my examples on relion and war

When you were carefully reading through the thread I'm sure you must have missed the post where I said this in response to Chukwudi.

Pastor AIO:

Then the 30 years war . . . . I don't want to talk about the Crusades because that was in medieval times and it wasn't a civil war.

Pastor AIO:

When you were carefully reading through the thread I'm sure you must have missed the post where I said this in response to Chukwudi.

I mentioned the crusades as a listed example. I did not post the history of the crusades.


Stop grasping at straws

Pastor AIO:

No sir, What is YOUR point? Does underdeveloped mean lacking in resources? Does it mean lacking in wealth? What is your point?

NO! underdeveloped means filled with Resources, but lacking in Wealth. I am referring to African, Asian and other Tribal Countries who are being played with by your missionaries. They are bribing them with food to convert. they are so desperate.

PAGAN 9JA:



NO! underdeveloped means filled with Resources, but lacking in Wealth. I am referring to African, Asian and other Tribal Countries who are being played with by your missionaries. They are bribing them with food to convert. they are so desperate.

Aaahhh! Okay, However I have a question?

Just what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

logicboy:

I mentioned the crusades as a listed example. I did not post the history of the crusades.


Stop grasping at straws

Okay, thank you for the advice. May I continue with the thread's topic?

Yes you can...

Pastor AIO:

Okay, thank you for the advice. May I continue with the thread's topic?

Was I off topic before or was I stopping you from commenting

Pastor AIO: Even in the bible na the same. Why didn't children of Israel attack Egypt? Why is it the weakened Canaanite cities that they attacked and took over? Land flowing with milk and honey? Why didn't they attack Sumeria? Mesopotamia is much more fertile than Canaan, more milk and honey there.

If I may come in here, I understand that God fought and fights against all those who fought and fights against the children of Israel, they didn't just go out of their way to pick on "weakened Canaanite cities" they left the land of Egypt to possess the land that was rightfully theirs and all those who stood in their way got crushed, Pharaoh's army included.

Pastor AIO: Why don't evangelist preach in areas where there is little wealth? Why do our pastors go to America and Europe to save souls? Why don't they go into the Bush? I can bet my bottom dollar that if some great resource like oil is found in some wilderness somewhere, suddenly the spirit will inspire our preachers to go and save the souls of the people living there.

They actually do maybe you've been looking in the wrong directions. We have many missionaries sponsored by the tithes and offerings of their congregation that bring the good news to rural, tribal areas. Have you heard of some Moravian Christians that sold themselves into slavery so as to reach the unsaved slaves of an atheist slave owner? It is not all evangelists that are "prosperity preachers" seeking greener pastures in the developed worlds.

Pastor AIO: Who is denying that xtianity and Islam support slavery? Who? (looks around baffled). Explain yourself sir.

I for one deny that true Christianity supports slavery. It was Christians that fought to abolish slave trade which Islamic nations still practise till today.

Pastor AIO:


Aaahhh! Okay, However I have a question?

Just what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

The fact that[b] you monotheists are causing all the problems in the world[/b], since this ideology came on this planet.

OLAADEGBU:

I for one deny that true Christianity supports slavery. It was Christians that fought to abolish slave trade which Islamic nations still practise till today.

yes I completely agree with Olaadegbu. and also the sky is red, humans reproduce asexually, The Earth is flat, The Sun revolves around the world, and I am an Indian.

OLAADEGBU:


I for one deny that true Christianity supports slavery. It was Christians that fought to abolish slave trade which Islamic nations still practise till today.

Slavery was regulated in the bible. Stop being an apologist and see the truth for what it is.


It was European christians that took slaves to Europe from West Africa.

Slavery exists in America today

-European sex slaves smuggled to America

-American companies using sweatshop labour/slave wages in poor countries to boost profits

OLAADEGBU:
If I may come in here, I understand that God fought and fights against all those who fought and fights against the children of Israel, they didn't just go out of their way to pick on "weakened Canaanite cities" they left the land of Egypt to possess the land that was rightfully theirs and all those who stood in their way got crushed, Pharaoh's army included.


They actually do maybe you've been looking in the wrong directions. We have many missionaries sponsored by the tithes and offerings of their congregation that bring the good news to rural, tribal areas. Have you heard of some Moravian Christians that sold themselves into slavery so as to reach the unsaved slaves of an atheist slave owner? It is not all evangelists that are "prosperity preachers" seeking greener pastures in the developed worlds.


I for one deny that true Christianity supports slavery. It was Christians that fought to abolish slave trade which Islamic nations still practise till today.

Okay, I stand corrected. All this will be off the course of the thread, so it's better to leave it here.