(August 14, 2016 at 7:32 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 7:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No, but others have:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

P.S.  I may not be "getting it"; but, does that matter?  (Answer:  no)

By answering a question you've asked me without waiting for an answer, you're doing exactly what offends me.

Yes, it does matter. Why? Because you're saying that atheists have a stance. You're putting words into the mouths and thoughts into the brains of many atheists who don't have things in common that you're attributing to them. I have a big problem with that. I do not give you permission to attribute things to me that I don't necessarily agree with. The only thing you know about me, as an atheist, is that I lack belief in deities. I could think the Earth is made up of green fondant, mozzarella cheese, and tulips dyed blue; you don't know.

Again, I was not addressing you; I was addressing Drich, a believer.  But, fine, consider my comment to be withdrawn, and what I said applies to me and me alone.

(August 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Francis recently stated that, "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence...":

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/isis-...race-islam

It seems to me that Francis is trying to do with Islam something that has been slowly done with Catholicism over the last 200 years, that is, divorce (no  pun intended) the religion from its historical roots.  Now, if the Jihadists are convinced by people like Francis, should historians be "convinced", also?  If one simply looks at the timeline of World history, it is clear that Islam has been a violent religion since its very earliest days, from its initial crusades after the death of Mohamed until being checked at the Battle of Tours, and after that, the continued and attempted conquest of the West until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Are people like Francis a threat to the Enlightenment with their revisionist histories?  Is Francis' recent statement about the Quran equivalent to Holocaust denial?

No, that's ridiculous. I applaud his efforts.

It's not about changing the minds of the jihadists(abhorrent people by the way, why are they so grumpy?), it's about inter-faith diplomacy which, some people think, goes a long way.

K, I'll try and catch up with the thread now, 'cause I spotted a catfight at the end there and I'm terribly interested!

(August 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Francis recently stated that, "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence...":

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/isis-...race-islam

It seems to me that Francis is trying to do with Islam something that has been slowly done with Catholicism over the last 200 years, that is, divorce (no  pun intended) the religion from its historical roots.  Now, if the Jihadists are convinced by people like Francis, should historians be "convinced", also?  If one simply looks at the timeline of World history, it is clear that Islam has been a violent religion since its very earliest days, from its initial crusades after the death of Mohamed until being checked at the Battle of Tours, and after that, the continued and attempted conquest of the West until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Are people like Francis a threat to the Enlightenment with their revisionist histories?  Is Francis' recent statement about the Quran equivalent to Holocaust denial?

No, that's ridiculous. I applaud his efforts.

It's not about changing the minds of the jihadists(abhorrent people by the way, why are they so grumpy?), it's about inter-faith diplomacy which, some people think, goes a long way.

K, I'll try and catch up with the thread now, 'cause I spotted a catfight at the end there and I'm terribly interested!

I don't applaud his efforts.  Francis wants political power; that's what he stands for.  He wants to create some quasi-world religion with him at its "head" (the kind of "first among equals") to take on secularism, and with it, the rise of atheism.  Frankly, I don't give a shit, however, his rewrite of the historical record must not go unchallenged.  Of course, I am not at all qualified to carry the banner on this one, but given some of the leftist crap that is coming out of the Academy, I think that the National Review is "dead on" for this issue.  Hopefully, the true scholars will rise to the occasion on this one.

P.S. At least one cat-fight had been resolved. I feel only slightly scathed.

(August 14, 2016 at 7:48 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: No, that's ridiculous. I applaud his efforts.

It's not about changing the minds of the jihadists(abhorrent people by the way, why are they so grumpy?), it's about inter-faith diplomacy which, some people think, goes a long way.

K, I'll try and catch up with the thread now, 'cause I spotted a catfight at the end there and I'm terribly interested!

I don't applaud his efforts.  Francis wants political power; that's what he stands for.  He wants to create some quasi-world religion with him at its "head" (the kind of "first among equals") to take on secularism, and with it, the rise of atheism.  Frankly, I don't give a shit, however, his rewrite of the historical record must not go unchallenged.  Of course, I am not at all qualified to carry the banner on this one, but given some of the leftist crap that is coming out of the Academy, I think that the National Review is "dead on" for this issue.  Hopefully, the true scholars will rise to the occasion on this one.

P.S.  At least one cat-fight had been resolved.  I feel only slightly scathed.

  Why can't we all just get along?

(August 14, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: First of all, there was no "law of the times", as there was no worldwide body to enforce such "a law".

No, there wasn't. But it points to your talking out of your ass instead of using science you claim to be so fond of. It was what everybody did. Hence, law of the land. Accepted by everyone to be the law of the land.

Are you quite capable of accepting that people actually having some expertise in a field to know a bit more than you? Probably not, going by what you drag kicking and screaming into this thread to make a point. Well, point not made, as far as science is concerned.

(August 14, 2016 at 7:59 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: First of all, there was no "law of the times", as there was no worldwide body to enforce such "a law".

No, there wasn't. But it points to your talking out of your ass instead of using science you claim to be so fond of. It was what everybody did. Hence, law of the land. Accepted by everyone to be the law of the land.

Are you quite capable of accepting that people actually having some expertise in a field to know a bit more than you? Probably not, going by what you drag kicking and screaming into this thread to make a point. Well, point not made, as far as science is concerned.

Ok, I'm not caught up with the thread, but don't be mean to Jehanne, I like her/him 

I'll own your post soon enough

(August 14, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Jehanne Wrote: P.P.P.S.  Are you really an historian?

No, I'm just running my mouth. Or my ass, same as you.

Grow up, man. Or don't. Far as this thread goes, you're an idiot. immune to facts you claim to be so fond of, quoting every wayward tinfoil hero you can find and constantly moving the goal posts to try and make a point, which is impossible from where you are standing.

(August 14, 2016 at 7:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 7:48 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I don't applaud his efforts.  Francis wants political power; that's what he stands for.  He wants to create some quasi-world religion with him at its "head" (the kind of "first among equals") to take on secularism, and with it, the rise of atheism.  Frankly, I don't give a shit, however, his rewrite of the historical record must not go unchallenged.  Of course, I am not at all qualified to carry the banner on this one, but given some of the leftist crap that is coming out of the Academy, I think that the National Review is "dead on" for this issue.  Hopefully, the true scholars will rise to the occasion on this one.

P.S.  At least one cat-fight had been resolved.  I feel only slightly scathed.

  Why can't we all just get along?

Ha, ha, ha!

We can, we are, and we do!

(August 13, 2016 at 5:52 pm)c172 Wrote: I keep reading this as Dope Francis.

[quote='Excited Penguin' pid='1363329' dateline='1471219400']
Nevermind. not worth replying.