Does Pope Francis have a fantasy-prone personality disorder?

[Excited Penguin]

So many people like him because he's not anywhere as bad as the previous pope. I look at him and I see how he's still making life worse for millions of people. Fuck the pope.

Boru

I love that guy!

[Excited Penguin]

I'll own your post soon enough

Wut?!!!

Anything comprehensive to add?

Wait for it.

[Jehanne]

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.

My point, which I made in my OP, is that Pope Francis' statement that, "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence..." is contrary to the historical record.  He might as well said that the South had won the Civil War.  I don't think that even Donald Trump would buy that one!

[Jehanne]

Wut?!!!

Anything comprehensive to add?

Wait for it.

There are multiple threads going on here within this one, but I am done with that sub-thread.  Start a new thread if you want to discuss it further.

[abaris]

Wait for it.

Not holding my breath.

[Jehanne]

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.

Well, feel free to disagree.  With individuals, such as Pope Francis' reading of the historical documents, it is easy to understand why people, such as William Craig, can label the Gospels are being "ancient biographies".

You can characterize the Battle of Tours, where two armies comprising tens of thousands of men, faced-off over the course of a week as being simply a "raiding expedition" on the part of one against the other, but such "reasoning", to me at least, defies all logic and common sense.  I see the Battle of Tours as being a conquest, in the name of Islam, to extend Muslim rule into Europe, the same goal being successfully employed at Constantinople 700 years later, and, as you yourself admit, being checked at Vienna just under a century after the fall of Constantinople.

You claim that the Muslims were "tolerant", and to an extent, they were, once they were in complete control, but non-Muslims were always treated as being second-class citizens, and were basically a step above slaves, there to serve their Muslims masters.  And, they were constantly being harassed and intimated into converting to the "true" religion, Islam.  And, Muslims had no problems destroying Christian churches and/or kidnapping Christian children, carting the latter off to Islamic lands to be raised in the "true" religion.

Islam is not a religion of peace; ISIS is correct in that regard.  Now, if moderate and/or liberal Muslims wish to rewrite history (as Catholics have) and read verses into the Quran that are not there and ignore verses that are there, go right ahead.  I don't care.  In the end, though, I will still believe that the North won the Civil War.

[abaris]

Well, feel free to disagree.  With individuals, such as Pope Francis' reading of the historical documents, it is easy to understand why people, such as William Craig, can label the Gospels are being "ancient biographies".

No, we don't disagree. Unless you think that claiming the sky to be green or blue being a disagreement. You're talking out of your ass without knowing the first thing of the science involved. That's our disagreement. William Craig is talking out of his ass too, since he obviously doesn't know the first thing about ancient scripture and it reliability.

Well, as always, history is a science, same as medicine. You wouldn't do open heart surgery using wikipedia, would you? So kindly inform yourself just a little bit on the methodology involved before claiming to be right. Especially if you proclaim yourself to be a sucker for science.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What if I, an atheist, believed I had wings and could fly?

I would say that you were mentally ill.  Of course, you would probably no longer be an atheist at that point.

Nonsense.

My own atheism arises as a result of my rationality, but I know and know of many atheists who believe in afterlives, ghosts, and other assorted irrational beliefs.

Your post is a non sequitur.

[Jehanne]

I would say that you were mentally ill.  Of course, you would probably no longer be an atheist at that point.

Nonsense.

My own atheism arises as a result of my rationality, but I know and know of many atheists who believe in afterlives, ghosts, and other assorted irrational beliefs.

Your post is a non sequitur.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe that I have wings, much less that I can fly, and I would hope that others around me would question my mental stability if I claimed otherwise.  Now, may we please return to regularly scheduled programming?

[abaris]

Now, may we please return to regularly scheduled programming?

And that would be what?