God brings peace?

[Minimalist]

Yes, but I'll say that there's more to it than that: God brings peace, violence, and everything in between.

Then who fucking needs him?

The priests and mullahs of course.

Indeed. 'God' is the product that religion sells to the gullible.

[Doubting Thomas]

The German phrase Gott mit uns means "God with us", not God brings peace.

I think he posted that because the German Army started WWII. The buttons on their uniforms said "God is with us," but obviously he didn't bring peace.

EDIT: The fuck? Why is the board showing Gawdzilla as the one who started the thread and next minute he's responding to the OP???

The board is showing that Rocket Scientist started the thread to me.

[Faith No More]

God is, by nature, a peacemaker.
Violence is, by nature, religious.

God must be very proud.

[Zenith]

It doesn't matter whether you're bitten by the cat or the dog.

I've written for about 20 minutes, and I've accidentally lost all that text.
Anyway, I'll discuss the images:

The first image, the motto
I don't think Christianity ever had that as motto.

The 2nd image: the crusader
I believe most people don't know many things about the crusades.
So, a brief description: The first crusade (1096-1099) started because of a request of the Roman/Byzantine Emperor, who was having big troubles with muslim turks (since 1071 until 1096, they've conquered half of its empire - the Bytzantine Empire in 1070 was having both all balkans and all modern turkey), and if he did not request help, they would have most surley conquered the rest of his empire soon, thus expanding in Europe and imposing Islam there (which the muslims succeeded before 1400, see this image).

In 1060 it looked like this (I didn't find a picture of 1071, but it must have looked similar to this):


While in 1075 the Byzantine/Roman Empire looked like this (since 1071 the muslims started to conquer the modern turkey from the romans):

The rest territory, from north africa to turkey were under muslim control, when initially belonged to the Byzantine/Roman Empire. All was lost to Islamic attacks.

ok, most likely causes of the first crusade:

The idea that the crusades were a response to Islam dates back as far as 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who began his chronicle with the fall of Jerusalem to Umar.[27] Although the original Islamic conquests had taken place centuries before the First Crusade, more recent events would have been fresh in the minds of the European Christians of the time. For example, in 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah; Pope Sergius IV supposedly called for a military expedition in response, and in France, many Jewish communities were even attacked in a misdirected retaliation. Despite the Church's rebuilding after al-Hakim's death, and pilgrimages resuming, including the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–1065, pilgrims continued to suffer attacks from local Muslims.[28] In addition, the even more recent Turkish incursions into Anatolia and northern Syria were certainly viewed as devastating by Eastern Christian chroniclers, and it is plausible they were presented as such by the Byzantines to the Pope in order to solicit the aid of European Christians.

I've also found in Britannica:

The Crusades were also a development of popular religious life and feeling in the West. The social effect of religious belief at the time was complex: religion was moved by tales of signs and wonders, and it attributed natural disasters to supernatural intervention. At the same time, laypersons were not indifferent to reform movements, and on occasion they agitated against clergy whom they regarded as unworthy. A peace movement also developed, especially in France, under the leadership of certain bishops but with considerable popular support. Religious leaders proclaimed the Peace of God and the Truce of God, designed to halt or at least limit warfare and assaults during certain days of the week and times of the year and to protect the lives of clergy, travelers, women, and cattle and others unable to defend themselves against brigandage. It is particularly interesting to note that the Council of Clermont, at which Urban II called for the First Crusade (1095), renewed and generalized the Peace of God.

It may seem paradoxical that a council both promulgated peace and officially sanctioned war, but the peace movement was designed to protect those in distress, and a strong element of the Crusade was the idea of giving aid to fellow Christians in the East. Tied to this idea was the notion that war to defend Christendom was not only a justifiable undertaking but a holy work and therefore pleasing to God.

...
Seljuq expansion southward continued, and in 1085 the capture of Antioch in Syria, one of the patriarchal sees of Christianity, was another blow to Byzantine prestige. Thus, although the Seljuq empire never successfully held together as a unit, it appropriated most of Asia Minor, including Nicaea, from the Byzantine Empire and brought a resurgent Islam perilously close to Constantinople, the Byzantine capital. It was this danger that prompted the emperor, Alexius Comnenus, to seek aid from the West, and by 1095 the West was ready to respond.

The turmoil of these years disrupted normal political life and made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem difficult and often impossible. Stories of dangers and molestation reached the West and remained in the popular mind even after conditions improved. Furthermore, informed authorities began to realize that the power of the Muslim world now seriously menaced the West as well as the East. It was this realization that led to the Crusades.

Now, this crusading army was formed, and passed through Constantinople, and all territories of modern Turkey that have been conquered by the crusaders were handles to the Byzantines/Romans (so we have in 1100 this map). After this military forced pilgrimage to Jerusalem and occupying it, most of the crusaders went back home. Of those that remained, most were frenchmen, if I remember well. Anyway, the fact is, that since then, the muslims have started to attack Jerusalem and succeeded in re-conquering it. As a result, subsequent crusaders had been sent to Jerusalem, until the 9th crusade, which was in 1271-1272 - all have failed. With the exception that the 4th crusade had been redirected to Constantinople - the capital of the Byzantine/Roman Empire, because it was an easy target, and Constantinople was very rich, etc. and they also conquered the regions around, forming the Latin Empire (the Roman/Byzantine Empire barely existed as a state as a result):


The subsequent crusades have been sent against the invading ottoman/turkish armies that have started conquering Europe. All these crusaders failed.

There was other, separate crusades as well, the Northern Crusades, headed against the pagans and the Orthodox Russia. They were very good targets, as the Catholic Pope disliked when Catholic countries fought each other, but was ok if they conquered foreign territory. (and it seems that they could have not defeated the russians, so the russians proved to be not an easy target :)) ).

Conclusion: the crusaders were driven mostly by political reasons, rather than religious, and were catholic armies. So showing an image with a crusader hating an 'infidel' for having a different religion, and going to kill him is... quite misplaced.

The 3rd image, the heretic
Perhaps most of the heretics were persecuted not as much for their different views as for not submitting themselves to the religious authority (for the catholics, for not submitting to the the Catholic Pope). Thus, the Christian Orthodox people were also considered heretics to the Catholics. And this refusal to submit to the religious authority was politically dangerous, mostly for causing disunity and refusing possible unity (i.e. a single mob that follows the political candidate, i.e. the leaders). The mob was most likely to hate and despise others for not 'thinking' (i.e. believing) the same as themselves, but the religious/political authorities were those that were pulling the strings. And, by the way, most if not all heretics were believing in God, so we use the victims to prove that God is evil (i.e. does not bring peace)?

The 4th image, the witch
I didn't study about the persecution of witches and witchcraft.
From the little I know, a few points:
a) I don't agree with witchcraft. And I don't agree with people making rituals for others to die. So I don't agree with making a witch look as an "innocent martyr", just to make a contrast with the "diabolical christians" (and wiccans and satanists seem to do this a lot, perhaps for themselves to look good, as they were the "nice, good, innocent victims")
b) I believe that people were using torture to make people confess if they are witches or not (this torture to confess method was used since pagan antiquity), which is bad.

The 6th image, Islam
The Islamic motto "Islam is a religion of peace" is incomplete. The correct, complete saying should sound like this "Islam is a religion of peace, as long as all submit" (i.e. all are muslims).

And, by the way, it's wrong to show muslims as a new version, and as if they lacked their persecutions of heretics and infidels, 'crusades' (for them, Jihads), etc.
About Jihad: In the middle age, the muslims were having their Jihads, as Jerusalem also became a holy site, and thus they made the conquering of it a holy purpose.

P.S. I don't understand why this thread is called "God brings peace?" and not "religion brings peace?". You know, I did not see God there, I've seen only men - and if a Creator exists, it wasn't Him who did those things, but men. And "God" is not "religion": if a man believes in God, himself would not go out to kill people for that; he needs a "religion" for that (religious authorities to command that, an official religion where there is a clergy and they have titles, which would cause the common man to put his trust in them and to blindly follow them).

---

I think he posted that because the German Army started WWII. The buttons on their uniforms said "God is with us," but obviously he didn't bring peace.

If God was with them, then perhaps they would have won the war, not lose it.
Nevertheless, it was good for the inspiration of the troops, to make them confident and hopeful.

[Doubting Thomas]

Actually, from what I understand, very few if any people "convicted" of witchcraft during the witch trials actually practiced Wicca or witchcraft of any sort. I think it was mainly a way to get rivals out of the way by simply accusing them. At any rate, it was particularly heinous since belief in the power of witches is just as silly as belief in the power of prayer. Who cares if someone wants to call themselves a witch and thinks they can summon magic powers? They're just deluding themselves. Today we can see this as just another example of religious persecution.

And while you claim that they used torture to get people to confess, if I remember the history books correctly one of the things they'd do was to throw an accused witch into a pond. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank to the bottom, she was innocent. So it doesn't really matter if it was just a way to get people to confess or not, either way they were screwed. If they confessed, they were hanged. If they managed to float, they were hanged. If they sank, they drowned.

Oh and by the way, it's only folklore which says that witches were burned at the stake. In reality they were all hanged.

[Cinjin]

Conclusion: the crusaders were driven mostly by political reasons, rather than religious, and were catholic armies. So showing an image with a crusader hating an 'infidel' for having a different religion, and going to kill him is... quite misplaced.

First of all zenith, the comic is meant to be satirical not a historical misprepresentation.
Secondly, EVERYONE knows that the Crusades were political - the comic is pointing out the fact that "god" was used as an excuse to conquer and control. I don't think anyone on this site actually thinks that the catholic church's primary reason for the crusades was bringing the word of god to the infidel ... but rather it was secondary and made a wonderful excuse to take military action.

P.S. I don't understand why this thread is called "God brings peace?" and not "religion brings peace?". You know, I did not see God there, I've seen only men - and if a Creator exists, it wasn't Him who did those things, but men. And "God" is not "religion": if a man believes in God, himself would not go out to kill people for that; he needs a "religion" for that (religious authorities to command that, an official religion where there is a clergy and they have titles, which would cause the common man to put his trust in them and to blindly follow them).

---

I think he posted that because the German Army started WWII. The buttons on their uniforms said "God is with us," but obviously he didn't bring peace.

If God was with them, then perhaps they would have won the war, not lose it.
Nevertheless, it was good for the inspiration of the troops, to make them confident and hopeful.

I believe that OP was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I'm assuming that "god" is being used generically as a term for religion. I'm a Deist and even I use "god" in a general sense to convey the corrupt nature of ALL religions.
Regarding the buttons: I'm sure a typical german soldier probably would've felt confident and hopeful with those buttons. I don't think anyone here interpreted it as a historical misrepresentation. Again, the statement was merely showing the irony of putting "god" in front of a brutal genocidal army. I think you may be getting a bit nit-picky.

[downbeatplumb]

Oh and by the way, it's only folklore which says that witches were burned at the stake. In reality they were all hanged.

Some were burnt this from wikipedia.

Witch-hunts were seen across early modern Europe, but the most significant area of witch-hunting in modern Europe is often considered to be central and southern Germany.[15] Germany was a late starter in terms of the numbers of trials, compared to other regions of Europe. Witch-hunts first appeared in large numbers in southern France and Switzerland during the 14th and 15th centuries. The peak years of witch-hunts in southwest Germany were from 1561 to 1670.[16] The first major persecution in Europe, when witches were caught, tried, convicted, and burned in the imperial lordship of Wiesensteig in southwestern Germany, is recorded in 1563 in a pamphlet called "True and Horrifying Deeds of 63 Witches".[17]

In Denmark, the burning of witches increased following the reformation of 1536. Christian IV of Denmark, in particular, encouraged this practice, and hundreds of people were convicted of witchcraft and burnt.

But the victims were not witches but people victimised by authority on any pretext.

"Every old woman with a wrinkled face, a furrowed brow, a hairy lip, a gobber tooth, a squint eye, a squeaking voice or scolding tongue, having a rugged coat on her back, a skull-cap on her head, a spindle in her hand and a dog or cat by her side, is not only suspect but pronounced for a witch"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/myths_lege...and/essex/

[Zenith]

Actually, from what I understand, very few if any people "convicted" of witchcraft during the witch trials actually practiced Wicca or witchcraft of any sort.

I don't believe anybody practiced Wicca. Wicca is neo-paganism. It's a new religion, only themselves claim ancient or middle-age origins.
And it is indeed very possible that most of the middle-ages that were convicted were not practicing any kind of witchcraft.

At any rate, it was particularly heinous since belief in the power of witches is just as silly as belief in the power of prayer. Who cares if someone wants to call themselves a witch and thinks they can summon magic powers? They're just deluding themselves. Today we can see this as just another example of religious persecution.

Well, for a witch that tried to use a ritual to kill somebody, though his ritual is crap, the attempt to kill should matter.

And while you claim that they used torture to get people to confess, if I remember the history books correctly one of the things they'd do was to throw an accused witch into a pond. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank to the bottom, she was innocent. So it doesn't really matter if it was just a way to get people to confess or not, either way they were screwed. If they confessed, they were hanged. If they managed to float, they were hanged. If they sank, they drowned.

that's where what I said goes: "I didn't study about the persecution of witches and witchcraft. From the little I know, a few points".
I don't know if those were the only methods, in any period of time and in every place, but it does not matter. They were insane, and for some reason, when I read about these, it makes me laugh (it's both tragic and comic).

---

First of all zenith, the comic is meant to be satirical not a historical misprepresentation.
Secondly, EVERYONE knows that the Crusades were political

Don't worry, there are. Hopefully none on this site, but there are.
Anyway, another point for my explanation:
- people use to (at least from my observations) associate "crusade" with "great religious evil", when
a) it wasn't more an evil than any war. People seem to depict "crusade" as an outstanding evil and outstanding war.
b) for both the leaders of the crusaders (i.e. lords) and the warriors, the purpose was mostly practical (material, like riches gained after conquering the cities) rather than fanatical people killing in the name of God (i.e. the religion was quite like an added justification, as the people were not as eager to go into a crusade when the bounty did not sound promising).
- many people seem to see the crusades as an aggressive attack towards an innocent. But it was not at all so. And muslims also like to depict the crusaders as the evil aggressive warriors, while themselves were innocent and good-hearted. And the latter crusades were for defending Europe (I mean, against the muslims), and it's saddens me that they did not succeed in kicking off the muslims from Europe, but instead we had to stay with them up until the 20nd century (when it is said that the crusades were such an evil thing), and if it wasn't for the first crusades (except the 4th), it was possible for the muslims to invade much quicker Europe, which would have been a bad thing.

the comic is pointing out the fact that "god" was used as an excuse to conquer and control.

Yeah, but it does sound a bit odd to me. You know, to use "God did X" for " "God" was used to do X" or "religions did X".

I'm assuming that "god" is being used generically as a term for religion. I'm a Deist and even I use "god" in a general sense to convey the corrupt nature of ALL religions.

Then it must be me who sees odd to use "god" for "religions".

I don't think anyone here interpreted it as a historical misrepresentation. Again, the statement was merely showing the irony of putting "god" in front of a brutal genocidal army. I think you may be getting a bit nit-picky.

Yeah, I know that nobody believed that God was with them (because, well, most here are atheists). I just thought it's similar to atheists blaming a God they do not believe He exists, for a natural disaster.
And perhaps I do tend to criticize even more than enough.

[EDITED: forgot to mention something about the crusades]

[Doubting Thomas]

Oh and by the way, it's only folklore which says that witches were burned at the stake. In reality they were all hanged.

Some were burnt this from wikipedia.

I should have clarified that, I was referring to the witch trials in North America in the late 1600's. From what I read, they didn't burn witches here but instead hanged them.

Well, for a witch that tried to use a ritual to kill somebody, though his ritual is crap, the attempt to kill should matter.

So do you think that we should put people in prison for saying, "I hope you die?" Or what if someone thought they could make magically transport money from a bank to their house using only the power of their mind? Should they be arrested for attempted theft? Personally, I'd just laugh my ass off at their lame attempts. If they actually physically tried to go through with killing someone or stealing, then put them in jail. But here in the U.S. thoughtcrime doesn't exist. Perhaps things were different back in the 1600's.

And I don't know that any of the so-called witches ever tried to use a magic ritual to bring death upon a person, but again killing them seems a bit excessive. If we were to put everyone to death for wishing someone else was dead, the country would be a very empty place.

What do we burn apart from witches?
MORE WITCHES!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBcKyWbYXdM&feature=fvst