THE REAL JOHN TITOR...

[Classicalfan626]

@SarahAlways - You think bloodshed in the name of Christianity is equal to that of Islam? You should be able to see that Christianity condemns those who kill in the name of it to a much greater extent than Islam to those who kill in the name of it.

I didn't say equal. I said they're both neutral in my opinion. I wasn't talking about the Christian doctrine, yes that I believe is peaceful as you say. I am speaking in a historical context. The Inquisition, the slaughtering of Protestants, the Holy Crusades, witch trials....

The Holy Inquisition and the persecution and killing of Protestants were terrible, and those are very good points you made. Although I've heard the witch trials originated because there were some sinful people practicing witchcraft, and that the Crusades was a retaliation against attempted Islamic conquest of Europe.

But here's another example: persecution and killing of Jews conducted by Christians, especially during the Middle Ages and a few centuries afterward. Jews didn't deserve terrible acts like those against them, and if you're into the idea of time travel and changing history, I would plan out that persecution and killing of Jews generally becomes discontinued since the beginning of the Renaissance, especially when it spreads throughout Europe; although there will be a few prominent exceptions that I feel need to be kept intact, especially the Holocaust.

As a side note, I feel that though by all means terrible, the Holocaust and 9/11 terrorist attacks were necessarily evils that could still serve as great awakenings, both before and even after possible alterations of history.

 

[SarahAlways]

@SarahAlways - You think bloodshed in the name of Christianity is equal to that of Islam? You should be able to see that Christianity condemns those who kill in the name of it to a much greater extent than Islam to those who kill in the name of it.

I didn't say equal. I said they're both neutral in my opinion. I wasn't talking about the Christian doctrine, yes that I believe is peaceful as you say. I am speaking in a historical context. The Inquisition, the slaughtering of Protestants, the Holy Crusades, witch trials....

The Holy Inquisition and the persecution and killing of Protestants were terrible, and those are very good points you made. Although I've heard the witch trials originated because there were some sinful people practicing witchcraft, and that the Crusades was a retaliation against attempted Islamic conquest of Europe.

But here's another example: persecution and killing of Jews conducted by Christians, especially during the Middle Ages and a few centuries afterward. Jews didn't deserve terrible acts like those against them, and if you're into the idea of time travel and changing history, I would plan out that persecution and killing of Jews generally becomes discontinued since the beginning of the Renaissance, especially when it spreads throughout Europe; although there will be a few prominent exceptions that I feel need to be kept intact, especially the Holocaust.

As a side note, I feel that though by all means terrible, the Holocaust and 9/11 terrorist attacks were necessarily evils that could still serve as great awakenings, both before and even after possible alterations of history.

Thank you for the more accurate account of history. I do believe that some of the Crusades were not only about territory but also forced conversions. And yes, let's never leave out the persecution of the Jews. Along with Slavery (an, that was the most profound persecution in history, from the beginning of the destruction of the first Temple onward to present day.
I am interested in time travel and history but not necessarily the changing of history. I do not believe in "necessary evils". I would never say the Holocaust was necessary by any means, but I believe changing the course of history is probably not without consequences. I don't subscribe to the thought that you can go back in time and kill Hitler and all will be well. There were many more variables than one man. How would you change them all?

 

[waterandsol]

Sarah... I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I do not condemn or judge the Islamic faith. Yusuf Islam actually plays some of my most sincerely favorite music. However, Christianity in the current world is being silenced on the world stage. (In Russia recently a pastor was arrested for peacefully spreading the good news of a Savior, as an example).

Like Christ, I do not believe in taking life under any circumstance. A commandment ~ thou shall not kill.

I personally am not responsible for any of the horrid tragedies of any faith. So, I personally view your point of argument against me irrelevant.

My point was this: Mankind was given the divine right of free will by God Himself for each soul to determine its faith. And such should not be interfered with by any man, woman, political party or global system. We are who we choose to be. And all deserve to worship peacefully accordingly to their hearts desire.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Please enjoy your day.

 

[SarahAlways]

@waterandsol I am sorry if I made you feel responsible for all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. That was not my intention. You are not responsible and you are certainly free to worship as you please, as is every one else. Just as you don't want to take responsibility for the occasions when violence/murder was committed in Jesus' name, I believe a person of the Muslim faith would feel the same way about a suicide bomber for example. And the only reason, I said anything at all, was because you mention Islam taking over the world. That spreads fear. And as you are not responsible for the tragedies committed by members of your faith, neither are the good people with the Muslim faith responsible for the 1% of extremists, but yet they are still subject to Islamaphobia and violence from people spreading fear. I felt the need to say something. I would just as soon defend a Christian as anyone else. I simply wanted to point out, that very few religions have a history without bloodshed. I respect your desire to worship to your hearts desire and hope you took no offense. I meant none. I now feel very inept and conveying my meaning, so I will not attempt to discuss this matter any more. I apologize if I have upset you.

 

[waterandsol]

You haven't upset me at all. This world is funny... In all walks of life there are good people and bad people. It doesn't matter the faith. In scripture it states, a man will say and do what is in his heart. It is the person. Not the faith.

My fear comes from Christianity being silenced while Islamic people are being dispersed through out the world as rightful refugees. With Christianity silenced, Islam would become the world religion. I find it unfair and treading upon the divine right and free will of us all to choose. That is my only concern.

Peace and love to you today! Hugs.

 

[Classicalfan626]

I didn't say equal. I said they're both neutral in my opinion. I wasn't talking about the Christian doctrine, yes that I believe is peaceful as you say. I am speaking in a historical context. The Inquisition, the slaughtering of Protestants, the Holy Crusades, witch trials....

The Holy Inquisition and the persecution and killing of Protestants were terrible, and those are very good points you made. Although I've heard the witch trials originated because there were some sinful people practicing witchcraft, and that the Crusades was a retaliation against attempted Islamic conquest of Europe.

But here's another example: persecution and killing of Jews conducted by Christians, especially during the Middle Ages and a few centuries afterward. Jews didn't deserve terrible acts like those against them, and if you're into the idea of time travel and changing history, I would plan out that persecution and killing of Jews generally becomes discontinued since the beginning of the Renaissance, especially when it spreads throughout Europe; although there will be a few prominent exceptions that I feel need to be kept intact, especially the Holocaust.

As a side note, I feel that though by all means terrible, the Holocaust and 9/11 terrorist attacks were necessarily evils that could still serve as great awakenings, both before and even after possible alterations of history.

Thank you for the more accurate account of history. I do believe that some of the Crusades were not only about territory but also forced conversions. And yes, let's never leave out the persecution of the Jews. Along with Slavery (an, that was the most profound persecution in history, from the beginning of the destruction of the first Temple onward to present day.
I am interested in time travel and history but not necessarily the changing of history. I do not believe in "necessary evils". I would never say the Holocaust was necessary by any means, but I believe changing the course of history is probably not without consequences. I don't subscribe to the thought that you can go back in time and kill Hitler and all will be well. There were many more variables than one man. How would you change them all?

I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler either, because I know there's a constant war of good vs. evil in the universe and there can't be a perfect world without Earth being a boring place to live, which luckily it isn't. But I feel that just because there may be a bunch of negative consequences for changing a historical thing like that doesn't mean there are those for every single change that can possibly be made.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your opinion on the idea of changing history, but I would expect that you respect mine. And yes, I respect your opinion as well.

 

[SarahAlways]

The Holy Inquisition and the persecution and killing of Protestants were terrible, and those are very good points you made. Although I've heard the witch trials originated because there were some sinful people practicing witchcraft, and that the Crusades was a retaliation against attempted Islamic conquest of Europe.

But here's another example: persecution and killing of Jews conducted by Christians, especially during the Middle Ages and a few centuries afterward. Jews didn't deserve terrible acts like those against them, and if you're into the idea of time travel and changing history, I would plan out that persecution and killing of Jews generally becomes discontinued since the beginning of the Renaissance, especially when it spreads throughout Europe; although there will be a few prominent exceptions that I feel need to be kept intact, especially the Holocaust.

As a side note, I feel that though by all means terrible, the Holocaust and 9/11 terrorist attacks were necessarily evils that could still serve as great awakenings, both before and even after possible alterations of history.

Thank you for the more accurate account of history. I do believe that some of the Crusades were not only about territory but also forced conversions. And yes, let's never leave out the persecution of the Jews. Along with Slavery (an, that was the most profound persecution in history, from the beginning of the destruction of the first Temple onward to present day.
I am interested in time travel and history but not necessarily the changing of history. I do not believe in "necessary evils". I would never say the Holocaust was necessary by any means, but I believe changing the course of history is probably not without consequences. I don't subscribe to the thought that you can go back in time and kill Hitler and all will be well. There were many more variables than one man. How would you change them all?

I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler either, because I know there's a constant war of good vs. evil in the universe and there can't be a perfect world without Earth being a boring place to live, which luckily it isn't. But I feel that just because there may be a bunch of negative consequences for changing a historical thing like that doesn't mean there are those for every single change that can possibly be made.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your opinion on the idea of changing history, but I would expect that you respect mine. And yes, I respect your opinion as well.

Well the world certainly isn't boring, that's true and I agree with you about the war between good and evil, but I don't think it evil serves a purpose other than to give you a choice to choose the light instead. I don't think erasing parts of history would change that. Kill Hitler and you still have thousands of Nazis running amok. Maybe if you took out a few of the other key players, too, things might not have been so horrific. I don't know. Of course, if I could prevent the Holocaust I would. What if we were about to face another Holocaust now and a time traveler could step in and help prevent that? I wouldn't be opposed. I honestly don't know what I believe about it. My mind keeps going back to Titor's example of the Red Sea. I'm not say that applies to the Holocaust too, but it does touch on how interfering with history to save people could have negative consequences.

 

[SarahAlways]

I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler either, because I know there's a constant war of good vs. evil in the universe and there can't be a perfect world without Earth being a boring place to live, which luckily it isn't. But I feel that just because there may be a bunch of negative consequences for changing a historical thing like that doesn't mean there are those for every single change that can possibly be made.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your opinion on the idea of changing history, but I would expect that you respect mine. And yes, I respect your opinion as well.

One more thought, how is one person going to prevent something that was decades in the making? The WWII and Germany's invasion of other European nations had roots that started with WWI. Would you go back and change that too? How much could one time traveler influence history anyway? It may be a blessing that Titor could only go back, what was it, 60 years? If you had the whole range of history, where would you start?

 

[SarahAlways]

Thank you for the more accurate account of history. I do believe that some of the Crusades were not only about territory but also forced conversions. And yes, let's never leave out the persecution of the Jews. Along with Slavery (an, that was the most profound persecution in history, from the beginning of the destruction of the first Temple onward to present day.
I am interested in time travel and history but not necessarily the changing of history. I do not believe in "necessary evils". I would never say the Holocaust was necessary by any means, but I believe changing the course of history is probably not without consequences. I don't subscribe to the thought that you can go back in time and kill Hitler and all will be well. There were many more variables than one man. How would you change them all?

I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler either, because I know there's a constant war of good vs. evil in the universe and there can't be a perfect world without Earth being a boring place to live, which luckily it isn't. But I feel that just because there may be a bunch of negative consequences for changing a historical thing like that doesn't mean there are those for every single change that can possibly be made.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your opinion on the idea of changing history, but I would expect that you respect mine. And yes, I respect your opinion as well.

Well the world certainly isn't boring, that's true and I agree with you about the war between good and evil, but I don't think it evil serves a purpose other than to give you a choice to choose the light instead. I don't think erasing parts of history would change that. Kill Hitler and you still have thousands of Nazis running amok. Maybe if you took out a few of the other key players, too, things might not have been so horrific. I don't know. Of course, if I could prevent the Holocaust I would. What if we were about to face another Holocaust now and a time traveler could step in and help prevent that? I wouldn't be opposed. I honestly don't know what I believe about it. My mind keeps going back to Titor's example of the Red Sea. I'm not say that applies to the Holocaust too, but it does touch on how interfering with history to save people could have negative consequences.

Maybe the example of Pearl Harbor and the Atom bomb would be more appropriate here. But I think you're right. There wouldn't be a negative consequence for every change. Perhaps you could go back to 1939 and print fake visas for every Jew you could, whilst trying not to land in a concentration camp yourself. I don't think changing history is ethically wrong. I guess, what a time traveler does and does not do is not the issue. The people living in a particular time who let things like the Holocaust happen. That's the issue. That's what is ethically wrong. *** and sorry for my disjointed replies.

 

[9th Wave]

John's timeline changed when he entered into the flux, this time-frame paradox, would never be the same as the one he knew before you leaped.
Thus it altered this reality, to someone else's;vice-versa... Which is why he got stuck here in the first place.
When john was in tampa, at mac dill airforce base in the early 2020's, he didn't realize that the 177th division would ultimately falter and the time leap would be halted another 60 years, switching the quantum leap int a freeze-point matrix.
Thus when he was born, another would be born 4 year before him in the same city, also baring the same qualities.
If i'm correct, the john titor you know, wouldn't be john titor at all, it would be a completely different person.