The Crusades

[BluffTHIS!]

I'll defend the New Testament regarding moral prescriptions, but not those of the OT which it superseded. Maybe BossJJ will login under that name instead of what he's using now, and defend the OT passages you are referring to though.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why you, DVaut1, try to view things through the more complex lens first, is baffling to me. Have you ever heard of the principle that the simplest solution or reason is also the most likely correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I don't believe the simplest solution is the most likely correct one. Often times it is; often times it's not.

2) I don't believe your reasoning as to why the Muslim world finds itself in the position it's in is the simplest one (for one, the 'Muslim' world is obviously not in a singular position; add that to the complexity this issue deserves). It's certainly the most difficult (if not impossible) to prove -- or more correctly, it's certainly the one that's the most difficult to provide persuasive evidence for, given how much I think you're ignoring (or not factoring in).

[ QUOTE ]
The Koran advocates making war on infidels and subjugating them. Mohammed made aggressive war on infidels, killing and subjugating them, numerous times. His later followers through centuries made aggressive war on infidels, killing and subjugating them, numerous times. What, then, is the simplest conclusion you might draw from all of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try a similar exercise: The Christian bible advocates peace and love -- and yet Christians have made aggressive war on many, killing and subjugating them, numerous times. What, then, is the simplest conclusion you might draw from this?

The simplest explanation is the Christianity is clearly a false religion (as it's followers overtly and blatantly ignore it's core and fundamental teachings). That's the simplest explanation, in my mind. So much so that I explained it away in 5 words (Christianity is a false religion).

But it ignores SO MUCH (and by that I mean, consider how many factors we aren't considering)...it ignores so much that, in my mind, it couldn't possibly be the right explanation.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Such barbarism is one good reason for Jesus to have established an entirely new platform for believers.

[/ QUOTE ]




This is untrue. Jesus never invalidates the Old Testament. He just provided the means by which the passages that have been sighted are no longer necessary. Jesus provided a way to satify God's just punishment for sins.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't use the term "invalidate" so much as "supersede."

The new covenant, however, is meant to replace the old covenant...not merely to add to it. The old forms the historical background for the new, but the new becomes all that really matters, except in the background or historical sense.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]


Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came, lest we allow their inherently violent nature stop us from kicking up the GDP a few ticks on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As Ibn Warraq says, there are non-violent Christians, but Christianity is not non-violent.

-----------------

And with that ridiculousness (and the ridiculousness that it was in response to), I'm really off to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, that would be the Jews, not Christians. GG, thanks for playing, pick up a parting gift on your way out.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came, lest we allow their inherently violent nature stop us from kicking up the GDP a few ticks on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As Ibn Warraq says, there are non-violent Christians, but Christianity is not non-violent.

-----------------

And with that ridiculousness (and the ridiculousness that it was in response to), I'm really off to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, that would be the Jews, not Christians. GG, thanks for playing, pick up a parting gift on your way out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fine, whatever -- why doesn't M advocate a large-scale war against Jews, then, for their inherently violent nature? Whether or not this is an imperative for Jews or Christians is rather irrelevant to my point.

I'll take an explanation from M (or a like-minded individual) as a parting gift.

P.S. -- when did Christians utterly disavow themselves of the Old Testament?

[Chris Alger]

I note that you don't and can't even deny the following statement from my last post:

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that you advocate cruelty (land confiscation, war, etc.) toward innocent members of other national, ethnic and religious groups for reasons that you would never tolerate if applied to the yourself. To take an egregious example, you have often advocated seizing land and other collective punishments from "the Arabs" -- meaning innocent others -- if any Arab commits any terrorist act. At the same time, you deny that "the Americans" should ever be collectively punished for the many depredations committed by them, even when such acts are taken not individually or lawlessly but as popular acts of a democratic state. In those cases, you dismiss the crime as a mistake, an abberation or "in the past" and therefore unworthy of concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your reply is yet another of your famous failures to clash with anything:

[ QUOTE ]
Chris, your personal accusations are in error, and your conclusions are intellectually vacant; moreover, you are employing the cheap tactic of attempting to steer the focus of the thread away from the subject at hand and divert it instead to personal attacks. Additionally, your gross twisting of my words is simply appalling.

[/ QUOTE ]
My accusations of your stated positions can't be "in error" because you don't deny them; and everyone here's seen you post them dozens of times. Your first post in this thread explicitly defended the first crusade on the grounds that many of the victims were descended from people that spread Islam by conquest more than 350 years earlier. My conclusion therefore isn't "vacant" but follows as a matter of iron logic. I'm not steering the focus of the thread away from the subject but pointing out specifically why your rationalizations for violence can't be taken seriously but instead are proof of group hatred animus. And since you can't point to any words of your I've supposedly "twisted" I can't be guilty of that either.

[ QUOTE ]
Par tactics for a certain type of lawyer, I suppose; but a truly sad reflection for a human being.

[/ QUOTE ]
So instead of dealing with my argument you resort to calling me a bad human being and a lousy lawyer, a classic example of substituting personal attack for argument. How can you believe that you have any business policing this forum for personal attacks?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came, lest we allow their inherently violent nature stop us from kicking up the GDP a few ticks on Sunday.

As Ibn Warraq says, there are non-violent Christians, but Christianity is not non-violent.

-----------------

And with that ridiculousness (and the ridiculousness that it was in response to), I'm really off to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]



Uh, that would be the Jews, not Christians. GG, thanks for playing, pick up a parting gift on your way out.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, fine, whatever -- why doesn't M advocate a large-scale war against Jews, then, for their inherently violent nature? Whether or not this is an imperative for Jews or Christians is rather irrelevant to my point.

I'll take an explanation from M (or a like-minded individual) as a parting gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does Judaism have a concept truly parallel to the Islamic concept of jihad or holy war? Does the Torah or Old Testament advise Jews to take not friends from amongst the infidels, but rather to make war against them, until the infidels are subjugated, and they pay the special poll tax in subservience? Did Moses personally lead many armies of conquest, engaging in plunder, slaughter, and the taking of slaves as booty, as did Mohammed? Did the followers of Judaism, through the centuries, take over large swathes of land by force, killing, converting or subjugating the inhabitants as they spread? Does the Torah or Old Testament advise them to do so?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Judaism have a concept truly parallel to the Islamic concept of jihad or holy war?

[/ QUOTE ]

See below. You more or less ask the same thing 5 times in this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the Torah or Old Testament advise Jews to take not friends from amongst the infidels, but rather to make war against them, until the infidels are subjugated, and they pay the special poll tax in subservience?

[/ QUOTE ]

It apparently does advocate violence often, in numerous places, as theOnceandFutureKing points out.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Moses personally lead many armies of conquest, engaging in plunder, slaughter, and the taking of slaves as booty, as did Mohammed?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my knowledge, no -- but this isn't necessarily what you're arguing. You're claiming that the totalitarian and violent nature of Islamic states is due to (and due soley to!) the fact that the Koran calls for them to live and rule in such a way.

Similarly, you should openly condemn Judaism for demanding that its adherents to live in a similarly violent manner -- so that, specifically, anytime Jews commit acts of violence, you attribute it SPECIFICALLY and SOLELY to the fact that they're Jews, and that this is their inherent nature, as laid out in the Old Testament.

I think such an argument is clearly fallacious and patently false -- and OBVIOUSLY so; so I question why anyone would make a similar argument about Islam, given that they would NEVER consider such an argument about Judaism to be legitimate.

Given that such arguments aren't made about Judaism, or about Christianity -- but that they're posited consistently here on this forum and elsewhere about Islam -- I think that leads ChrisAlgers and others (myself included) to question the motives of those who propose such theories; particularly in light of the intense and almost fanatical way that those who propose such theories are intent on defending them, in light of logical and coherent evidence to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
Did the followers of Judaism, through the centuries, take over large swathes of land by force, killing, converting or subjugating the inhabitants as they spread? Does the Torah or Old Testament advise them to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two questions are more or less the same thing you asked above.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does Judaism have a concept truly parallel to the Islamic concept of jihad or holy war?

[/ QUOTE ]



See below. You more or less ask the same thing 5 times in this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, we'll see.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the Torah or Old Testament advise Jews to take not friends from amongst the infidels, but rather to make war against them, until the infidels are subjugated, and they pay the special poll tax in subservience?

[/ QUOTE ]



It apparently does advocate violence often, in numerous places, as theOnceandFutureKing points out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not what I asked. The Koran in many sections advises outward aggression against non-members of the religion, and their forcible subjugation; the passages in the Old Testament regarding violence are generally or usually within the Jewish community itself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did Moses personally lead many armies of conquest, engaging in plunder, slaughter, and the taking of slaves as booty, as did Mohammed?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my knowledge, no -- but this isn't necessarily what you're arguing. You're claiming that the totalitarian and violent nature of Islamic states is due to (and due soley to!) the fact that the Koran calls for them to live and rule in such a way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're mistaken about what I'm claiming. I even took pains to make this specifically clear in another post in this thread: I am NOT asserting that the violent and totalitarian-type nature of Islamic stares is due SOLELY to the Koran and Islam, but rather, that they play a significant role overall.


[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, you should openly condemn Judaism for demanding that its adherents to live in a similarly violent manner -- so that, specifically, anytime Jews commit acts of violence, you attribute it SPECIFICALLY and SOLELY to the fact that they're Jews, and that this is their inherent nature, as laid out in the Old Testament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DO think many of the old laws and scriptures of Judaism were barbaric--and I've said so in this very thread. I know you didn't miss it. And as above, I do NOT attribute all acts of violence by Muslims to the Koran or Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
I think such an argument is clearly fallacious and patently false -- and OBVIOUSLY so; so I question why anyone would make a similar argument about Islam, given that they would NEVER consider such an argument about Judaism to be legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not my argument, and you are mischaracterizing my argument--unintentionally, I'm sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Given that such arguments aren't made about Judaism, or about Christianity -- but that they're posited consistently here on this forum and elsewhere about Islam -- I think that leads ChrisAlgers and others (myself included) to question the motives of those who propose such theories; particularly in light of the intense and almost fanatical way that those who propose such theories are intent on defending them, in light of logical and coherent evidence to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, that's not my argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did the followers of Judaism, through the centuries, take over large swathes of land by force, killing, converting or subjugating the inhabitants as they spread? Does the Torah or Old Testament advise them to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two questions are more or less the same thing you asked above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, and it's a means of reinforcing the point with additional examples.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I note that you don't and can't even deny the following statement from my last post:

Quote:
The fact remains that you advocate cruelty (land confiscation, war, etc.) toward innocent members of other national, ethnic and religious groups for reasons that you would never tolerate if applied to the yourself. To take an egregious example, you have often advocated seizing land and other collective punishments from "the Arabs" -- meaning innocent others -- if any Arab commits any terrorist act. At the same time, you deny that "the Americans" should ever be collectively punished for the many depredations committed by them, even when such acts are taken not individually or lawlessly but as popular acts of a democratic state. In those cases, you dismiss the crime as a mistake, an abberation or "in the past" and therefore unworthy of concern.


Your reply is yet another of your famous failures to clash with anything:

Quote:
Chris, your personal accusations are in error, and your conclusions are intellectually vacant; moreover, you are employing the cheap tactic of attempting to steer the focus of the thread away from the subject at hand and divert it instead to personal attacks. Additionally, your gross twisting of my words is simply appalling.


My accusations of your stated positions can't be "in error" because you don't deny them; and everyone here's seen you post them dozens of times. Your first post in this thread explicitly defended the first crusade on the grounds that many of the victims were descended from people that spread Islam by conquest more than 350 years earlier. My conclusion therefore isn't "vacant" but follows as a matter of iron logic. I'm not steering the focus of the thread away from the subject but pointing out specifically why your rationalizations for violence can't be taken seriously but instead are proof of group hatred animus. And since you can't point to any words of your I've supposedly "twisted" I can't be guilty of that either.

Quote:
Par tactics for a certain type of lawyer, I suppose; but a truly sad reflection for a human being.


So instead of dealing with my argument you resort to calling me a bad human being and a lousy lawyer, a classic example of substituting personal attack for argument. How can you believe that you have any business policing this forum for personal attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, Chris, for the record, I deny ALL your attacks and insinuations. I've made it clear in this thread that you are not to take my lack of specific argument against your personal attacks as tacit acceptance; yet you continue to claim that it is, which is a false and cheap tactic. You also continually mischaracterize my positions. I'm not going line-for-line in response here because the same thing happened in that thread many moons ago where I finally put you on ignore: in that thread, I methodically denied and rebutted all of your attacks, but you would not relent in falsely accusing me of racism; so I finally terminated the discourse and put you on ignore.

I'm NOT going to go through the whole process over again, because there is apparently no end to it with you. My positions are NOT what you are making them out to be, but I'm not going to laboriously refute your mischaracterizations again, only to have you come up with additional mischaracterizations and erroneous conclusions in your repeated and persistent attacks. I'm just not playing that game this time around. If you persist in this accusatorial-type of sham (besides derailing the thread from the matter under discussion), I will ask the moderator for assaistance, or put you on ignore, or both.