Well, I'm not onto the whole lets crusade again thing. I'd much rather leave the petro behind and make the middle east modernize or be put in isolation. I just don't want nukes or too much money in concentrated hands....especially those whom hate our guts. But the rather violent inititial history of Islam is unavoidable. I don't necessarily view all muslims as a counterpart of that today. There are modern muslims whom aren't radicallly minded, imo. But it's almost as though KLB thinks there was no valid threat from Islam pre-crusades. Ehhh, maybe I'm assuming.
Nothing in the Bible about baptising babies. Episcopalian and russian orthodox have a lot in common with the catholic church from what I have seen. Methodist churches in my area don't really believe much in the Bible from what they preach, it is a pick and choose type of system. They use only what is comfortable and what matches today's culture here in America. I am not at all opposed to infant baptism. It is for the parents. It is in faith to God. To me it does nothing for the baptizee, but if the parents want to affirm their prayers for the child that he/she be dedicated to Christ - so be it. Afterall that's what started Samuel on his path to becoming a Prophet, no? What's left is to pray that the child grow healthy in mind and spirit and wish to be fully immersed one day himself.
My argument against the Crusades has nothing to do with the back and forth occupying of lands, that was just the way it was back then. Everyone was doing it. The problem comes in with the genocide. It wasn't just some "collateral damage", it was a systematic effort to exterminate all Jews along the way to the "holy lands" and in the holy land itself. All Jewish and Muslim men, women & children. It was systematic. Yes Muslim rulers also invaded and concurred countries, this is how the Ottoman Empire came into being, but there wasn't a systematic killing of non-combatants and there certainly wasn't a systematic killing of Jews or Christians on the way to conquer new lands. In fact one of the hallmarks of the Ottoman Empire is that they were much more interested in trade, commerce and taxes than anything else and dead populations or destroyed cities don't provide much in the way of taxes. Florida Holocaust Museum: Antisemitism: Crusades (http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/antisemitism/crusades.cfm):Spurred by the preaching of Pope Urban II and scores of Christian clergy, in 1095 crusading nobles set out under the sign of the cross to free the Holy Land from the infidel. Crop failure, famine, and plague created a surge of religious passion; in a prescientific age natural disasters were seen as the wrath of the Lord. To appease God, the holy places must be redeemed. The pope promised salvation to those who would slay the offending Muslims. Local priests reminded the faithful that the most terrible enemies of Christ were permitted to live and prosper in the very midst of Christian civiliztion. “First avenge the crucified,†a monk wrote, “then go off to fight the Turks.†As a contemporary noted, the Crusaders “exterminated by many massacres the Jews of almost all Gaul, with the exception of those who accepted conversion,†deeming it “unjust to permit the enemies of Christ to remain alive in their own country, when they had taken up arms to drive out the infidels abroad.†The abbot of Cluny asked why Christians should travel to "the ends of the world to fight the Sarcens, when we permit among us other infidels a thousand times more guilty toward Christ than the Mohammedans?†Religious passion, greed, and the vulnerability of Jews led to the rise of violent mobs who murdered thousands to the cry of conversion or death. It seemed just that the wealth of blasphemers should fall to those who did the work of the Lord. John Weiss, Ideology of Death I'd highly recommend reading the entire page there is some pretty bad stuff in there. For instance:By the end of the fourteenth century, Jews were seen to embody evil. There were no longer tales of Jews converting. Rather, it was believed that Jews stabbed the Host—literally stabbed Christ. Images of Jews as scorpions and pigs adorned Cathedral walls. The proliferation of anti-Jewish images in the Middle Ages presaged the Nazi propaganda that depicted Jews as satanic figures. The Jewish Virtual History Tour - Germany (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/germany.html):Crusaders would routinely massacre whole Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land. Communities in Worms, Mainz and Cologne were devastated; in Mainz, for example, 1,100 Jews were killed in one day in 1096, and the synagogue and other communities buildings were razed. It is important to note that while the Pope occasionally condemned these attacks on Jews, the condemnations were neither vocal nor frequent. Moreover, the lack of any punishment or reprisals against the violators of the Pope's orders gave the rioters implicit approval, and the attacks continued during the next seven crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries. Crash Course in Jewish History Part 45 - The Crusades (http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_45_-_The_Crusades.asp):Here is one eyewitness account of an attack on the Jewry of Mainz in May of 1096. This comes from The First Crusade by August Krey, and it is a letter written by a Jew who survived: "The Jews of the city, knowing of the slaughter of their brethren fled in hope of safety to the Bishop of Ruthard. They put an infinite treasure in his guard and trust having much faith in his protection. He placed the Jews in a very spacious hall in his own house that they might remain safe and sound in a very secure and strong place. "But ... the band held council, and after sunrise attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances, breaking down the bolts in the doors. They killed the Jews, about 700 in number who in vain resisted the force of an attack of so many thousands. They killed the women also and with their sword pierced tender children whatever age and sex..." This is how about 30%-50% of the Jewish community of Europe met its end. Some 10,000 Jews of an estimated population of about 20,000-30,000 were slaughtered by Crusaders mobs. -------- Off on a little side note I found that some leaders over in Iran need to do a little reading of their Qur'ans in regards to Israel. From Jewish Virtual Library: A Muslim Scholar Speaks on Islam & Jerusalem (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Muslimscholar.html):The idea of Islam as a factor that prevents Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel or Jerusalem is quite recent and can by no means be found in Islamic classical sources. Both Qur'an and Torah indicate quite clearly that the link between the Jews and the Land of Israel does not depend on any kind of colonization project but directly on the will of God Almighty. In particular, both Jewish and Islamic Scriptures state specifically that God through His chosen servant Moses decided to free the offspring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and to make them the inheritors of the Promised Land. The Qur'an cites the exact words with which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:"And (remember) when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the people. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin'". (Qur'an, Sura 5:22-23, "The Table") The Holy Qur'an also quite openly refers to the reinstatement of the Children of Israel in the Land before the Last Judgment, where it says "And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land.' And when the last warning will come to pass, We will gather you together in a mingled crowd." (Qur'an, Sura 17:104, "The Night Journey")Boy those are some mighty inconvenient passages for the Iranian leadership. Anyone want to deliver the message to them? On another tangent, here is an interesting article on the history of Mohammad and the founding of Islam by a Jewish Rabbi (that's kind of redundant isn't it). I didn't see it as either entirely glowing or entirely critical, but rather a background primer. http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewish...ewish_History_Part_42_-_The_Rise_of_Islam.asp
I had no illusion that you would take issue with the crusades of islam against Christians and Jews for hundreds of years before Christians finally started fighting back. In fact, they prove undeniably that islam was (and is still being) spread by the sword. The Christian Crusades were started for defensive purposes. From the same article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html You might pay a little more attention to this, as it covers some of the islamic apologists you seem to admire. Speaking of interesting articles to dismiss, this one covers how muslim jihad begot the Crusades. This one comes complete with islamic references that do not whitewash the truth. Some Christians fight back, others make excuses for their oppresssors.
There you go, creating a straw man argument again. I stated that I didn't take issue with the crusades from the standpoint of territorial conquest because it was done constantly by everyone at that point in time. My issue with the crusades is that they were not limited to territorial conquest. They included the systematic effort to exterminate as many non-Christians as possible whether they were Jews or Muslims; not only in the holy land, but also on the way to the holy land. You can not in any way justify or dismiss the killing of 1/3 to 1/2 of the Jewish population in Gaul or Germany on a few scattered incidents. Denying these events is no different than denying the Holocaust of World War Two and in fact many Jews call the Crusades the First Holocaust. Even by the standards the time they took place in, the Crusades were extremely brutal and unapologetically massacred tens of thousands of innocent civilians including women and children (something that is absolutely forbidden in Islamic law BTW).
Incorrect. It was a spot on observation and you continued along the same path in your response. Ignoring the inconvenient truths of the information presented and calling upon a perceived strawman argument. It was not just territorial conquest. In fact, it was following in the footsteps of mohammed and the quran. The strawman argument is below: I've not tried, in any way to dismiss such. This is a fabrication of a strawman argument to avoid addressing the issue that islam continued througout history to systematically conquer, murder, rape, pillage in the name of islam. It's a fabrication to dismiss the fact that the Crusades were started as a mechanism to fight back against muslim oppression. It stands to chance, given your history, that you take no issue with the muslim crusades launched hundreds of years before Christians fought back. You don't apologize for Christians and Jews. You only apologize and sweep muslim attrocities under the rug. http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_muslim_crusades.html
GTech would you please go look up the definition of straw man argument and then write it down on paper one hundred times. Oh hell, I'll just give it to you (from: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13261:STRAW MAN This is where you argue against a point which was never made, typically a warped version of what was said, which is easier to rebuke than the actual point which was made. An example would be claiming that, were evolution real, and as natural selection is constantly improving us, we should (according to the theory of evolution) be perfect by now. As we're not, evolution is patently untrue. This is a strawman because evolution does not claim that we should be perfect. We are continually 'improving', so to speak, in relation to our fitness to survive in our habitat. As our habitat is constantly changing, this makes 'perfection' hard to achieve. In addition, were we to attain perfection, we would more than likely lose it instantaneously due to our inclination to mutate -- losing this inclination to mutate would be losing our ability to adapt, and so we would hardly be 'perfect' for very long even if we did. So basically, the argument is attacking a claim which evolution doesn’t make, even by extension. Don't like that explanation try this one (from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html):The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. You twisted what I said to say something I didn't mean and you know it. Do not play innocent on this fact. Twisting words is not debating. It might make you feel good, but it makes you look like an ass.
I'm well aware of what it is. I'm well aware that you did such as I noted above. I'm well aware that use such quite often. I'm well aware I did not twist your words. Your words are already so twisted and full of outright lies that I could not do them justice. It's simply your excuse for not dealing with the issues when you are losing.
GTech: Even if you view KLB's position as fallacious, if you are going to provide a summary of what you believe his position to be, you should attempt to make a summary that accurately reflects what KLB's position. If you do not feel you can do so, then to summarize his position is not appropriate. If you then attack a summary you yourself do not believe him to be putting forth because you cannot "do it justice", this is definitely a straw man argument. All: Generally, if you avoid sumarizing another person's view point in a debate, it helps to avoid using this logical fallacy. I've seen lots of people, even myself, make egregious errors in sumarizing another's position, which has lead to several strawmen arguments being made. I must apologize for having accidentally made a few myself, due to not fully understanding another's position. Attacking the other person by saying that they are lying, or purposefully misrepresenting the truth is another debate fallacy that I have seen used far to often.
Here as in where? In America you are not required to swear on the bible. It is merely an optional tradition to allow politicians to do so. Some presidents have not even taken an -oath- of officer, but rather affirmed a statement.
If that is the case, why all the fuss and the need to swear on the crayon? It's all just to make some noise... I bet the guy is not even a muslim.
We've been so through this issue. To summarize the posts and evidence on this issue into one post: The Christian conservative movement would have us believe that this country was founded as a "Christian nation" and that the first Amendment's freedom of religion only pertains to Christian religions. Yet the Constitution never mentions the word Christian and Article VI paragraph three is very clear about there being no religious test to serve in congress (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.Dictating which holy script must be used for taking an oath or prohibiting the use of a specific holy text is a religious test and thus prohibited. The First Amendment states (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Further more the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which was signed in Tripoli in 1796 and ratified by the Senate (full of founding fathers) and President John Adams (a founding father) in 1797 states in article XI (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm):As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslim],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.If anyone knew the principles upon which this nation was founded it would have been our founding fathers and ratifying a treaty with this wording is a very explicit statement of their intentions in the form of a legal document. Going through the debates in regards to ratifying the First Amendment it is very clear that those involved with ratifying the First Amendment understood what it meant for example: From Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention for the First Amendment of the Constitution 30 July 1788 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.htm):Governor Johnston:It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans [Muslims], pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Mr. Iredell:Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. Mr. Spaight:No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest. I challenge anyone to find a legal document of the United States of America written by or endorsed by the founding fathers of the U.S. that endorses Christianity and/or the Bible as the religion of this nation or the holy scriptures of this nation. Even the use of the word "God" in the founding documents of our nations and our states DO NOT qualify that it is a Christian god.
Nope... It was founded under God, but God fearing men, not Christians like so many delusional moonbats would have many believe.
I missed this post earlier and it is worth commenting on: On this I am in complete and unabashed agreement with you. If we were not dependent upon oil we could more easily extract our self from the Middle Eastern situation and let them sort it out for themselves. We can not make anybody do anything this is why President Bush's policy in regards to Iraq was doomed to failure from the start. With that said the Middle East does need to modernize but they can not and will not modernize until we stop meddling in their affairs for our own self interest. Again I agree on this part of your statement. But to me this includes Israel and rest of the world. Here is one dynamic on this problem (the domino theory so to speak) that does not get touched on. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. created the idea of using nuclear weapons as a deterrence during the Cold War. Now all nations that have nuclear ambitions have those ambitions because of this idea. India and Pakistan are traditional rivals. India developed nuclear weapons because Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India was developing nuclear weapons. Israel developed nuclear weapons as a deterrence against the Arab states. Iran and Israel or basically enemies. Iran and Pakistan are also traditional rivals. So Iran sees that two of their rivals have nuclear weapons so they want their own nuclear weapons as a "deterrence". Iran is the traditional adversary of all the Arab countries (Iranians are Persian not Arabs and they worship a different form of Islam from most Arabs). As a result Saudi Arabia will want nuclear weapons as a deterrence against Iran. So on and so forth. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and there is no way we are going to get Israel, Pakistan and India to give up their nuclear weapons. Yet getting these three nations to give up their nuclear weapons may be the only way to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the Middle East and there is no more dangerous place in the world for nuclear weapons to exist than in the Middle East. Somebody will eventually use them. This is my point. The only way to work towards a real and lasting peace is to reach out a hand of friendship to those moderate Muslims. Fortunately most Muslims in the U.S. are very moderate and peaceful and thus there is a very close group of Muslims with whom we can reach out to. No that is what GTech and others are trying to make out that I think. From pre-history through the middle ages everyone was at some point threat to everyone else (well except maybe the Jews who were victimized by everyone). This is the sad and bloody truth. Everyone was invading everyone else's land because the only law that mattered was the law that "might makes right". It should be noted, however, that the vast majority of time, wars were really about power hungry leaders (on all sides) going out to conquest lands to increase their power and wealth. Most conquers of the day saw the conquered population as a source of wealth and wiping out the inhabitants of the conquered lands was not a good way to get wealthy. It was far better to just make the governments of the conquered lands to submit, pay their taxes to the conquerer and go about their normal lives. My point about the Crusades is that even by the standards of that day they were bloody. The Crusades on the weren't about conquering lands for traditional purposes to increase power and wealth by taxing the conquered populations. They were about wiping out all the enemies of Christ and making the Holy Land available for Christians. Thus anyone and everyone, to the greatest extent possible, who was not Christian was killed (man woman and child). This included thousands of peaceful Jews along the way to the Holy Land that had absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Land. To many crusaders the Crusades were also about trying to bring forth Armageddon, which required all Jews to convert to Christianity and in the twisted mind of the Crusaders it didn't matter if Jews converted or were killed if at the end there were no Jews remaining alive that had not been converted then the requirements for Armageddon would have been fulfilled. If the Crusades had been conducted in the traditional manner of warfare from that period of time, they would simply be another footnote in our history that was mostly forgotten by all. You will notice that there is little discussion in our world about Christian Roman armies going out and conquering lands for Rome because the conduct of those armies were so different. than the Crusaders.
Would you please clarify what you are saying here? We may have a brief moment of agreement if you are saying what I think you are saying. Maybe the "but" should be an "by"? .... I think.
I don't know why there's even a debate. Rasism is racism. Some Christians are extremist morons, some Muslims are extremist morons, some Jews are extremist morons. Most Christians, Muslims, and Jews are decent people just trying to survive in this crazy world. End of story.