Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Napoleon Ier]

The denomenations of Christianity, while important, are amost all theology and philosophy. Trying to reword that Although only one denomination can be the truth, the fundamental truths are accepted by all churches (no Mormons are not Christians.) I happen to be a Lutheran turned Catholic, and although I like to convince people to become Catholic, the most important thing is just to become a Christian, then decide what denomination is best fitting (that isn't to say all denomenations are equal.)

If the most important thing is just to become a Christian, then why can't all these Christians just get along in harmony? I would think God isn't too pleased looking at all his followers claim that their denomination is the correct one all in His name. Perhaps Christians should all get back to the basics, you know, things like helping the poor or loving the unlovable. But that's just me.

I suppose you are right in many ways. In many others, the issue is more complicated. The first thing I'd say is that you can't judge a religion based on the praxis, or the putting of theoretical knowledge into practice, to necessarily judge the theory itself. The second is that Christians cant get along in harmony because they just believe things that are far too different. As for the last part of your post, I guess in many ways, you can only be spot on.

Why don;t they, you'll say?

Well, that is Christianity's message, man is just messed up and needs to be healed.

[Dancing Mustard]

f*ck...I am not reading this...

You do understand the concept of ABSOLUTE MORALS, don't you?
Also that they must be given by an ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARD?

Workout the argument, it isn't that difficult. Or ask your RS teacher, huh dm?

Yes you are.
1. Yes, I do. Sfobv.
2. You haven't really explained why, and you appear to be unable to deal with propositions for why they don't require any such thing (and indeed have been unable to deal with arguments on the point). I (and others) have explained to you why this proposition is humbug; but all you've done is repeated it at us and shouted "NO!!! I AM RYTE!!!! THEY CARN'TZ EXYIST OTHAWYZE!!

I've worked out your argument. I understand exactly what you're saying. I've told you why I don't think it works.

The problem is this: You mistakenly think you're a towering intellectual collosus and that anybody who doesn't immediately agree with you must be an imbecile; but despite this you don't appear to have the ability to deal with counter-arguments to your initial propositions. You can re-state your case a thousand times, but it's no good to you if you don't explain away the counter-arguments that arise to cut you down. Attempting to be condescending and pretending that we're somehow not worthy of your time is just your way of shying away from the issue (on which you are being soundly slapped-down).

I (and others) have given you perfectly valid reasons that your propositions don't work. But all you seem to be able to do is howl "DO SO!" at us.

Either debate this properly, or just go back to burying your head in the sand. Simply repeating your original position and shouting "WRONGZOR" at us isn't enough... but maybe it works on your RS teacher? Huh Nappy-Rash?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm sorry, do you want to post an argument dm, or just insult me?

[Dancing Mustard]

I'm sorry, do you want to post an argument dm, or just insult me?

Whenever you get arguments that contradict your views you either repeat your original proposition in bold-type, or attempt to be condescending in a vain effort to look superior. I'd say it's you who's after the insults. I came here for a debate, but found only a tantruming child to oppose me.

Now come on. You've repeatedly stooped to personal attacks when your intellect has failed you... it's remarkably hypocritical of you to start bleating about it now. If you're actually interested in debating with me, then pick yourself up, go find the posts I made destroying your original propositions, and get on with trying to logically rebut them.

But I'm afraid that if you're going to hug the gutter, then I'm quite happy to come down and join you.

[Napoleon Ier]

Please, re-quote these posts. I'd be happy to debate.

[MelonanadeMaster]

I still have to see a real reason to NOT endorse in violent activities if your an Atheist.

We call these things subjective morals and social conditioning. Are you honestly saying that a belief that 'killing is wrong' is no reason to kill, just because a mystical overlord didn't write it in the sky?

You apparently arn't able to comprehend that I can, as a Christian, talk about religous morals in an abstract sense without refering to God, which if you've actualy read Christian Theology, which is apparent that you havn't, makessense of a "supernatural being" in a way more complex then Sunday School logic.

Dancing Mustard I'm tired of your snooty sarcasm and ridicule, I can respect someone like Guiscard who supports his opinion and remains civil, but you are just silly. Your above post proves your hypocrysy. But forgive me I digress..

That part was all just you throwing a bit of a tantrum because I didn't bow down and treat you like some intellectual overlord really, wasn't it?

Please refrain from random vitriolic attacks in the future, they're just boring and don't get you anywhere, indeed they make you look like an oversensitive jerk...

I'm more than just acquainted with your precious scripture, and I can understand exactly how you believe you percieve a 'God'. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that because I think your beliefs are absurd, and don't talk about them with hushed reverence, that I haven't understood them. Despite my abrasive tone, I'm making perfectly substantiated points, there's no need to get vexed just because they make your life (and attempts to debate) difficult.

You think you understand 'God' in some terribly awesome clevertacular way that's above and beyond simple 'Sunday School' humdrum... but I think that for all intents and purposes, you believe in a 'mystical overlord'. Just because I don't doff my cap whenever you ascend to your pulpit to lecture me about how turbo-clever you think you must be, doesn't give you any valid reason at all to adopt the 'Napoleon Ier' school of "Waaa! U don't understandz meeee!" argument. In other words, try to keep a civil tone, even when people aren't padding you in cotton wool and kow-towing to your odd prehistoric beliefs; it's good for what ails you.

You have fun now.

I think you just proved my point.....

And your still not giving a proper answer to my moral question, why the heck should people trust subjective morals.

[got tonkaed]

melonade....seemingly there shouldnt be all that much of a difference between someone who believes in a subjective set of morality and someone who believes in an objective set of morality from a being that the individual cannot fully comprehend, thusly causing them to be incapable of understanding the morality behind the moral code.

[Napoleon Ier]

thusly

feeling Victorian ?

[got tonkaed]

meh its a good word....

i think the point bears flushing out though. Anyone could train someone or something to act rightly given a set of parameters, i mean i trained a cat to go in the litter box. The cat now always goes in the litter box, its quite a feat. In a more complex but similar fashion, a person can do the right thing, simply by following a set of commands.

However there can and in my estimation should be a distinction between simply doing things and understanding a "right" way to live. To do so, you have to be able to understanding the backing behind the direction. Because the world we live in is made up of finite and falliable beings, we can look at the basis for morality which comes out of such an arena, and critically analyze it.

However, critically analyzing Gods sense of right and wrong is rather tricky. Seemingly he knows a thing or two that we do not, and doesnt always seem to want to reveal it or be consistent with it. Since we cannot know how God has come to such conclusions, we reduce our capacity to be actively moral beings.

It is seemingly more possible to be a "moral person" in that sense of the term, using a subjective morality over an objective morality that cant be deeply delved into.

[Guiscard]

I also agree Saladin was a very respectable midevil general, even his enemies were quoted to say, "That he was a rightous pagan, who wouldn't go to Hell only were the rightous heathen would go" (I assure this was supposed to be a complement)

But I'd be careful to not adore Saladin too much, especialy not through terrible movie souces like the recent movie on the Crusades (which by no means am I accusing you of supporting) For example in the movie Saladin lets them all free, in reality he sold them into slavery except the rich who payed huge fortunes in order to escape.

Err... Again, not to be patronising but I would have thought it obvious that, as I get paid to do this, I don't formulate my historical ideas from movies...

And indeed the medieval world was generally complimentary about Saladin. I don't 'adore' him, he's just a good example one someone famous for their commitment to absolute religious orthodoxy (indeed, it was central to the unification of Islam at the time, there was little else they could agree on...) yet quite obviously he didn't believe tolerating the infidel would exclude him from heaven. If it were such an inherent part of Islam from its very conception then there would have been no diplomacy whatsoever. I am well aware of the extent to which the Saladin 'myth' should be considered reality, both the western version and the version propagated in the east (often, ironically, in the promotion of the notion of jihad his very actions disprove)...

[Guiscard]

I suppose Guiscard what it comes down to is the spiritual-temporal divide which doesn't exist in Islam. Furthermore, despite debate over the meaning of the Qu'uran and contradictory verses (let's remember its pretty tough and bizarre arabic for even seasoned scholars) I still believe the only interpretation of it can really be that it is violent. I read the Qu'uran at a time I was (you'll laugh) thinking about converting to Islam, and it put me off it. Research of Mohammad's life convinced me. Paedophile, terrorist, anti-semite, war criminal, dictator, myscogenist, thief...the list goes on.

Thats fine. But what I'm saying is that the actions of thousands of Muslims throughout the crusades disagree with you. You are more than welcome to interpret the Koran in that way. Indeed, many extremists will be happy that you have reached that conclusion because it is the one they too are seeking to convince people of. Unfortunately, it was not a conclusion reached at the birth of Islam, nor was it held as an inherent part of the Islamic religion through the Middle Ages, nor is held as such now. Actions justified by verses, not Verses prompting action.

[MelonanadeMaster]

I also agree Saladin was a very respectable midevil general, even his enemies were quoted to say, "That he was a rightous pagan, who wouldn't go to Hell only were the rightous heathen would go" (I assure this was supposed to be a complement)

But I'd be careful to not adore Saladin too much, especialy not through terrible movie souces like the recent movie on the Crusades (which by no means am I accusing you of supporting) For example in the movie Saladin lets them all free, in reality he sold them into slavery except the rich who payed huge fortunes in order to escape.

Err... Again, not to be patronising but I would have thought it obvious that, as I get paid to do this, I don't formulate my historical ideas from movies...

And indeed the medieval world was generally complimentary about Saladin. I don't 'adore' him, he's just a good example one someone famous for their commitment to absolute religious orthodoxy (indeed, it was central to the unification of Islam at the time, there was little else they could agree on...) yet quite obviously he didn't believe tolerating the infidel would exclude him from heaven. If it were such an inherent part of Islam from its very conception then there would have been no diplomacy whatsoever. I am well aware of the extent to which the Saladin 'myth' should be considered reality, both the western version and the version propagated in the east (often, ironically, in the promotion of the notion of jihad his very actions disprove)...

I aplogize if my post was patronizing, as that mas not its purpose, I was only showing the flaws, not your argument, but those who go to far.

[Napoleon Ier]

I also agree Saladin was a very respectable midevil general, even his enemies were quoted to say, "That he was a rightous pagan, who wouldn't go to Hell only were the rightous heathen would go" (I assure this was supposed to be a complement)

But I'd be careful to not adore Saladin too much, especialy not through terrible movie souces like the recent movie on the Crusades (which by no means am I accusing you of supporting) For example in the movie Saladin lets them all free, in reality he sold them into slavery except the rich who payed huge fortunes in order to escape.

Err... Again, not to be patronising but I would have thought it obvious that, as I get paid to do this, I don't formulate my historical ideas from movies...

And indeed the medieval world was generally complimentary about Saladin. I don't 'adore' him, he's just a good example one someone famous for their commitment to absolute religious orthodoxy (indeed, it was central to the unification of Islam at the time, there was little else they could agree on...) yet quite obviously he didn't believe tolerating the infidel would exclude him from heaven. If it were such an inherent part of Islam from its very conception then there would have been no diplomacy whatsoever. I am well aware of the extent to which the Saladin 'myth' should be considered reality, both the western version and the version propagated in the east (often, ironically, in the promotion of the notion of jihad his very actions disprove)...

I'll ask again Guiscard, have you ever heard of the battle of Tours?

[Guiscard]

I also agree Saladin was a very respectable midevil general, even his enemies were quoted to say, "That he was a rightous pagan, who wouldn't go to Hell only were the rightous heathen would go" (I assure this was supposed to be a complement)

But I'd be careful to not adore Saladin too much, especialy not through terrible movie souces like the recent movie on the Crusades (which by no means am I accusing you of supporting) For example in the movie Saladin lets them all free, in reality he sold them into slavery except the rich who payed huge fortunes in order to escape.

Err... Again, not to be patronising but I would have thought it obvious that, as I get paid to do this, I don't formulate my historical ideas from movies...

And indeed the medieval world was generally complimentary about Saladin. I don't 'adore' him, he's just a good example one someone famous for their commitment to absolute religious orthodoxy (indeed, it was central to the unification of Islam at the time, there was little else they could agree on...) yet quite obviously he didn't believe tolerating the infidel would exclude him from heaven. If it were such an inherent part of Islam from its very conception then there would have been no diplomacy whatsoever. I am well aware of the extent to which the Saladin 'myth' should be considered reality, both the western version and the version propagated in the east (often, ironically, in the promotion of the notion of jihad his very actions disprove)...

I'll ask again Guiscard, have you ever heard of the battle of Tours?

Yes. Have you heard of the Battle of Alesia?

[Napoleon Ier]

I also agree Saladin was a very respectable midevil general, even his enemies were quoted to say, "That he was a rightous pagan, who wouldn't go to Hell only were the rightous heathen would go" (I assure this was supposed to be a complement)

But I'd be careful to not adore Saladin too much, especialy not through terrible movie souces like the recent movie on the Crusades (which by no means am I accusing you of supporting) For example in the movie Saladin lets them all free, in reality he sold them into slavery except the rich who payed huge fortunes in order to escape.

Err... Again, not to be patronising but I would have thought it obvious that, as I get paid to do this, I don't formulate my historical ideas from movies...

And indeed the medieval world was generally complimentary about Saladin. I don't 'adore' him, he's just a good example one someone famous for their commitment to absolute religious orthodoxy (indeed, it was central to the unification of Islam at the time, there was little else they could agree on...) yet quite obviously he didn't believe tolerating the infidel would exclude him from heaven. If it were such an inherent part of Islam from its very conception then there would have been no diplomacy whatsoever. I am well aware of the extent to which the Saladin 'myth' should be considered reality, both the western version and the version propagated in the east (often, ironically, in the promotion of the notion of jihad his very actions disprove)...

I'll ask again Guiscard, have you ever heard of the battle of Tours?

Yes. Have you heard of the Battle of Alesia?

What relevance?

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

[Snorri1234]

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

Huh...that doesn't mean it was religously justified. Jihad is a holy war, doesn't mean muslims can't have mundane wars.

[MelonanadeMaster]

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

Huh...that doesn't mean it was religously justified. Jihad is a holy war, doesn't mean muslims can't have mundane wars.

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

[Frigidus]

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

Huh...that doesn't mean it was religously justified. Jihad is a holy war, doesn't mean muslims can't have mundane wars.

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

Were all the wars fought by Christian kingdoms in the same time period holy wars?

[Napoleon Ier]

The subtletly being these wars were started ans backed by Mohammad, and his successors fought them. They were Jihads, but you cant say they were manipulations because they were instigated by the very founder of Islam.

[Guiscard]

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

Huh...that doesn't mean it was religously justified. Jihad is a holy war, doesn't mean muslims can't have mundane wars.

That was exactly my point. But I don't want to bother pursuing this debate with Nappy. We all know his views on Muslims, and quite honestly they are not worth my time. He doesn't consider anything apart from right-wing rhetoric anyway...

[Guiscard]

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

Were the crusades a religious or a political 'group' then?

[Napoleon Ier]

You said Jihad was a concept inveted in the 11th century. Im asking how by the 8th, barely 100 years after muhammads death, the initial few renegades in Yathrib conquered the Arabian peninsula and most of Northern Africa as well as parts of Spain and France.

Huh...that doesn't mean it was religously justified. Jihad is a holy war, doesn't mean muslims can't have mundane wars.

That was exactly my point. But I don't want to bother pursuing this debate with Nappy. We all know his views on Muslims, and quite honestly they are not worth my time. He doesn't consider anything apart from right-wing rhetoric anyway...

You mean you're chickening out?

[Guiscard]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

[Neoteny]

You mean you're chickening out?

It means I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again on this site. I've set out what I have personally discovered from my own fairly extensive research. Indeed, as I progress in my academic career I may try and develop this into an article or perhaps even a more lengthy treatment, although only if I felt I could I could build upon Carole Hillenbrand's extensive treatment (which is certainly worth a read). Whilst I am more than happy to continue the debate with Melonanade, who seems willing to take facts into account, it would be a waste of my time rehashing my points over and over to someone so obviously xenophobic, racist, bigoted and downright ignorant. Yes, thats a flame. You are never going to be able to disassociate the issue from your current political viewpoint, and I find said viewpoint both disgusting and ridiculous. At the end of the day this is my career. All I do, all day, and what I am paid to do, is study history. There is a certain point at which I begin to insult myself and any idea of 'professionalism' I may have by continuing to 'debate'... That point is now...

Ouch.

EDIT: Are you referring to a specific Hillenbrand work or just in general?

[MelonanadeMaster]

Muslims are a religous group, not a political one. Any war of "Muslims" is a holy one, as if a religous group is going off to war its for religous reasons.

Were the crusades a religious or a political 'group' then?

Both, a religous group at the time justified going to war for religous reasons (I'm not saying I either agree nor disagree with the groups reasoning) and it was a powerful diplomatic tool for a monarch (a political figure) to get involved in the war. Reason in a monarchs eyes for going into the Crusades included, favor with the Pope, more land, religous control to the land, making others pay heavy taxes for pilgramage rights, high popularity with the people for winning a 'holy war' and securing their 'holy land', and pretty much guarentying a high legacy in history. Yes you could obvieously offer reason why it was not a good idea, but history shows that the political rulers of the time thought the benefits were worth it.
Also, to save myself some time for an inevitable reply from, at the very least someone, I'm not saying that the so called 'Jihads' did not have these double reasonings too. As my original reply was only saying that if a war is being encouraged by a religous group, it is for religous reasons, unless of course the religous group also has political power, in which case the group is now more than just a religous group.