Logic dictates that there is a God!

[mybike_yourface]

logic dictates there is no god.

[radiojake]

logic dictates there is no god.

[Backglass]

Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...

Well, it is hard to find truths in a fiction book. Glad you acknowledge that Naps!

Hope you relise that you're pathetic for making childish jibes when some people, from both sides of this debate, are trying to make actual discussion.

Yet you and our French friend, seemingly intelligent and well read individuals, insist on living your lives in complete devotion to these metaphors, legends and lore. Stranger still you admit that the book you cling to should not be taken literally.

Pathetic indeed.

[Dancing Mustard]

Yet you and our French friend, seemingly intelligent and well read individuals.

Heh heh. Backglass my friend, you should do stand-up...

[MelonanadeMaster]

Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...

Well, it is hard to find truths in a fiction book. Glad you acknowledge that Naps!

Hope you relise that you're pathetic for making childish jibes when some people, from both sides of this debate, are trying to make actual discussion.

Yet you and our French friend, seemingly intelligent and well read individuals, insist on living your lives in complete devotion to these metaphors, legends and lore. Stranger still you admit that the book you cling to should not be taken literally.

Pathetic indeed.

Normaly theological books containing parables and metaphors are not ment to be completely read literaly
You also seemed to have missed an impotant part of my quote "both sides of the debate" I can respect people like got tonkaed and Guiscard who, though there opinion differ from mine, are respectable people who actualy add to the discussion as apposed to you and several others not worth naming.

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh quit sniffling already you grumpy sod. People like myself and Backglass are adding plenty of relevant material to this debate; you just don't want to play ball with us because we refuse to pander to your pretensions of genius, nor delude ourselves that your belief system demands some sort of hushed reverence when we speak about it, simply because you (and others) sincerely hold it and because it's been around for a long time.

Think about it, if some random nutjob came in and started yelling about the world being flat and ruled by super-intelligent, sentient, telekinetic caramel-bars then we'd robustly argue against his beliefs too. You'd dismiss him as a barking lunatic and offer not deference to his sincerely held beliefs. That's what we're doing to you. Perhaps if you spent less time whinging and more time attempting to rationaly deal with our arguments then we'd begin to give you a little more reverence.

What I'm trying to say is this: don't just bitch and whinge when we demolish your arguments and ideas, try to argue back if you think our targets are worth protecting. Getting stroppy, casting petty aspersions, and refusing to debate with us doesn't magically give you some intellectual high-ground, it just proves that your system of belief doesn't stand up so well when people refuse to wear kid-gloves when they hit it.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Oh quit sniffling already you grumpy sod. People like myself and Backglass are adding plenty of relevant material to this debate; you just don't want to play ball with us because we refuse to pander to your pretensions of genius, nor delude ourselves that your belief system demands some sort of hushed reverence when we speak about it, simply because you (and others) sincerely hold it and because it's been around for a long time.

Think about it, if some random nutjob came in and started yelling about the world being flat and ruled by super-intelligent, sentient, telekinetic caramel-bars then we'd robustly argue against his beliefs too. You'd dismiss him as a barking lunatic and offer not deference to his sincerely held beliefs. That's what we're doing to you. Perhaps if you spent less time whinging and more time attempting to rationaly deal with our arguments then we'd begin to give you a little more reverence.

What I'm trying to say is this: don't just bitch and whinge when we demolish your arguments and ideas, try to argue back if you think our targets are worth protecting. Getting stroppy, casting petty aspersions, and refusing to debate with us doesn't magically give you some intellectual high-ground, it just proves that your system of belief doesn't stand up so well when people refuse to wear kid-gloves when they hit it.

Actualy no, I would rationaly debate why I'd disagree with the person.

People like Guiscard, who I assure you, presents themselves as much more intellectual people then you show yourself, seem perfectly fine with discusing with me. I wonder why you don't?

Me Being angry about YOU demolishing MY arguments !!
Lol there hasn't been a single time I've been in the discusion that people like Backglass (I'll let you decide whether you'll fit yourself in this group, though it seems like you already have) have added anything besides childish jibes like "**** God."[/b]

[Napoleon Ier]

wrongz melndmastr ur god is frickin dumb all u peeps r stoopidh
f*ck u and god duh

[comic boy]

wrongz melndmastr ur god is frickin dumb all u peeps r stoopidh
f*ck u and god duh

Spot on !

[Napoleon Ier]

wrongz melndmastr ur god is frickin dumb all u peeps r stoopidh
f*ck u and god duh

Spot on !

The sarcasm eluded you there did it?

[Guiscard]

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

[Napoleon Ier]

Christianity persecutes by moving away from its principles, Islam, by moving closer to them

[got tonkaed]

Christianity persecutes by moving away from its principles, Islam, by moving closer to them

do you not perhaps, see some form of contradiction between the idea of christian principles which you seem to implictly argue espouse social justice and good, while holding personal worldy beliefs which do not corroborate those ideals you use to deride islam?

[Napoleon Ier]

Christianity persecutes by moving away from its principles, Islam, by moving closer to them

do you not perhaps, see some form of contradiction between the idea of christian principles which you seem to implictly argue espouse social justice and good, while holding personal worldy beliefs which do not corroborate those ideals you use to deride islam?

Sort of. Its something I'm thinking about. Psychologically, I'm at the age where all my beliefs are still in the process of being reconciled with one another.

I suppose that God said "Thou shalt not steal", he never added in the clause "excpet by majority vote".Read the Bible (imagine me saying that in a not condescending tone, ), it upholds private property. Besides, religion should not interfere with politics. It can indirectly, but not directly. Besides, I simply believe that the best way to help the poor is Libertarian economics.

[got tonkaed]

although id wager many xians may not agree with your assesment i suppose i find some particular points worth discussing.

Seemingly Jesus in his ministry does not tend to place much of a value on property. Part of it may deal with his realities as a traveling missionary, part of it may have been (assuming for a moment he is divine) he knew he didnt need it.

However, in the relatively near future after his death, we seem to find a large amount of material that suggests christian communities were in fact communal. Very rarely are notions of private propery exhalted, even in the cases of "house churches" outside of jerusalem.

Now i believe you have advocated at times that the bible is not the end all be all for truth, but if you square away the notion that the bible protects private propery (which it may), how do you equal that out with many of the teachings of Jesus and Paul?

[Napoleon Ier]

The Early Church fused as a product of necessity, not because they were rojos, I believe.

[got tonkaed]

The Early Church fused as a product of necessity, not because they were rojos, I believe.

but that seems quite debatable in and of itself. Clearly with the small number of people, there could have been simple support while maintaing property. Clearly after much of the pauline ministry, there are a number of homesteads which clearly give up their right to their property, even though the certainly dont have to. Seemingly because of the time period, these groups of people would have been quite well off.

Likewise in Jerusalem, there was not a need necessarily to donate everything to the collective, rather it seems this was done as a matter of doctrine.

[Napoleon Ier]

I wouldn't say doctrine, I'd class it as simple necessity in the face of persecution, and also becausewith such small numbers it was more faesible and practical. I wouldn't say simply sharing goods makes a system communist, especially in this sort of case.Would you say, for example, the Kibboutz make Israel communist?

It is a difficult topic for me granted. Also you asked me on the friday term ends after midnight. My senses are not...optimized...

[got tonkaed]

i probably would not say such a thing, but i do think there is a bit of a differnce in our situations. In your case with xianity, it is a strong motivator and indicator of your moral compass. Therefore, it seemingly is more important for it to mesh with your other worldviews, especially when you are trying to compare the merits of a few different religions.

In short the stakes are a bit lower for me if they are wrong, as i dont hold too much foundational truth in the notions of socialism, whereas xianity and libertarianism are much more core in some of your stances.

[Napoleon Ier]

i probably would not say such a thing, but i do think there is a bit of a differnce in our situations. In your case with xianity, it is a strong motivator and indicator of your moral compass. Therefore, it seemingly is more important for it to mesh with your other worldviews, especially when you are trying to compare the merits of a few different religions.

In short the stakes are a bit lower for me if they are wrong, as i dont hold too much foundational truth in the notions of socialism, whereas xianity and libertarianism are much more core in some of your stances.

I cannot disagree]

[comic boy]

wrongz melndmastr ur god is frickin dumb all u peeps r stoopidh
f*ck u and god duh

Spot on !

The sarcasm eluded you there did it?

On the contrary

[MelonanadeMaster]

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

Of course it would then apear as if the kings had more power, but in apparent humbleness they would have gained favor. On the topic of the monarchy have you not heard of the disputes between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope?
When I was in the discussion with got tonkaed it wasn't so much that I disagreed with the his point on the noble's sons, but what it was first used to imply.

[Guiscard]

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

Of course it would then apear as if the kings had more power, but in apparent humbleness they would have gained favor. On the topic of the monarchy have you not heard of the disputes between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope?

OK. This discussion is getting a little silly now. Of course I've heard of the disputes between the HRE and the Pope. I teach it to undergrads. The first part of your post is slightly ridiculous, though, and I don't really understand it. Perhaps its best to leave this discussion alone now. No offence. I just don't think I can give you a proper answer without exploding into self-important patronising historical jargon.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

Of course it would then apear as if the kings had more power, but in apparent humbleness they would have gained favor. On the topic of the monarchy have you not heard of the disputes between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope?

OK. This discussion is getting a little silly now. Of course I've heard of the disputes between the HRE and the Pope. I teach it to undergrads. The first part of your post is slightly ridiculous, though, and I don't really understand it. Perhaps its best to leave this discussion alone now. No offence. I just don't think I can give you a proper answer without exploding into self-important patronising historical jargon.

It appearsto me you already have, no offense of course.

[Frigidus]

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

Of course it would then apear as if the kings had more power, but in apparent humbleness they would have gained favor. On the topic of the monarchy have you not heard of the disputes between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope?

It wouldn't have really garnered them any favor though. Let's say a king did refuse to allow his subjects to go. Aside from stretching his power to the limit (as mentioned earlier his personal territory was often much smaller than many of his vassal's), it would appall his people that he essentially opposed not just the pope but the idea of reclaiming the most holy city in the Christian faith. It was basically expected that he would allow his subjects to go, it wasn't so much a matter of allowing it.