Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Napoleon Ier]

Saladin, yes. But, what about the other Muslim rulers at the time, and before it? Especially the ones Saladin fought with, as I am not sure if many were happy, or even content with Saladin's views on things. Please fill me in on this.

I don't quite follow you... Other leaders, as Saladin was, were committed to driving the Crusaders out of the Holy Land as a matter of course. The Franks were an offensive power in the region looking to increase their territory at the expense of the Islamic lands. What I'm saying is that the utter and unceasing quest for the death of the infidel was not a part of Islam itself. There were constant diplomatic agreements in force throughout the Islamic world. At times, warfare against the infidel was justified by scripture. However, we can identify quotes which easily contradict such a notion, and the evidence of Muslims living peacefully alongside Christians in the Near East at various points gives us further evidence of the extent to which this was simply warfare with added justification from scripture rather than scripture prompting warfare. It was a concept which gradually evolved, not one that was born with Muhammad.

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

[Guiscard]

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

Well feel free to post a rebuttal.

[Snorri1234]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Brb, killing.

[Backglass]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Brb, killing.

Make sure it's a baby and you eat it afterwards.

[Snorri1234]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Brb, killing.

Make sure it's a baby and you eat it afterwards.

Obviously.

[muy_thaiguy]

Saladin, yes. But, what about the other Muslim rulers at the time, and before it? Especially the ones Saladin fought with, as I am not sure if many were happy, or even content with Saladin's views on things. Please fill me in on this.

I don't quite follow you... Other leaders, as Saladin was, were committed to driving the Crusaders out of the Holy Land as a matter of course. The Franks were an offensive power in the region looking to increase their territory at the expense of the Islamic lands. What I'm saying is that the utter and unceasing quest for the death of the infidel was not a part of Islam itself. There were constant diplomatic agreements in force throughout the Islamic world. At times, warfare against the infidel was justified by scripture. However, we can identify quotes which easily contradict such a notion, and the evidence of Muslims living peacefully alongside Christians in the Near East at various points gives us further evidence of the extent to which this was simply warfare with added justification from scripture rather than scripture prompting warfare. It was a concept which gradually evolved, not one that was born with Muhammad.

What I meant was, was that the crusaders, though they did go there for more territory and wealth, also went there as zealots to free up the Holy Lands. Also, that from what I have read, only Saladin was willing to compromise with the Crusaders, and maybe a few other Egyptian leaders before him. The Muslim Turks were unrelenting for centuries during that time against Chrisitans of every sort. The Almahods (Almavorids, I think is the better name of them) were almost in a constant struggle over Iberia with Spain and Portugal.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hey Guiscard, Ive been reading your first post...

out of interest, they teach ya about the battle of Tours in dhimmi history school?

[Neoteny]

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

I'm not gonna flame you, but this comes up time and time again...

I am primarily a crusader historian. One of the areas of study I've become most interested in (and, indeed, considered for my doctorate) is the development of Holy War or Jihad within the Muslim World. The idea that Muslims were religiously bound to drive kill all those who opposed Islam began to gain ideological tender as a direct result of the invasion of Muslim lands by the Franks. It certainly wasn't an inherent part of their religion. Now what you're going to do, most likely, is give me quotes from the Koran. There are also equally contradictory quotes I can give you back. So lets not bother shall we? The Koran WASN'T interpreted like that I'm afraid. Perhaps the best example I can give is Saladin. After the Third Crusade took Jaffa the diplomatic efforts between the two 'sides' (in themselves an example of the inapplicability of 'never suffer the infidel...') were stepped up to move towards perhaps even a shared rule of the Holy Land. He was willing to actually give lands to the Christians, to allow Muslims to be ruled by Christians and Muslims in turn to rule Christians. This is Saladin, seen as the great unifying force of Islam. His commitment to religious orthodoxy is stronger than most leaders and we can tell this through the biographies written by his staff. There was certainly a rise in literature espousing the ideas of Holy War we may associate with Islam now, but that must be seen as reactionary and certainly only an interpretation of scriptures not considered valid by many Muslims. It was more 'They've taken our land. Lets take it back. Here's a verse which agrees.' than 'Here's a verse which tells us to take our land back so lets do it.' Did you know that Saladin spent something like 80% of his reign fighting other Muslims. Now we can't say that none of them were committed religiously, so why weren't they pouring everything they had into fighting the infidel?

At the end of the day, violence within Islam is just as much open to interpretation as violence within the Bible. The idea of Jihad developed after 1096. It was not present with the inception of the religion itself and is certainly not an inherent part of their faith

This is actually a post with better expressed reasoning than the ones you gave me last time this was a topic. I won't get into it too far at the moment, but I do want to say this: yes, the Qur'an and the Hadith have been used (and edited) for political gain, but does that justify any usage of it currently? Even if the usage of it now is politically motivated, it is still being espoused as a religious doctrine. Is that justified?

[unriggable]

Well look at the evangelists in the US today. They use the Bible to advance their own political means...low taxes, privatization of public services, things that have nothing to do with the religion.

[bradleybadly]

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.

[MelonanadeMaster]

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.

Because people are obsessed with finding out which church will get them to heaven, "go to my church or you'll go to hell!" seems to scare a lot of overly worried Christians.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

I'm not saying they do I'm saying they have no reason NOT to.

[Dancing Mustard]

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

Well feel free to post a rebuttal.

That's not his style; he'd prefer to proclaim that you're 'missing the point', before making some blithe and untenable assertion supported by no factual evidence. After that he'll most likely declare himself the winner and refuse to listen to any subsequent appeals to fact or logic. If you really press the point then he'll try to pretend he has the moral high-ground and appeal to you to change the topic in a desperate attempt to stop you slapping him around any harder.

That's how he appears to roll. But hey, at least he appears to be entirely free of arrogance with statements such as:

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

[Neoteny]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

I'm not saying they do I'm saying they have no reason NOT to.

Empathy based morality, mostly. But if the "golden rule" isn't a good enough reason...

::kills a human with a dead dog::

[Dancing Mustard]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

I'm not saying they do I'm saying they have no reason NOT to.

Then you're talking rubbish.

Just because they don't believe that some mystical overlord told them not to kill doesn't mean that their reasons from refraining from violence are any less valid, or indeed non-existant. It just means that their individual reasons might not be uniformly held, or objectively verifiable as the 'correct' reason for behaving in such a way. This in no way means that they have 'no reason' to refrain from butchering others.

I will now post redundant smiley faces as if they somehow enchance my point:

[MelonanadeMaster]

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

I'm not gonna flame you, but this comes up time and time again...

I am primarily a crusader historian. One of the areas of study I've become most interested in (and, indeed, considered for my doctorate) is the development of Holy War or Jihad within the Muslim World. The idea that Muslims were religiously bound to drive kill all those who opposed Islam began to gain ideological tender as a direct result of the invasion of Muslim lands by the Franks. It certainly wasn't an inherent part of their religion. Now what you're going to do, most likely, is give me quotes from the Koran. There are also equally contradictory quotes I can give you back. So lets not bother shall we? The Koran WASN'T interpreted like that I'm afraid. Perhaps the best example I can give is Saladin. After the Third Crusade took Jaffa the diplomatic efforts between the two 'sides' (in themselves an example of the inapplicability of 'never suffer the infidel...') were stepped up to move towards perhaps even a shared rule of the Holy Land. He was willing to actually give lands to the Christians, to allow Muslims to be ruled by Christians and Muslims in turn to rule Christians. This is Saladin, seen as the great unifying force of Islam. His commitment to religious orthodoxy is stronger than most leaders and we can tell this through the biographies written by his staff. There was certainly a rise in literature espousing the ideas of Holy War we may associate with Islam now, but that must be seen as reactionary and certainly only an interpretation of scriptures not considered valid by many Muslims. It was more 'They've taken our land. Lets take it back. Here's a verse which agrees.' than 'Here's a verse which tells us to take our land back so lets do it.' Did you know that Saladin spent something like 80% of his reign fighting other Muslims. Now we can't say that none of them were committed religiously, so why weren't they pouring everything they had into fighting the infidel?

At the end of the day, violence within Islam is just as much open to interpretation as violence within the Bible. The idea of Jihad developed after 1096. It was not present with the inception of the religion itself and is certainly not an inherent part of their faith

I enter this discussion of the Crusades with humility, as I have not done a huge amount of research on it, I would love to learn from you, if not only which opinions can be best supported.

Do show me the verses, I assure you I'd love to see them.

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.

Oh yes, in addition to the verses do explain to me how the verses that you know I could sling, but as we agree would accomplish nothing, should be interpreted.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

I'm not saying they do I'm saying they have no reason NOT to.

Then you're talking rubbish.

Just because they don't believe that some mystical overlord told them not to kill doesn't mean that their reasons from refraining from violence are any less valid, or indeed non-existant. It just means that their individual reasons might not be uniformly held, or objectively verifiable as the 'correct' reason for behaving in such a way. This in no way means that they have 'no reason' to refrain from butchering others.

I will now post redundant smiley faces as if they somehow enchance my point:

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

Oh ya and by the way:



I win

[MelonanadeMaster]

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

Well feel free to post a rebuttal.

That's not his style; he'd prefer to proclaim that you're 'missing the point', before making some blithe and untenable assertion supported by no factual evidence. After that he'll most likely declare himself the winner and refuse to listen to any subsequent appeals to fact or logic. If you really press the point then he'll try to pretend he has the moral high-ground and appeal to you to change the topic in a desperate attempt to stop you slapping him around any harder.

That's how he appears to roll. But hey, at least he appears to be entirely free of arrogance with statements such as:

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

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..

[Napoleon Ier]

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.

[Napoleon Ier]

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

Well feel free to post a rebuttal.

That's not his style; he'd prefer to proclaim that you're 'missing the point', before making some blithe and untenable assertion supported by no factual evidence. After that he'll most likely declare himself the winner and refuse to listen to any subsequent appeals to fact or logic. If you really press the point then he'll try to pretend he has the moral high-ground and appeal to you to change the topic in a desperate attempt to stop you slapping him around any harder.

That's how he appears to roll. But hey, at least he appears to be entirely free of arrogance with statements such as:

I hate to say it big G, but this a matter for Theology, not history necessarily to debate. You get no monopoly on this.

Ouch. Nerve touched.

Apologies big G I'm just jealous of your historian's repute

[Dancing Mustard]

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.

[Dancing Mustard]

Ouch. Nerve touched.

I note with interest that, for all your priggish attempt at grabbing some moral high-ground, you fail to disagree (or provide a rebuttal to Guiscard, or indeed me in a certain other thread).

[Napoleon Ier]

Ouch. Nerve touched.

I note with interest that, for all your priggish attempt at grabbing some moral high-ground, you fail to disagree (or provide a rebuttal to Guiscard, or indeed me in a certain other thread).

I gave you both rebuttals.

[Dancing Mustard]

You misunderstand, rebuttals are things which prove the other person incorrect.

[Napoleon Ier]

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?

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?