Printable View
It was a play on words. "Oyrish" being Irish, and he was implying that you were a zealous, if ignorant defender of the Irish Republic though you didn't have a handle on the issues involved.
Republican in Irish terms means that you favor the 6 counties rejoining the other 26, not that you voted for Bush.
You do realize this funny question is exactly what various brands of Christians have merrily massacred each other over on several occasions over the last two millenia, right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
:inquisitive:
And who died and made you the judge of the validity of someone's Christian faith, anyway ?
Well can you blame me for not understanding him then? :laugh4: The guy is never clear.Quote:
Republican in Irish terms means that you favor the 6 counties rejoining the other 26, not that you voted for Bush.
When was the last time this happened?Quote:
You do realize this funny question is exactly what various brands of Christians have merrily massacred each other over on several occasions over the last two millenia, right ?
Quote:
And who died and made you the judge of the validity of someone's Christian faith, anyway ?
My thats the easiest question Ive ever seen here. Why Jesus of course :laugh4:
Look you cant find any "violent Christian group" that isnt vigorously condemned by mainstream christians all of who will say the same thing i did and Im not even a christian. In one religion its so small a percentage of people as to be totally insignificant while in the other it seems to approach mainstream thought. The comparison is ludicrous on its face. Im sick of all this moral equivelency. People here bring up abortion shootings like there an everyday occurence or happen at least as often as Palestinian suicide attacks. Its silly.
I figure North Ireland could actually qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Right. And the "Christian" West and the Muslim world are obviously in similar situations and under similar internal tensions.Quote:
Look you cant find any "violent Christian group" that isnt vigorously condemned by mainstream christians all of who will say the same thing i did and Im not even a christian. In one religion its so small a percentage of people as to be totally insignificant while in the other it seems to approach mainstream thought. The comparison is ludicrous on its face. Im sick of all this moral equivelency. People here bring up abortion shootings like there an everyday occurence or happen at least as often as Palestinian suicide attacks. Its silly.
:dizzy2:
Recall that we sorta dumped religion by the wayside a while ago ? Not that there was any shortage of other battle banners to raise though - remember fascism and communism ? We fought the two most destructive wars in all human history within the last hundred years, and the rallying cries being taken from dogmas other than the old-school religions doesn't really change much - the zeal was much the same.
Yeah its just like Palestine lol. I dont think so.Quote:
I figure North Ireland could actually qualify.
Oh so now Christians represent the west and Muslims the rest of the world . I never learned that sorry.Quote:
Right. And the "Christian" West and the Muslim world are obviously in similar situations and under similar internal tensions.
Thanks for proving my point. Chrisitanity went through a prfound change. Were still waiting for Islam to see the light. Anyone with half a brain who can read scripture can in no way interpret the new testament as a basis to launch a war or kill people. Now with my half a brain when i read the Koran I see tons of this stuff.:smash:Quote:
Recall that we sorta dumped religion by the wayside a while ago ? Not that there was any shortage of other battle banners to raise though - remember fascism and communism ? We fought the two most destructive wars in all human history within the last hundred years, and the rallying cries being taken from dogmas other than the old-school religions doesn't really change much - the zeal was much the same.
This just occurred to me, but how about the Jews then ? Unlike these "proper Christians" you speak of they after all stick - partially at least - to the Old Testament which as we all know is divinely ordained bloodbath galore...
Your right the Jews have been persecuting and slaughtering the rest of humanity since they came into existence, reaching their hieght in the mid 1930s to 40s :help:Quote:
This just occurred to me, but how about the Jews then ? Unlike these "proper Christians" you speak of they after all stick - partially at least - to the Old Testament which as we all know is divinely ordained bloodbath galore...
Not an expert on the history of Judaism or Jewish tradition, but I seem to recall from some religion courses in college that they have seen a number of reformations.
[edit] Of course like any belief structure at times there is always a predisposition to "run home to momma" so to speak.
You're the one who started comparing scriptures, not me. Answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing. A decade or two at most. Before the Iranian Revolution the whole damn faith was regarded as a virtual nonentity in the international field - something that a lot of folks believed in, but not something of any real impact on policies or which should be taken into account in analysis.
My guess is that much like Communism once Islamism has became the vehicle of revolutionary sentiment in the "global South" (you know - Third World, Developing Countries, whatever you now want to call it), or in any case a part of it. A framework which very diverse people, groups and ideas mainly connected by a feeling of "being fed up with the way things are going" have come to adopt for articulating their messages, legitimizing their goals and actions, and formulating their more or less fantastic takes on "how things should be".
Blimey Gawain its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts:dizzy2:Quote:
The old Testament is Jewish scipture not Christian.
go down to your local church and ask them to show you a Christian bible :idea2: the old testament is the Christian version of Jewish scripture .
Only if you leave out Mohammed and all the history of Islam prior to this. :furious3:Quote:
'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing.
I dont have to Ive read it countless times. So now the Catholic church wrote the old testament :laugh4:Quote:
go down to your local church and ask them to show you a Christian bible the old testament is the Christian version of Jewish scripture .
And of course all christians observe Jewish law.
errrrrr .......yep as did the eastern and oriental orthadox churches , then along came Luther and protestantism and they wrote their old testament as well because they didn't like the other versions that other churches wrote .Quote:
So now the Catholic church wrote the old testament
Gawain are you out to prove something ?
like perhaps .....Blimey Gawain its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts:dizzy2:
What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ? Dang. Shoulda told them sooner, so they'd have contented themselves keeping up the merry old tribal skirmishing tradition down in southern Arabia and left the proper warring and conquering to, lessee, diverse brands of Christians, "pagans", Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
:dozey:
Christ Gawain, your total (and, I suspect, willing) lack of perspective is giving me a headache. For real.
The Kingdom of Sweden (Protestant, as an aside) incidentally tried applying Old Testament law for a while under the somewhat excessively religious Carl XI if I remember correctly. It kinda sucked, and was abandoned after a decade or so.Quote:
And of course all christians observe Jewish law.
Quote:
errrrrr .......yep as did the eastern and oriental orthadox churches , then along came Luther and protestantism and they wrote their old testament as well because they didn't like the other versions that other churches wrote .
Well you will have to showq me as i never read a prostestant bible. But its irrelevant as they dont follow jewish law either. There is no eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth in Christianity.
Blimey Tribesman its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts
Like everyone else?Quote:
What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ?
Same to you mate . My heads killing me.Quote:
Christ Gawain, your total (and, I suspect, willing) lack of perspective is giving me a headache. For real.
Yes, like everyone else. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but you do know basic world history right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So why should Muslims have been left out of the club ?
Far more than basic. Now you tell me when Christianity went about setting up a caliphate and how many christians today want to take over the world politicaly to promote their religion? Islam has always been spread by the sword. Only the aquistion of Chrisitanity by Rome cause suchthings to be said of christianity. It was Christian clergy and rulers who abused the scriptures to fight in the name of Christ. Since Jesus never preached such trash you cant blame christianity only those who misinterpret it. On the otherside you have Mohammed himself leading the battle.Quote:
Yes, like everyone else. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but you do know basic world history right ?
Hah, I've never read a catholic bible(or maybe I have and didn't know, never seen a bible pray ave maria...) and I don't think the old testament is in any way significantly different between a "catholic bible" and a "protestant bible".
And Gawain is right in saying that christianity is based on the New Testament, the old one is added to most bibles because it shows how promises made in it became true in the new testament etc, but I've also seen bibles which contain only the New Testament...shock, horror...and now I'd like you to tell me where in the New Testament Jesus encourages violence?
What the king of Sweden tried is his own problem and IMO completely irrelevant, otherwise I'm going to use your point Watchman, and claim that atheism leads to violence because of Hitler and Stalin.:dizzy2:
Atheism may not be a religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it better than any religion. ~;)
so your bollox about reading a bible means that it was a catholic or orthadox one which you ridiculously claim they didn't write .Quote:
Well you will have to showq me as i never read a prostestant bible.
Once again you make rubbish up with absolutely no basis for it .
some things never change eh
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you are absolutely clueless:dizzy2:Quote:
But its irrelevant as they dont follow jewish law either.
you really don't know your scripture do you~:doh: Christian or Jewish scripture it appears you know neitherQuote:
There is no eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth in Christianity.
Lex Talionis old boy .
Jesus endorses Jewish law and speaks in praise of it , Christians must go further than just an eye for an eye . 3 eyes for an eye is one example he gives in the new testament.
Well i could go on about how there is only one correct bible and that the protestant one is just an edditted version but I think Husar covered it all very nicely.Quote:
so your bollox about reading a bible means that it was a catholic or orthadox one which you ridiculously claim they didn't write .
Once again you make rubbish up with absolutely no basis for it .
some things never change eh
You certainly are. yes their are a few Jewish laws we follow like the 10 commanments but thats about it.Quote:
you are absolutely clueless
You really are cluless.Quote:
Jesus endorses Jewish law and speaks in praise of it , Christians must go further than just an eye for an eye . 3 eyes for an eye is one example he gives in the new testament.
Oh gawain you are priceless:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
You certainly are. yes their are a few Jewish laws we follow like the 10 commanments but thats about it.
errrr...isn't that only 6 commandments now or is that a matter of millenia of unresolved debate within Christianity:book:
Learn about scripture and Christainity before you try and talk about it .
You might just be able to make some sense when you write about it then .
Ill be only too happy to debate you on scripture anyday if you can possibly give straight answers and questions for once without your usual games and nonsense.Quote:
Learn about scripture and Christainity before you try and talk about it .
It got the whole Roman Empire if you recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And then there's the whole thing with Crusades on top of general enterpreneuring expansionism while using Biblical references as your battle cry.
And the Spanish and Portugese in particular across the globe, particularly in South and Central America.
And, well, since Europe was still devoutly Christian in the second half of 19th century when it up and decided it wanted to take over the world...
They're thankfully a dying breed these days. I don't really see the relevance though - whatever their high-faluting rhetoric might be, the al-Qaidaists' goals are by far less ridiculously overblown in practice.Quote:
...and how many christians today want to take over the world politicaly to promote their religion?
Sure, except when people converted willingly. :dizzy2:Quote:
Islam has always been spread by the sword.
Yeah yeah, bad clergy and rulers. Very bad. Scapegoat much ?Quote:
Only the aquistion of Chrisitanity by Rome cause suchthings to be said of christianity. It was Christian clergy and rulers who abused the scriptures to fight in the name of Christ. Since Jesus never preached such trash you cant blame christianity only those who misinterpret it.
And seems to have done a fine enough job at it. A capable man for sure. Did it ever occur to you, though, that the fact Jesus had the Damocles' Sword of the Roman Empire hanging over his head (and the Seleucids had already bloodily crushed a few major Jewish uprisings a fair while before the Romans turned up) and Mohammed conversely just had city-state level opponents to deal with might of had some influence on their career paths ?Quote:
On the otherside you have Mohammed himself leading the battle.
Oh, just pointing out that the hardline approach was occasionally tried even at state level. Cromwell's Puritan reign would be a similar case. People always seemed to get fed up with it rather soon though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Crackpot small religious communities better able to browbeat their members into submission seem to usually have been better at keeping that sort of thing going.
I don't really see what Hitler has to do with atheism though. I get the impression he was a firm enough believer, just in his own kooky mythos rather than in one of the mainstream religions.
OK some simple ones for starters .Quote:
Ill be only too happy to debate you on scripture anyday if you can possibly give straight answers and questions for once without your usual games and nonsense.
What books are in the "jewish"old testament that are not in the "catholic" old testament , which of those in the "catholic" old testament are not in the "lutherain" old testament ?
What are the major alterations in the texts that are included ?
Is the Bible Christian scripture ?
What are the two sections of the Bible ?
What is torah submissive Christianity ?
Which Christian churches fit that label ?
oh yeah....can you work that one out?Quote:
...isn't that only 6 commandments now or is that a matter of millenia of unresolved debate within Christianity
Your putting the horse before the cart here. Who do you think was out to conquer the world by the sword, Christianity or ROME lol.Quote:
It got the whole Roman Empire if you recall.
The crusades were a response to Islamic aggresion. How is it that once muslims conquer a land its theirs forever, but if you try to take it back your an aggressor?Quote:
And then there's the whole thing with Crusades on top of general enterpreneuring expansionism while using Biblical references as your battle cry
Your only making my point for me. Nations did this not Christianity. They used Christianity as an excuse and a recruitment tool. It has nothing to do with Christs teachings. Compare that to the teachings of Mohammed.Quote:
And the Spanish and Portugese in particular across the globe, particularly in South and Central America.
Few and far between. Like the Spanish huh? Convert or die. Such great options. Of course if your really worth keeping you can just pay extra taxes and be a second class citizen.Quote:
Sure, except when people converted willingly
Seems you just cant handle the truth.Quote:
Yeah yeah, bad clergy and rulers. Very bad. Scapegoat much ?
:wall:Quote:
Did it ever occur to you, though, that the fact Jesus had the Damocles' Sword of the Roman Empire hanging over his head (and the Seleucids had already bloodily crushed a few major Jewish uprisings a fair while before the Romans turned up)
The Jews were gone from Israel before Mohmmed was even born. Jesus never wanted or asked anyone to fight in his name. He didnt even try to start a relgion. He was the ultimate pacifist. Mohmmed is just the opposite.
I dont see your point here. Jesus let himself be killed rather than fight. In fact he wouldnt even let anyone protect him.
Gawain: seriously, from your sentiments in this thread, it's quite clear that Don Corleone's point that there is a bias in recognition between Christians and Muslims -- WHACKJOB christians vs whackjob MUSLIMS -- is well demonstrated in your viewpoint.
Spanish missionaries in Central America/Spanish Inquisition = Spanish action.
LRA actions in Africa = LRA action.
Christian suppression of other competing religious traditions in the Late Roman Empire = Roman action.
Seljuk assault on the Byzantine Empire = Muslim action.
Al-Qaeda actions in the Middle East = Muslim action.
Caliphate's conquests in Africa and Asia = Muslim action.
:embarassed:
Quote:
Gawain: seriously, from your sentiments in this thread, it's quite clear that Don Corleone's point that there is a bias in recognition between Christians and Muslims -- WHACKJOB christians vs whackjob MUSLIMS -- is well demonstrated in your viewpoint.
My point is if you follow the teachings of Christ you cannot condone the actions of any of these so called Christians. I think Mohammed would give OBL a medal for his fine work in the name of islam. The main drive behind islamic expansion was religion .
Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I was actually thinking more of the Baltic and Central European Crusades. You know, with the Teutonic Order and all that. When the native pagans eventually sent for the Pope for protection from the rapacious Crusaders.Quote:
The crusades were a response to Islamic aggresion. How is it that once muslims conquer a land its theirs forever, but if you try to take it back your an aggressor?
And don't try to give me that junk about Islamic aggression. What the Byzantines asked for help against was the newly arrived (and converted) Seljuk Turks, not the original wave of Muslim conquerors who'd taken away half their empire, gone on to set up shop as far as Iberia and establish a few tenuous footholds in Italy.
None of that resulted in the Crusades. Those were a product of the internal conditions and tensions of Christian Europe, for which the quarrel between the Byzantine and the Turk quite unwittingly provided an outlet.
Notice also that the Medieval Crusades were an entirely new concept, and very different in several important facets from the reactive idea of "just war" that had developed to support missionary work during the Migrations Period. There was a fair bit of debate on the actual legitimacy of the stuff.
And conversely around the time the Christian whipped themselves up into Crusading fervor, most of the Muslim world had settled down to entirely ignoring the "bring war to the infidel" side of the jihad concept and were busy with the "inner struggle for spiritual advancement" side, or just getting rich. Recent converts like the Turks were rather less meditative, but then steppe nomads on a conquest roll were never terribly interested in peaceable pursuits anyway.
That kinda changed for some odd reason.
Seems to me like you're being pretty selective here you know. Anything good with the Cross even remotely associated with it is "proper Christianity", anything bad is scapegoats hmm ?Quote:
Your only making my point for me. Nations did this not Christianity. They used Christianity as an excuse and a recruitment tool. It has nothing to do with Christs teachings. Compare that to the teachings of Mohammed.
Sorry, but I'm rather too old and sceptical to have any truck with such tendentious fairytale divisions. As far as I'm concerned Christian is Christian regardless of how many people he kills in direct violation of some fairly explicitly stated prohibitions, just as a Muslim is a Muslim regardless of how drunk he gets (and you bet that prohibition was near universally broken except by diehard fanatics and revivalists) or how much pork he eats. Or how many fellow Muslims he kills; I'm pretty sure that was a no-no too. Rinse and repeat with the appropriate changes for any other religion; in my rather agnostic take on the matter the main thing is that the person in question himself regards himself as an adherent.
Muslims were mostly rather adverse to the whole "conversion at swordpoint" idea (as actually were many Christians too for a long time), at least as far as the "Peoples of the Book" went. Partly it was simply that the creed doesn't as such have anything against coexistence with them, and partly because the new overlords liked the extra tax income. Over time there accumulated a fair few members of these groups who wanted to convert; some rulers were keen enough on the cash that they flatly denied it, which AFAIK resulted in a few minor civil wars which generally convinced the rulers to stop being anal.Quote:
Few and far between. Like the Spanish huh? Convert or die. Such great options. Of course if your really worth keeping you can just pay extra taxes and be a second class citizen.
You're also forgetting that there were quite a few groups that willingly converted when they were calling the shots - the Turks and Mongols immediately spring to mind. Quite contrary to what you seem to think, Islam had its peaceful missionaries and spiritual attractions.
No. I just hate your tendentious biases.Quote:
Seems you just cant handle the truth.
Indeed ? There seemed to be enough left for their siding with the Sassanids to change the ownership of the region for a while, and for the Byzantines to persecute them after they reconquered it. This was shortly before the Muslims Arabs came by, and an obvious contributor to them being welcomed as if not quite liberators then at least by far more tolerable overlords. Kinda many mentions of Jews in Crusade contexts too I think.Quote:
The Jews were gone from Israel before Mohmmed was even born.
With the Romans calling the shots, it was that or dying in some interesting and painful fashion anyway. I also think you've been reading too many Christian texts without donning the source-critique glasses.Quote:
Jesus never wanted or asked anyone to fight in his name. He didnt even try to start a relgion. He was the ultimate pacifist.
---
I dont see your point here. Jesus let himself be killed rather than fight. In fact he wouldnt even let anyone protect him.
He didn't exactly want to have a war for his new faith either you know. The man was a merchant ferchrissakes, although that probably doesn't mean much given the warlike character of Southern Arabian culture at the time. But after his budding sect had a major falling out with the powers-that-be in Mecca things kind of escalated and I figure he found he was not just pretty good at this warlord thing, but also developed a liking for it.Quote:
Mohmmed is just the opposite.
Then how do you blame it on Christianity? :juggle2:Quote:
Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?
Theres just too much junk in here to even attempt to respond to.
Same here.Quote:
No. I just hate your tendentious biases.
Baloney. It was his way from the start. Maybe you should study the man a little more.Quote:
He didn't exactly want to have a war for his new faith either you know
It all comes off quality mainstream research though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So I win by default as you admitted your inability and/or unwillingness to debate anynore then ? :beam:
I'd say an university entry-level textbook on world religions and several studies on the early history of Islam and its spread suffice. I may be excused if I don't bother touching the 'wholly unbiased' stuff that echoes the candid words Medieval Christian clergy wrote of the man.Quote:
Baloney. It was his way from the start. Maybe you should study the man a little more.