Printable View
I'm sorry, how the Hell do you convert someone forcibly on their deathbed?:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I thought it was fairly typical of Byzantine types to 'save up' their baptism until they were dying, so that their sins would be washed away and they wouldn't have the chance to commit more. I'm sure some others did this.:book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
You are totally correct. This was not just a practice among the Byzantines, but among the Franks, and most of the early Christian world. Constantine was not a pagan, he was Christian but postponed getting baptised so he would not commit more sins. Sorry, if I had seen this, I would have responded myself, but there is just way to much to bother my lazy self with reading and I need to look out for posts directed at me. Do tell me if I miss anything important. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
Jesus's life and his teachings are the first principles of the revelation of faith in Jewish society. Therefore, Jesus is the founder of Christianity, whatever your inclination or lack thereof.
Just to clarify, in the Old Testament, God didn't order Christians to do anything. They weren't around at the time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
lol, the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Damn technicalities... ;)
I have a problem with that actually, lol. Since Christians didn't exist in the OT, whenever I refer to them in the OT, just realize that I mean Jews please.
Thanks for the correction,
Vuk
No, Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus, he did not see a vision of a Cross in the sky and irrc his soldiers did not bear the Chi Rho. He sponsered Christianity, Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus as unifying forces within the Empire. He was forcibly converted because he couldn't fight back, the same may well have been true of Franks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
It's called propaganda. In the early Church you can't be a Christian unless you are initiated through Baptism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Not true again. He was raised as a pagan, but converted to Christianity early in his life. Wether he truely believed or not we will never know, but I prefer to believe that he did. :D
Sorry, but he remained a Pagan until his dieing day. That vision he had? It was while sleeping within the precinct of the Temple of Sol Invictvs, the only evidence for his conversion is on his death bed and comes from church fathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
He was, after all, Pontifex Maximus, head of the Roman religion.
Considering the Church did falsify some big documents of their own and called it "Constantine's donation," it's rather possible that they would lie about some other things too. And the only record of his belated baptism came from the very people who would benefit from him actually converting the most, so you know.
In any case, Emperor Constantine wasn't exactly a saintly man, even if he was a saint in the Eastern tradition. He was the last truly powerful Roman Emperor after all. You don't get powerful in Rome unless you're perfectly capable of shedding some real blood, be it barbarians, rebels, conspirators, random innocents, rival contenders, or your own family.
His own religious convictions are really unknown to us: the best we could do is just to debate.
In any case, where are we about the topic? Oh yes, the Al Sauds are oppressive scums.
Oh, stop trolling, would you? This I'm offended you attack my Christianity! thing is getting really, really dry. It stifles debate and ruins far too many threads already, thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Nice tit for that there. As so often in historical controversies it is frustrating to think that we will never be really, really sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Even if we accept the baptism as historical, there is the issue of the baptizer, so to speak. We have a contemporary eastern version of Constantine's baptism, given by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Vita Constantini . And we have a later (circa 400 AD) western version known as the Conversio Constantini which was included in the Actus Silvestri.
Interestingly Eusebius of C. does not mention who is supposed to have baptized the Emperor. Many later sources (Ambrose, Rufinus, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) do not mention Constantine's baptism at all. That may be an intentional omisson however, for Jerome (circa 380 AD) does mention the baptism, but claims that C. was baptized by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was an Arian! Ouch!
BTW Brother Philipvs, are you sure your notion of C. being baptized against his will doesn't stem from Brown's entertaining but rather fantastic The Da Vinci Code?
Sorry but I've to bite. After seeing so many bad Hollywood movies and reading so many ciclical debates I'm used to the typical logic holes there's, inconsistencies with the writer's own believes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Like in your case Vuk, I suppose you're a christian right, then if you're a christian and you know that the dogma states that God made us all free to choose Good, how can you seriously state that God "ordered" the people from Israel to do anything. Maybe a jewish could say that with authority, but to remain consistent on a discussion you can't simply assume the position of another unrelated party as your own and be of the same idiocincracy, considering at the same time that you're religious and those are religious positions. But is not only the rethoric you use in this case, it's the reason you use it too, you use it to justify differences between faiths.
How are free will and divine instruction mutually exclusive again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Time and again in the OT God outlines precise instructions for Hebrew rulers. Their free will to follow or not resulted in repercussions and reward. The thread that perhaps ties the OT to the NT the most is the principle of free will coexisting with the divine.
At last a sensible person. It's good to see you defending Christianity, Vuk.
On the Crusades, even Muslim historians and commentators of that period agreed that the Muslims live better under Christian rule than they had done previously under Islamic rule.
The Crusades were not "Western Imperialism" as modern people fake it to be. They were simply a defensive campaign to stop Islam overrunning Europe. If you have a look at when the First Crusade was preached, 1094, it was only 23 years after Eastern Christianity suffered its worst blow, the battle of Manzikert. If it hadn't been the First Crusade in particular, the Muslims could well have overrun the Byzantine Empire 350 years before the did so.
Well the first crusade was the result of the Catholic church taking advantage of the call for help of the Orthodox church in Byzantium. The call for help was actually for a few hundred knights, if that, to be placed under Byzantine command to regain many of its losses at the hands of the Turks. However, the resulting 60k+ that were sent turned into something quite different and intrigue between Byzantium and the newly arrived Catholic forces began resulting in betrayal by both sides and the Crusade to the holy land by the Catholics. Interesting to note though is that Christians faired fairly well by the Turks' hand, due to their style of rule, at least in contrast to the crusaders treatment of the Muslims.
[edit] As far as imperialism is mentioned, some nobles went on the crusade to establish themselves, others went for free absolution offered by the church. Neither one of these motives fits all.
You're right they're not. Upon re-reading Vuk's posts I see that his point was not to take a cabalistic position on the subject, my point was never that they were mutually exclusive, but that Divine Intervention and Destiny were mutually exclusive with Free Will.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Are you really incapable of seeing how a muslim guy may say the exact same words, only by having christianity switch places with islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As for me, I simply cannot see how christianity preaches love and tolerance. What I see, is that it is preaching obedience, restraint, oppression and vengeance.
Favourite bible quotes:
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Colossians 3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.(more on this one http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol4/magi4-6.htm )
3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
I can post more if need be...
While you don't find as many references too holy war and such in the new testament, you'll find PLENTY of things promoting fascism.
It's funny how these news never appear on an arabian site.. Guess what?
Christian apostates aren't to be killed. religious war isn't a necessary thing. The most violent act in the Gospels is to kick over a table.
I'm not a Christian. I loathe all religions in almost equal measure (I think some Eastern ones are OK that focus on the individual). I'm Agnostic.
If there are New Testament quotes in the New testament that are oppressive, then they are man's failings and can be ignored. The New Testament was written by man; The Koran was written directly from God, and to even imply that there might be one error will get you killed in some countries.
~:smoking:
Errrrr...the Fox story is taken from a Saudi newspaper:dizzy2:Quote:
It's funny how these news never appear on an arabian site.. Guess what?
Though there is a nice one in yesterdays Arab news about the unislamic inequality meted out to women in Saudi "religeous" courts .
Thats rather a nasty bit of sarcasm there Ignoramus .:laugh4:Quote:
At last a sensible person. It's good to see you defending Christianity, Vuk.
What have you got against Christianity ?
Horetore, ajaxfetish, and others: Arguing with rory_20_uk with the current line of reasoning will be quite futile. Every example you throw at him will be turned to fit his thesis. :rolleyes:
To end the argument on your terms, you must play on rory_20_uk's terms. That means changing a bit of the approach, and broadening the scope.
:stupido:
To the most sublime rory_20_uk, scriptural exegesist extraordinare and objective standard of comparison between the monotheistic religions...
Let us consider these 3 religions with their respective texts (you already know them by your extensive study of the highly objective and strawmanless "Skeptics Annotated _______" series which you referenced in another thread):
1) Judaism (Torah [Old Testament])
2) Christianity (Gospel [New Testament])
3) Islam (Quran)
Now, as a scriptural expert, you would know that the only mention of killing apostates from any of these books comes from the Old Testament. Of course, there have been many clerics throughout the ages who were very important figures in each respective religion who have called for the death penalty of apostates, blasphemers, heretics etc... St. Aquinas and Averroes, two of the greatest intellectual figures whose reputations exceed their religious communities were among these, but scriptural instruction is only found in the Old Testament.
Of course, as your later point clarifies, the verses in the Old Testament concerning execution of apostates are due to man's failings, while the verses in the Quran concerning the execution of apostates (which have not been discovered yet, but your scriptural expertise may know something we remain ignorant of) are the word of God.
It seems that Horetore has already posited an objection that states a "muslim guy may say the exact same words, only by having christianity switch places with islam".
Very strong objection on the face of it, but you amazingly dismissed him with this quote: "If there are New Testament quotes in the New testament that are oppressive, then they are man's failings and can be ignored. The New Testament was written by man; The Koran was written directly from God, and to even imply that there might be one error will get you killed in some countries."
You must simply be waiting for your interlocutors to bring up the objection: "A significant group of Christians hold a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Why are you stating that the Quran was written directly from God (a position of many Muslims, true), but not doing the same for Christianity and the Bible?"
Though this objection seems extremely cogent, I am sure that you may once again, be able to offer a succinct refutation on par with your previous refutations. After all, with this kind of premise held, every verse that the Bible has that may be "objectionable" can be easily dismissed, while verses from the Quran cannot. What a brilliant way to protect your thesis! :2thumbsup: Academia has taught you well. :scholar:
Of course, since you "loathe all religions in almost equal measure" you personify objectiveness abound! :beam:
Nothing. I was not being sarcastic. I meant what I said. I am glad to see a fellow Christian standing up for his faith, when most Christians will just agree to all sorts of falsities just to fit in. I am a Christian too, and I wholly support what Vuk says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh, so is the Koran not believed by all Muslims to be written as the direct word of God? I was under the mistaken apprehension that all / most believed that this was the case. If so I heartily applaud these moderates and long may they prosper.
What percentage are moderates by the way? The percentage of moderate Christians in the UK is probably close to 95+%
Some Christians are extremists! Bravo - what a well made point :dizzy2: Might there be a preponderance of these who bomb doctors who perform abortions?
So, to clarify (as apparently this is required): anyone who believes a book is infallible is a danger to themselves and others. Once a person has taken this step basic rights can be removed as long as a suitable quote can be found. Odds are that much of the deaths in the middle ages were due to this literalism. Nazism operated in a similar way.
Thankfully the West had the Enlightenment.
Yes clerics. Have their words ever been added to Judaism or Christianity; when were they last added to Islam? Can what any person said be added? If so where has this been done? Catholicism seems keen to add bits as and when a (possibly) senile old man decides. I would argue this is not a good thing.
Ah, if one's reputation exceeds faith boundaries this implies that God has ordained the pronouncements?? :inquisitive:
I would have thought that equal loathing is a place for objective reasoning to rise. Where as yourself as a Muslim can of course be relied on for your utterly unbiased critique of religion... :laugh4:
~:smoking:
Wonderful! rory_20_uk thinks me a Muslim! It was almost like the case when Red Peasant thought me a Christian because I argued that "Jesus camp" was not representative of most Christianity. Uncanny... :rolleyes: Surprisingly, I wasn't called a relativist for referencing Feyerabend. Where exactly were you on that Papewaio/Adrian II? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's almost if making your opponent fit into a religious group (even if he isn't actually one of them :rolleyes:) invalidates any points they may have made.
Now, I see that the most scholarly rory (that rhymes :beam:) has dropped amateur scriptural exegeses and gone to percentages the occasional non-sequiter, bringing up completely unrelated points. where he will wander for awhile... Pretty good option, seeing how he was wrong on his exegeses.
OK. Are you a Muslim? Apparently my points are invalid as I loathe religion. Double standards, no?
And may I remind you that far from refuting anything you've merely critiqued the prose and the delivery.
Again I ask:
What percentage of Muslims do not believe that the Koran is the exact word of God?
What is their distribution?
Do you think extremist Christians are more likely to resort to lethal methods in relation to their religion?
When was text added to Islam?
Who can Add it?
Was that simple enough for you? I am not expecting you to know all the answers of course. Or of course you could mention that I've gone with writing in list form that time. It almost counts as an argument...
~:smoking:
No rory_20_uk, I am not a Muslim. A belated heads up to Red Peasant, I am not a Christian. To anyone who read my defense of Feyerabend, I am not a relativist (though Feyerabend himself was probably not one either). To anyone who read my exposition of Hume's problem of induction, I am not an empiricist (I like the rationalists better). To anyone who played Mafia with me, I am not a Barzini, a Roman Senator, a Norse God, or a Mycenaean high priest king. :rolleyes:
I've clearly shown that the Quran doesn't call for the killing of apostates. Only the Old Testament does that. Horetore and ajaxfetish basically made refutations to your other points (women oppression etc.). I see nothing I can do to further it as they demolished your contentions.
As to your questions: If you read my first post carefully, you would see me note that many Muslims do believe (I haven't done any statistical survey, but I think it's right) that the Quran is the exact word of God.
I do think extremist Christians like extremist Muslims, resort to violence. Right now, Muslim/Islamic terrorism is number one, but there are a hell of a lot terrorist groups out their of differing faiths, etc. Adrian II referenced some in this very thread, and there are other threads that were on the topic.
Your last two questions are just weird. I really have no idea what the hell you are asking. :huh: I don't know of the history of Islamic text. Better off asking Adrian II, Wigfeth Ironwall, or others about that.
Again, you general gist in this thread is that Islam has a violent canon (most certainly, but I don't think it compares to the Old Testament (which at least is important for Judaism)), and that Muslims cannot interpret it any other way (it is the "word of God" is your quite sad response).
The second point is bull----. That much is true. The poverty of the argument has been exposed.
So many Muslims do interpret it other ways. Listen to Muslim (and Christian) explanations once in a while of their own faith, instead of setting up strawmen. People who do what you do are akin to those who take the Bible and put forth the worst possible interpretation of its text, which is almost always (and not coincidently) the incorrect interpretation.
Using the principle of charity leads to many good things.
I have to say I've mainly heard Christian reasoning behind their faith. My favourite is when "God is Love" is used as the answer. Of course many had precious little knowledge of the very texts they choose to follow.
If to show that to describe all at strawmen, the title of the thread is a convenient example of what an entire kingdom practices Islam.
Since you state yourself your lack of knowledge of the subject I should commend that this doesn't seem to stop you.
Here's a decent treatise on Muslims and apostates here.
A quote: "To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution." Pleased that's nice and clear.
I get confused. In which post is which second point? Following on from that, where was the poverty of the argument exposed? I only see a poverty of clarity.
I'm not keen on any terrorists. Most have specific aims. The liberation of a homeland, the freeing of hostages, or the spread of an idea. The IRA wants the British out of Ireland. If we were to leave the long struggle would be over (in its current form). Bin Laden wants amongst other things the destruction of the West. How does one compromise with that? Even the Crusades were less overarching in their scope of extermination. Does the existence of other groups of killers somehow make things better?
People can be nice, content happy people. Others can be small minded, xenophobic bigots. The former are in no need for religion, the latter are able to use it to show that God sanctions their actions against their family and others. When it is the word of man it can be re-emphasised or even ignored (yes - that is the point with Christianity - the nasty bits can be ignored and in the vast majority of cases are these days). If they are the word of God to do so it itself a sin. Do you see the difference?
~:smoking:
My understanding of the formation of the Koran is limited to what I know from one or two Muslim friends.
In essence the Prophet would enter a trance, commune with God and then scribes would write down God's word, it was all revealed rather out of sequence and that is why a couple of generations later, when the Caliphate had settled down they formulated the Koran as we have it today and from that time to this it (theoretically) hasn't been altered, which means that it's written in a language contempory with Old Saxon and modern interpretation, even into modern Arabic is no simple matter.
Of the Hadith I know even less, save to say it's effectively anecdotal tradition below the Koran.
Pretty much since the year dot though Muslim clerics and scholars have formulated a canon similar to the one owned by the Catholic Church. The most authoritive of these works might be compared to the Nicaean Creed, which is the foundation of mainstream Christianity.
One of the key points in the bible, is that the holy ghost/spirit(can't remember what it's called in english atm) watched over those who wrote the bible, ensuring that they wrote exactly gods will. He has also watched over every single copy and translation. So, the bible may be written by men, but to a believer, it is gods word.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
A key difference between the quran and the bible, however, is that the quran is only "real" in the original arabic version. Any translations are not to be considered the quran, as it has been watered down by man(which is true, translations very often changes a lot).
I believe I already pointed out earlier in this thread that the 'texts' of Islam consist of the Quran plus the Hadith ('written traditions' on the Prophet). Together these constitute the foundation of islamic law. And there is a crapload of ahadith that state or echo the Prophets firm injunction with regard to apostates, namely 'kill them wheresoever ye shall find them'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Oh dear .Quote:
Nothing. I was not being sarcastic. I meant what I said. I am glad to see a fellow Christian standing up for his faith, when most Christians will just agree to all sorts of falsities just to fit in. I am a Christian too, and I wholly support what Vuk says.
So you see no fault with someone standing by falsities to fit in with their views , as long as they claim they are a Christian ?
Just out of curiosity , do you also hold the view that the verses dealing with rape instead deal with bearing false witness and making malicious accusations despite the fact that those are dealt with in different verses ?