And Nothing Heard My Scream

[AgingYoung]

2) Imagine this scenario: You (personally) happened to have been born a hundred years ago, long before mass communication, in a country where a different religon was taught and practised (e.g. Hindu, Taoism) and you were never exposed to any other faiths or teachings, and so you knew nothing of Jesus as a concept. But you lived a good life, effectively conforming (unknowingly) to the teachings of Jesus ... why would you be any less deserving of a place in the kingdom of heaven than someone who led the exact same life but happened to be born in a Christian country?

• Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

People outside of the gospel will be judged by the standard they have. They will be held up to that standard. If they were wise that standard will have a provision of mercy in it.

Gene

 

[Roboramma]

The christians weren't wrong to repell islamic invasion into euorpe.

Woah, hold on there Nessie!

What Islamic invasion of Europe?

I'll admit to not knowing that much about the crusades, and that my main source is an old one (written in 1841!) but if you can show where he's wrong, I'd be happy to look at your evidence (it is of course quite probable that he's wrong about some of his statements, made 150 years ago, after all. But I'd be surprised if the gist of what he said is false.).

I get this from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay.

The Crusades were not an attempt to stop an Islamic invasion of Europe. They were a response to the ill-treatment of pilgrims hoarding into Jerusalem. Not surprising when a large number of European pilgrims were making their way to the "holy land" that eventually the locals would get annoyed.

But it was the oration of the Pope that was the most important. As he lifted up his hands to ensure attention, every voice immediately became still. He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into the possessions of the faithful' how Christian wives and daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden under foot. "You," continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban II was one of the most eloquent men of the day), "you, who hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of soul, - whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the infidel, - I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed fellow Christians from the depths into which they have been trampled. The sepulchre of Christ is possessed by the heathen, the sacred places dishonoured by their vileness. Oh, brave knights and faithful people! offspring of invincible fathers! ye will not degenerate from your ancient renown. Ye will not be restrained from embarking in this great cause by the tender ties of wife or little ones, but will remember the words of the Savior of the world himself, "Whosoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me. Whosoever shall abandon for my name's sake his house, or his brethren, or his sisters, or his father, or his mother, or his wife, or his children, or his lands, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.'"

*

It doesn't seem to me that if he wanted them to go to Palestine to fight off an invading army that he would be making this argument. Rather he'd probably be suggesting that by doing this they would be protecting their families, etc.

But I could be wrong. I don't know enough. I've searching the web to see if I could find any reason to believe that you're right (because again I'm no expert and admit you could be right), but haven't found it.
So, I have to ask, where's your evidence that there was an invading Islamic force behind the first crusade?

*Mods, I assume it's okay to post that long paragraph as this was written over 150 years ago?

 

[AgingYoung]

The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic Holy Wars to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades. The Fourth Crusade was originally intended to reach the Holy Land, but was re-directed by the Venetians against Constantinople.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Nessie

 

[AgingYoung]

The 'crusades' were a series of military battles fought all over the place and over 200 years for various reasons. For the reason of recapturing the holy land or Jerusalem they were very wrong. The papacy had the money to buy the land but they preferred to steal it with war. They were wrong there.

Nessie

 

[Roboramma]

Wikipedia is blocked in China, so I can't use that link... (I was able to get through to it once in a while maybe a year ago, but they seem to have gotten better, and I haven't been able open Wiki at all for a long time.)

I know most of what you posted above, but it didn't address the question about the Crusades being an attempt to stop an Islamic invasion of Europe.

 

[AgingYoung]

Roboramma,

So they shanghaied your internet access?! That's not right! I'll research it and post what I find.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.

This makes it look like you’re painting with an unnecessarily wide brush. It also seems to be a very negative comparison that implies that every Muslim is a rapist.

When a christian rapes they're very wrong. When a muslim rapes a slave they have that quranic right.

Are you able to back this assertion with evidence?

Is this explicitly announced as a right within the Quran (Koran?), or implied?

Does this right come from contorting the writing, not unlike using the Bible to provide the right to keep slaves?

Do all Muslims assert they have this right, just the extremists, perhaps none at all and this is false assumption of their faith?

 

[AgingYoung]

From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks, driven out of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened to invade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residence at Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizaries against whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomedia in 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewed negotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I less than three logic,

• 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.

One of mohommed's wives was his slave or a woman that his right arm possessed. You can decide for yourself if the writing is contorted. If what you call an extremist or what I'd call a fundamental wants to ignore the teachings and practice of mohommed that's between them and .... who ever.

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed but I'm not interested. I've come to the conclusion based on quite a bit of looking into the matter that Jesus knew what the truth was, taught it and lived it.

• 33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

I find that truth morally superior to what mohommed taught and lived. You might have a different conclusion.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

I see nothing here that implies the right to rape slaves. Do all religious conclusions include irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that imply that you should be allowed to steal white chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden translate into take by force.

I’m not necessarily defending Muslims, attempting to convey their superiority to Christians, or visa versa. I’m an Atheist through and through and, to put it frankly, find both a little silly. I just find amusement in how the religious express their moral superiority yet seem completely oblivious to their bigotry.

Here is a subtle example within your post. Notice how you capitalized the name Jesus, yet didn’t for Mohammad. Multiple times even. Mohammad is a name, and as such should be capitalized according to basic grammar. Although, you didn’t use formal grammar within the post, you still took the effort to capitalize Jesus when you typed it.

 

[AgingYoung]

As I see it the truth is what it is and no one can change it. I do think that God can say something is true and it will be but there are some truths that are true and even God can't
change them. That's about what I believe.

edit

 

[AgingYoung]

Here is a subtle example within your post.

I didn't think it was at all subtle. As I noted everyone is entitled to their own conclusions. I've come to mine based on the history and teachings of the two founders. Also if you noticed I've mentioned several times I didn't want to derail the topic of this thread along these lines. I'm sure there can't be much agreement.

Islam means submission. The very idea of forced submission is as oxymoronic as my screen name (AgingYoung; A. Gene Young). Your right hand didn't possess the white chocolate. Different people have different abilities to reason. You imagine mine is flawed. That brings me back to an earlier point. Given that not everyone has the same ability to arrive at what the truth of a matter is, how could one person reason that their version is superior to another's?

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Jeff Corkern,

This makes a lot of sense to me. I'd ask how could having a soul and knowing you have a soul change behavior. I'd even take it a step further. I think there are people that know they have a soul and even a soul that is going to be judged after they leave the earth yet you couldn't tell it by the way they live. One person has already made that point but it was a good one and I'm repeating it. Several people are waiting for some sort of response from you, Jeff Corkern. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.

Gene

I don't know how soul-theory accounts for empathy, altruism, cooperation, kindness, and aversion to murder. Maybe a soul-theorist can explain the connection.

But evolutionary biology is coming up with some wonderful insights. The development of all of the above creates positive survival pressures for social species.

In fact, complex social cooperation behavior has been observed in certain species of bats, who recall individuals who share with them, and tend to reciprocate with them (and to share with others who have no record, so to speak, with them) but to cut off the freeloaders.

Do bats have souls?

 

[I less than three logic]

I didn't think it was at all subtle.

All right, so it was intended bigotry, which doesn’t makes it any more right.

Islam means submission. The very idea of forced submission is as oxymoronic as my screen name (AgingYoung; A. Gene Young).

Submission is a synonym for surrender. I would assume most submissions come by way of force. I don’t see the oxymoron here.

Your right hand didn't possess the white chocolate.

You’re right. Once they are slaves you can make them do anything. If it is not forbidden to sleep with them, then you could make them sleep with you as well. This, however, is a problem inherent to slavery in general. Not necessarily a right to rape granted by the Quran. I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is the case.

Given that not everyone has the same ability to arrive at what the truth of a matter is, how could one person reason that their version is superior to another's?

Gene

What is with everyone’s obsession with spouting the superiority of his or her morality? Why must one be superior to all others? It is not my responsibility to convince everyone that my way of thinking is correct or better than theirs. I follow my own ethics, and while they may differ from those of others, I see no reason to conclude mine superior or feel the need to force them upon everyone. They are rather simple, and include but are not limited to:

• I place value in the life of others, even if I can’t see it myself. I realize there are many other people that might view the person differently then I do. I have no reason to conclude my life is more valuable then theirs, so I have no right to take it. (Unless a dire situation requires otherwise, self-defense or defense of others, etc.) This one alone is enough to rule out the sociopathic murder spree I should be going on I guess.
  
• I’m generally polite and mind my manners. I use sir and madam (mama?) when appropriate. Don’t interrupt people when they are speaking, or raise my voice unnecessarily. Although, I must admit, these are increasingly more difficult to adhere to when upset.
  
• Here is one that might seem contradictory to the last one, and can sometimes become entangled in an interesting sort of way. Profanity. I have no problem with it. My friends use it, my family uses it, and I use it. I just don’t find it offensive at all, its just words. However, I cease using it if I know it offends someone else. I think that falls upon the manners mentioned above.

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on whether or not you believe your morals are superior. The true test of the validity of your morals is how those around you perceive them. If everyone thinks you’re an [rule 8] then your standard of ethics is probably too low. However, if they only reason they dislike you are because your beliefs differ from theirs, then it is not your morals that need to be examined.

 

[AgingYoung]

All right, so it was intended bigotry, which doesn’t makes it any more right.

What is with everyone’s obsession with spouting the superiority of his or her morality?

I need to think more about what you said.

Gene

 

[Jess]

Jeff Corkern,
Several people are waiting for some sort of response from you, Jeff Corkern. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.

I honestly wouldn't expect to hear from Jeff today. If you check the forum birthday function, you'll see that it's his birthday. I would think that he's celebrating rather than checking the JREF forum.

 

[AgingYoung]

Jess,

I did notice that but when he's ready I'm all ears. I expect it to be a learning experience.

Gene

 

[Suezoled]

I less than three logic,

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed but I'm not interested. I've come to the conclusion based on quite a bit of looking into the matter that Jesus knew what the truth was, taught it and lived it.

I find that truth morally superior to what mohommed taught and lived. You might have a different conclusion.

Gene

But Josh's dad said it was okay for his chosen people to keep slaves, sell their daughters, and put to death any kid who curses out his parents, or any guy who sleeps with his wife's mom (mom, wife, and guy all get put to death). Joshua himself thought it was cool when men left their wives and famlies to traipse around the countryside with him. Paul, one of Josh's buddies, said that the natural use of women was for sex.

If that's the truth and the life, ... yeah.

 

[AgingYoung]

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed

I'm not prepared to argue levitical law. As I understand it there are 613 different commandments and more commentary than you could get your mind around if you spent a lifetime with it. I think one of the greatest torah scholars was Jesus and he summed up the law like this:

• Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
• Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
• Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
• Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Gene

 

[kieran]

• Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

People outside of the gospel will be judged by the standard they have. They will be held up to that standard. If they were wise that standard will have a provision of mercy in it.

Gene

Gene,

Feel free to continue to select your quotes from the Bible/Torah/Koran for your own purposes - but don't expect me to see that as the be-all and end-all of the answer. As you well know, each of those books has sensible parts, idiotic parts, and much inconsistency inbetween. They have also been the subject of much translation, interpretation and mis-representation throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the luxury of cherry picking and interpretation?

But a full scriptural debate is beyond both my wits and patience.

However, I find quoting you more interesting. At least it is possible to ask for clarification/explanation of glaring inconsistencies. For instance, how does your text above stack up against your text below (with my emphasis added) from text #153 in this thread?

Here is a distinction though between christianity and islam. Although I think the muslim is going to burn in hell I'm not willing to send them there today. I don't see it as my job to hasten the process. They on the other hand will cut your head off and send you to judgment, ready or not. In christianity Jesus explains that there is no way to the father except thru him (belief in him). So a christian naturally dismisses any other way to God. There is some confusion as to what is judgment. Although I believe that if you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah you're destined for hell I don't think it's my job to remove all possibilities for you.

... are you just making this all up as you go along?