but.......THE CRUSADES!

[muy_thaiguy]

Phattscotty and his ilk are basically trying to stir up another "Red Scare Witch Hunt", so to speak.

Plus in history classes, particularly when you get to the Middle East, there most likely will be parts in that section similar to what PS posted, but knowing how much such things can happen, they are 99% most likely taken out of context.

[Phatscotty]

Improving muslim relations ≠ promoting islam. I'll remind you of your actual claim:

I mean it's so bad, he made our Space program NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam.

And now the NASA quote:

...and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

It's weird, I don't see any kind of affirmation or promotion of the islamic religion there and somehow you do....

So students reading from a history book means that teachers are automatically promoting/preaching the views contained by everyone within that book? If the book had a quote from Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot to give context about how those guys tried to justify carrying out atrocities and as part of the class a student was asked to read one of those quotes out loud to the class, would you be up in arms about the class promoting nazism, communism or whatever the hell Pol Pot was smoking, or would you look at the wider context of the lesson as academic learning about facts about the world?

On the school prayer thing, I see nothing in those links that allows teachers or other government employees to promote islam. They make accommodations for the religious beliefs of their students sure, and they should do the same for christian students if justification for this is provided (like Amish kids being homeschooled is allowed for example, a decision that has led to a lot more homeschooling by a lot of other christian parents), but what christians are repeatedly being slapped down for is not wanting accommodations for christian practices, it's promoting christian religion or activities.

As I linked, that display was part of a broader display about religions in general. There was also a christian imagery, some hindu information, etc. There is nothing wrong with learning about religions as an academic exercise, and indeed most skeptics encourage that because there is a strong correlation between learning about religion and not subscribing to any particular religion. The more educated you get about how twisted the religious doctrines that everything is based on are, the more chance you reject them all.

BTW I said I was not done getting the links and I made a bunch of edits, I shoulda left another message on your wall...

#1 NASA - Really??? "....to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." You don't think that is promoting? I easily call 'reminding everyone of all the good stuff Muslims have done' promoting. Maybe it means something slightly different in your country? anyway, agree to disagree then. However, I am pretty sure the shock value was mostly about NASA having the foremost priority reaching out to Islam, and not so much about what the exact definition of promoting is, or that I summed up the essence of his quote.

#2 History Book? Really??? Teaching students to read aloud that "“There is no god, but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God,” You don't see any problem at all with someone who is from a religion other than Islam reciting that in school? Really????? Ummmmmm, ok I guess! Hey, just curious, not sure if you know or not, but when today just as in the last 1,000 years a sword is to the neck of an infidel in a forced conversion, what is it that person tells the infidel to repeat so as to convert them? So, likewise, according to you, Muslims should have no problem and there should be no problem with a 'history book' reading 'I accept Jesus Christ as the messenger of God and as my lord and savior'? I never said anything about this being a promotion or even said the word preaching period. I did say the problem was praying and reciting passages from the Koran in class, and I thought you had agreed with me that if that was the case you were with me in denouncing it? Like I mentioned earlier and at the end of the last post, I did some editing for fear of computer crash, so maybe we need to take a closer look at this one. The Hitler analogy, not exactly valid in comparison to our separation of church n state. If anything, there is a full and complete merger of national socialism workers party and the public education system. And hey, if you likewise say it's valid that teachers ask students to recite that Jesus is their lord n savior, than I can disagree with you while feel you are consistent. But certainly i would call BS that whatever can be put in a history book is therefore a history lesson, regardless of how far over the line it may be. I would think coming right out of the bible or the Koran, or saying mahaumud is the messenger of god or Jesus is the son of God, clearly is as over the line as it gets

#3 school prayer not being promoted? That was not my point at all. I said Muslims in Public Schools are allowed to pray, Muslim have implemented a policy which fully accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools, as well as unexcused absences. And then I showed how that is the case, along with the Supreme Court specifically ruling official prayer had no place in public education. I'm sorry, but no, it's crystal clear that Christians are not allowed any such treatment, certainly not officially. As I said, in some perhaps many states, Christian literature is banned. Certainly there are no rooms being set aside full of Bibles for Christians to pray in. I'm starting to think you intentionally are misplacing words so as to not have to concede a fair and honest point. but again, maybe it was the edit?

#4 Yes, I kind of get ya about a 'general' display of religions for a broader purpose. But then I have to ask, certainly something like the 10 commandments is a 'general' display of religion, agree? So, why then were the 10 commandments ever removed from all walls in all public schools in the first place???? Why not just 'broaden' the display and add the 5 pillars to another wall as well... so the students can learn about religion? Hopefully with this one we can get to the issue here, but I hope it happens naturally and organically so let's see if we stumble upon it!

I kinda had a feeling I might spend all that time backing up exactly what I said and exactly what you asked me to back up, and that you may just shrug every single one of them off. But let's see if the edits did anything to change that. And I really hope that you clarify a bit about the reading from the Koran, orally proclaiming Muhamud as the messenger of God, and relent from 'hey, it's just a history book, man' I might get that if you are an Atheist who truly believes all religion is stupid, but objectively being tolerant of other people views as well as their right to have those views, at least I can see why that would be a huge problem in a public school.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem really isn't that “certain people” kill in the name of Christianity, it’s that the Bible explicitly, in no uncertain terms commands you to kill in the name of God. Not in an obscure part either, it's like a couple pages after the Ten Commandments.

It’s really absurd when self-proclaimed “religious” people dismiss other “religious” people as self-serving hypocrites just because the cherry picked narrative the former chose doesn't fit with the latter’s. Going on a crusade is a perfectly valid way to uphold the rules of the Bible.

6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13 that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, 15 you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. 16 All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt. 17 Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand, so that the Lord may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.

TL;DR version: KILL FUCKING EVERYONE; Your kid that's experimenting with some new-agey Wiccan stuff, the Hare Krishnas at the airport, everyone in the city for good measure, oh and the animals too, then burn everything else that exists or may exist in the future.

Hmm... to take one point, I think the key words here are "secretly entices".

Ironically, that seems to match the way some supposedly observing Christians now operate/have operated. Basically, I would say this is not actually telling people to condemn those who disagree or even who engage in debate/duscussion, but that it is telling folks not to allow the sneaky vipers who are not open about their intent, who secretly try to convert our children. I hold great disdain for those types today, particularly those who try to do this in the name of Christ precisely because I believe Christ is God of truth, not deceit.

Further, it is even more specific to say "gods not known before". Again, this is a specific Old Testament approach to people who would come and, behind closed doors, try to convert unknowing folks. It is not a condemnation of others entirely
(though yes, there are those passages)

(and I MUST interject that I am only arguing in t context of the Old Testament... the New Testament changed everything completely, but I am arguing just the phrase you quoted)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
[b]Phattscotty, Greekdog etc..... interesting debate on a whole.

Without taking up each and every point, I do want to address the initial and overriding questions.

Essentially there are 2 questions.


1. Are we to judge actions of the past by today's standards? I have said before and will repeat that pretending that we have this right is the ultimate of hypocrisy. People, society have/has grown and changed. We did not live back then, we have so many more advantages than they. This means WE have a far greater level of responsibility, but not that we have the right to go back and judge the people of that day by our standards. We may try, with imperfect measure, to judge them by the standards of their own day, but also must know that we will necessarily fail in full understanding.

By that measure, alone, judging current Christians by the actions of the Crusades is wrong. This is NOT to say that the actions were justified (that is a different debate), but just that the Crusades and how it represents Christianity must be judged by how people of that day thought, not how people today think.

2. Is it proper to judge one Christian by the actions of another?
Is it OK to judge the act and beliefs of one Repuplican (or Democrat, Liberaterien, Socialist, etc) by the act of another?

Of course, the answer is "no"

by either measure, judgement of modern Christians by the Crusades is just wrong. Most Christians would say that the Crusades were wrong. Judging them by it is therefore not correct.

This spawns a more specific question:

3. Is it proper to judge all group members by the actions or opinions of leaders?
This is trickier, particularly when it comes to religion. In the case of the Crusades, its important to remember that all of that predated the Protestant Reformation and responsive changes within the Roman Catholic Church. A LOT was changed about people's attitudes and our understanding of Christ and his words then. To judge people of today based on what most would say are misguided ideas of the past is just wrong.

That said, a lot depends upon how much a leader actually is thought to reflect the views of its members and why people might join. The Roman Catholic Pope represents the living spiritual authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Still, not everyone who is a member today truly agrees fully with the Pope at any one time. To carry that out to Protestants is ridiculous, something of ignorance because Protestants simply do not follow the Pope. Beyond that, there is the deeper question of spiritual belief and outward membership. People can be outward members of a church and not believe at all. more nuanced, people can agree with the founding philosophy of an idea/concept/paradigm, but disagree with how a current leadership decides to implement it. In short... within each group, you still have to look at the individuals, other than the most broad proclamations.

To summerize #1-3, I will paraphrase Maya Angelou "We did what we knew how to do. Now we knew better, we do better"


A better question, one addressed in the quote above, is whether the Crusades really was anti Christianity or not. I would argue it was always against Christianity, but that people's understanding of Christianity back then was flawed. People still try to do that. In most cases, they take the Old Testament and pretend that it exists alone, without any modification by the New Testament. They also tend to assume that human beings can instantly understand God's full plan. Most people would say they cannot. Christianity is necessarily imperfect because human beings are imperfect. No perfect religion or ideology will exist within humanity until humanity reaches perfection.. i. e. they won't.


To get specific....

At the time, the idea that one should use battle or "might" to "win an idea" was prominent and widespread. This was not just a Christian idea, nor was it disputed by Islam of the day or really, any other religion except in an "academic" sense. That is, certainly learned individuals of probably most all faiths of the time questioned this, but the reality for basically all was "might makes right".

Today, we have the luxury (or have had) of real debate, an educated populace who is interested in discussing ideas rather than just winning battles. The move to extremism is a threat to that, regardless of your basic ideology. The problem, then is one of extremism and an unwillingness to listen to dissent. When one decides, about ANYTHING, "I am right and therefore no longer have to spend the time debating or listening to disagreement".. then you yourself are the greatest threat to all of our security and to freedom.

[Phatscotty]

Phattscotty and his ilk are basically trying to stir up another "Red Scare Witch Hunt", so to speak.

Plus in history classes, particularly when you get to the Middle East, there most likely will be parts in that section similar to what PS posted, but knowing how much such things can happen, they are 99% most likely taken out of context.

lmao, that's what you think huh? I'm not stirring up anything. I'm sharing the facts. But of course you don't pick out something about what I said, state why it's wrong, perhaps even show why it's wrong? Nah, just say something about Phatscotty and his 'ilk' Care to describe a bit about me and my ilk? Whether you realize it or not, what you say says a lot more about you than it does me.

Plus, in the Middle East, I'm sure they are all about being fair, peaceful, and tolerant, and teaching Muslim students about Christianity, and having them read Bible lessons?

[crispybits]

#1 - I don't think that making them feel good about their contribution to maths, engineering and science is promoting their religious views no. I also don't agree with using NASA as a propaganda machine this way, I think it's a diversion for people that could be doing better work elsewhere, but I fail to see why you think this is a promotion of religion?

#2 - I have no problem saying any of those things in the context of reading what other people have said beforehand. I don't agree with Hitler when he said "I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.", I think that sentiment is abhorrent, but in a history lesson I would have no problem reading that out as an illustration of Hitler's beliefs, and doing so would not in any way indicate that I have any agreement or sympathy for that belief. By the way I'd also be fully supportive of a religious person who refused to say another religion's prayer even within that context for their own personal religious reasons, but the reading of a text for academic purposes is not the same as practicising or promoting that text as a religion or as a political philosophy or anything else.

#3 - So muslims are alowed student-led prayer, and christians are denied offical prayer. You're comparing apples and oranges. Prayer has not been banned in school for any religion, only the officially led prayer sessions conducted/promoted by school employees has been banned for all religions. There are no rooms being set aside full of Korans, the students from the link you posted went to the library. I'm sure I could find several links pretty quickly confirming unofficial or student-led christian prayer sessions outside of class times and on school property for plenty of schools, want me to prove it? As for taking time out to go pray, christians can opt-out of school attendance entirely from the 8th grade for religious reasons, so I think you're on shaky ground claiming an afternoon off once a week is favouring islam...

#4 - Context! A display about the 10 commandments would be absolutely fine within a wider display about comparitive religion or religious history because then it is in an academic context and does not breach first amendment rulings. The times when the 10 commandments have been removed are when they're put on display outside of the academic context. You'll notice more often than not the religious displays that fall foul of this are also permanent structures or decorations, carved in wood or stone and sometimes even into the structures of buildings. How many other academic subjects carve their subject material into the fabric of the building for academic reasons?

btw none of the factual information (discounting opinions) you added in later edits to your previous post contains any information that goes against anything I said in this post or the last one.

edit - slight change to wording of #3 - I mis-spoke

[Phatscotty]

#1 - I don't think that making them feel good about their contribution to maths, engineering and science is promoting their religious views no. I also don't agree with using NASA as a propaganda machine this way, I think it's a diversion for people that could be doing better work elsewhere, but I fail to see why you think this is a promotion of religion?

Alright CB, lets go through these one at a time til it's done. We started with like 8 or 9, we are down to 4 and a shortened more focused version. To quit now would be a shame.

But I must note all of a sudden, what I said, promoting 'Islam' is now promoting 'religious views'? Well, at least we are further along past 'promoting' But that is not what I said at all. I wouldhate to have our back and forth reduced to mincing words or even inserting new words/concepts

promoting religious views would be like 'Mohammed is the true messenger of God' which isn't saying much for Jesus Christ....since...'Mohammed is the true messenger of God" or wait, that's not a religious view..... that just 'history'? right?

Promoting Islam would be like 'reaching out to the Muslim world to help them feel good about their historic contributions'

[Phatscotty]

♥

[crispybits]

Islam is a religion. You said "promoting islam".

Muslim dominated nations are political entities. NASA said "engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations"

So your point fails on two fronts. Firstly "engage much more with X" is far from the same as "promote X". Secondly, dominant muslim nations are not the same thing as the islamic religion.

Saying "eugenics is a valid way to improve the human race" as a standalone statement is a political statement, if it's within the context of "Hitler believed that...." it becomes a historical satetement.

No, promoting Islam would be like saying "Islam is correct and people should believe it", the religion and the historical contributions to maths, science and engineering by followers of the religion are not the same thing. If you're going to use that logic then we can blame all that crusades/inquisition stuff on the religion, it would be exactly the same - followers of religion X did Y, therefore religion X = action Y...

[notyou2]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

[saxitoxin]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

His Ph.D. is in MATH.

METSSSSSSFANMAXXXX!!!

[Endgame422]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Come on now.
The Byzantine or eastern Roman empire lasts until at least 12th century some would argue as late as the 15th.
They are based in Byzantium or Constantinople or Istanbul or whatever they call it now,the city that the crusaders sacked in the 4th crusade around 1200.
Death of Muhammad/start of Islam is 9th century.
As far as the video calling it classical civilization i am with you that its nonsense especially considering that if goes all the way to 1920.

[/]

The problem really isn't that “certain people” kill in the name of Christianity, it’s that the Bible explicitly, in no uncertain terms commands you to kill in the name of God. Not in an obscure part either, it's like a couple pages after the Ten Commandments.

It’s really absurd when self-proclaimed “religious” people dismiss other “religious” people as self-serving hypocrites just because the cherry picked narrative the former chose doesn't fit with the latter’s. Going on a crusade is a perfectly valid way to uphold the rules of the Bible.

6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or[b] your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13 that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, 15 you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. 16 All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt. 17 Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand, so that the Lord may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.

TL;DR version: KILL FUCKING EVERYONE; Your kid that's experimenting with some new-agey Wiccan stuff, the Hare Krishnas at the airport, everyone in the city for good measure, oh and the animals too, then burn everything else that exists or may exist in the future.

Hmm... to take one point, I think the key words here are "secretly entices".

Ironically, that seems to match the way some supposedly observing Christians now operate/have operated. Basically, I would say this is not actually telling people to condemn those who disagree or even who engage in debate/duscussion, but that it is telling folks not to allow the sneaky vipers who are not open about their intent, who secretly try to convert our children. I hold great disdain for those types today, particularly those who try to do this in the name of Christ precisely because I believe Christ is God of truth, not deceit.

Further, it is even more specific to say "gods not known before". Again, this is a specific Old Testament approach to people who would come and, behind closed doors, try to convert unknowing folks. It is not a condemnation of others entirely
(though yes, there are those passages)

(and I MUST interject that I am only arguing in t context of the Old Testament... the New Testament changed everything completely, but I am arguing just the phrase you quoted)

Fair enough. It is a hard passage to understand outright. Even Martin Luther (claimed) he interpreted it as a righteous justification to burn Jewish houses and Synagogues. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/ ... uther-1543

If we do accept it as only applying to deceitful converters, how do you interpret the second half?
Is the "abhorrent thing" someone trying to secretly convert people (And presumably not getting stoned for it), or people in the town following them? Why is/was it necessary to kill every man, woman, child, and donkey in either case?

Also, that's an interesting interpretation that I've heard argued, that the New Testament changes the Old Testament. I'm not trying to be sarky, I honestly never understood that part and would appreciate it if you could explain further.

It does seem like if that is the case, shouldn't the Bible should have a few parts trimmed from it to avoid such horrible "misunderstandings" that lead to things like the Crusades?

[Dukasaur]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Absolutely not.
The Muslim conquest of Iberia extinguished a thriving Roman civilization there. Yes, it was nominally a Visigothic kingdom, but in most ways -- cultural, economic, etc. -- the Kingdom of Iberia was a Latin civilization before the Moors rolled over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

The same can be said of Aquitaine and the Languedoc. Although their Frankish kings were nominally German, their culture was unquestionably Latin before the Saracens arrived and laid waste to it.

Egypt was a major component of the Byzantine Empire prior to the Muslim conquest, and a centre of Greco-Roman culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria was pretty much the final blow to the (admittedly already declining) classical Hellenistic tradition of learning. Although there had been earlier burnings of the Library, in the previous instances the Library was reconstructed and restocked. Only the last and greatest destruction was irreversible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

Virtually all of the Eastern Mediterranean had a thriving Greco-roman civilization under the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquerors arrived. Sicily, Cyprus, most of Asia Minor, Catania, Greece itself, Albania, all were cultured and civilized places before they came under the scimtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_wars_%28780%E2%80%931180%29

[patches70]

I don't know why all the hate for that Deuteronomy is coming from except one doesn't understand what it's saying. Even atheists abide by the same rules as put forth in that passage.

Imagine one is a non believer and instead believes in the power and supremacy of the State. What does the State do to traitors? What does society do to murderers? What does society do to child molesters?

What does society think of those who attempt to lead others into such acts? Don't even look at it in religious terms, going outside certain societal norms invites exactly what Deuteronomy is saying. Those that attempt to convert one from their righteous path, be it religious, social or whatever, then that person is at the very least to be shunned, railed against and if need be executed. Such as we do to this very day with very little thought about it.

Few argue for saving the rapists, child molesters and murders. People who try to get others to perform such acts are treated equally as those that actually commit such acts and no one would bat an eye. Nor should they. The cohesion of a society has certain rules and customs and if said society wishes to continue then those who subvert said society have to be dealt with, often harshly.

Or if one believes in the power of science and were to build a society based strictly on such tenants? What do you do with those who hold to superstitious beliefs and no amount of conversing will sway them? Then those people go out and convince others that said society is evil and must be brought down? Those who are vested and believe in this society based strictly on science would have little choice but to remove such people, even executing said heretics if need be. For the preservation of the society.

And this isn't even getting into what it was like back in the days when this passage was written, as if any of us today could truly understand what it was like living in the days of tribalism. Hell, in places in the world today where tribalism still exists, then Deuteronomy makes perfect sense and in such point of view is actually wise. No matter how barbaric outsiders may consider such practices. One way or another every society practices such as Deuteronomy 13: 6-18.


Is anyone here going to say publicly that if their brother (by blood, not just be citizenship) or sister were to have committed some heinous crime would then go to bat and protect them from the logical and inevitable wrath of society? I love my brother but if he raped some person, child, murdered and came to me "Help me brother" I'd have no choice but to tell him to leave my door. It would break my heart, but there is no way I could defend such actions, even if the person committing such actions was a beloved family member.

Then there is the New Testament, which another poster brought up that such what is written here in Deuteronomy is treated differently, but it isn't. The spirit of Deuteronomy 13 still holds true. Jesus said- "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" one must go back to this, Deuteronomy 13 to understand what he is saying. Look to the fist commandment and understand what Deuteronomy is saying. Because if one cannot understand Deuteronomy 13 correctly then they won't be able to understand the first commandment either.

Whatever is one's God comes first, above and beyond even one's own family. This applies to even the atheist, because we all believe in something, you don't compromise your values just because someone is your family member.

People read the words but don't understand them. It's a shame but not unexpected.

[saxitoxin]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Absolutely not.
The Muslim conquest of Iberia extinguished a thriving Roman civilization there. Yes, it was nominally a Visigothic kingdom, but in most ways -- cultural, economic, etc. -- the Kingdom of Iberia was a Latin civilization before the Moors rolled over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

The same can be said of Aquitaine and the Languedoc. Although their Frankish kings were nominally German, their culture was unquestionably Latin before the Saracens arrived and laid waste to it.

Egypt was a major component of the Byzantine Empire prior to the Muslim conquest, and a centre of Greco-Roman culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria was pretty much the final blow to the (admittedly already declining) classical Hellenistic tradition of learning. Although there had been earlier burnings of the Library, in the previous instances the Library was reconstructed and restocked. Only the last and greatest destruction was irreversible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

Virtually all of the Eastern Mediterranean had a thriving Greco-roman civilization under the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquerors arrived. Sicily, Cyprus, most of Asia Minor, Catania, Greece itself, Albania, all were cultured and civilized places before they came under the scimtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_wars_%28780%E2%80%931180%29

I, for one, am taking a stand against this Muslim destruction of high-learning and science. We can roll back the clock. Starting now -

My g/f Esmerelda and I totally LXIX'ed on Valentine's Day. Knowing that was on the cards, I was probably going LXX or LXXV down the Interstate CDV in order to get home before MMC last night. It was the hottest LXIX ever.

[Dukasaur]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Absolutely not.
The Muslim conquest of Iberia extinguished a thriving Roman civilization there. Yes, it was nominally a Visigothic kingdom, but in most ways -- cultural, economic, etc. -- the Kingdom of Iberia was a Latin civilization before the Moors rolled over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

The same can be said of Aquitaine and the Languedoc. Although their Frankish kings were nominally German, their culture was unquestionably Latin before the Saracens arrived and laid waste to it.

Egypt was a major component of the Byzantine Empire prior to the Muslim conquest, and a centre of Greco-Roman culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria was pretty much the final blow to the (admittedly already declining) classical Hellenistic tradition of learning. Although there had been earlier burnings of the Library, in the previous instances the Library was reconstructed and restocked. Only the last and greatest destruction was irreversible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

Virtually all of the Eastern Mediterranean had a thriving Greco-roman civilization under the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquerors arrived. Sicily, Cyprus, most of Asia Minor, Catania, Greece itself, Albania, all were cultured and civilized places before they came under the scimtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_wars_%28780%E2%80%931180%29

I, for one, am taking a stand against this Muslim destruction of high-learning and science. We can roll back the clock. Starting now -

My g/f Esmerelda and I LXIX'ed on Valentine's Day. My g/f Esmerelda and I 69'ed on Valentine's Day.

Who else enjoys a good LXIX?

Who do you think Esmerelda learned it from?

[2dimes]

Also, that's an interesting interpretation that I've heard argued, that the New Testament changes the Old Testament. I'm not trying to be sarky, I honestly never understood that part and would appreciate it if you could explain further.

Not sure if I can play but...

Even though the entire Old Testament is good for edification it is directed to a specific people at a specific time.

Yahushua's perfect sacrifice paid for all our sin. We no longer kill a bird because we sat on the same bed as a woman who menstruated. Grab a shower and change our pants if needed and off to Sunday meetin.

God has made bacon wrapped shrimp ok, though we are not supposed to fight those eating Kosher or Halal over use of the microwave at work.

[notyou2]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Absolutely not.
The Muslim conquest of Iberia extinguished a thriving Roman civilization there. Yes, it was nominally a Visigothic kingdom, but in most ways -- cultural, economic, etc. -- the Kingdom of Iberia was a Latin civilization before the Moors rolled over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

The same can be said of Aquitaine and the Languedoc. Although their Frankish kings were nominally German, their culture was unquestionably Latin before the Saracens arrived and laid waste to it.

Egypt was a major component of the Byzantine Empire prior to the Muslim conquest, and a centre of Greco-Roman culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria was pretty much the final blow to the (admittedly already declining) classical Hellenistic tradition of learning. Although there had been earlier burnings of the Library, in the previous instances the Library was reconstructed and restocked. Only the last and greatest destruction was irreversible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

Virtually all of the Eastern Mediterranean had a thriving Greco-roman civilization under the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquerors arrived. Sicily, Cyprus, most of Asia Minor, Catania, Greece itself, Albania, all were cultured and civilized places before they came under the scimtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_wars_%28780%E2%80%931180%29

Duk, he stated the ROMAN EMPIRE, not remnant latin civilizations. I agree there were remnant Roman civilizations, but the empire was long gone when islam spread around the Mediterranean. It was specifically due to this void that helped it spread so quickly.

[Dukasaur]

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Absolutely not.
The Muslim conquest of Iberia extinguished a thriving Roman civilization there. Yes, it was nominally a Visigothic kingdom, but in most ways -- cultural, economic, etc. -- the Kingdom of Iberia was a Latin civilization before the Moors rolled over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

The same can be said of Aquitaine and the Languedoc. Although their Frankish kings were nominally German, their culture was unquestionably Latin before the Saracens arrived and laid waste to it.

Egypt was a major component of the Byzantine Empire prior to the Muslim conquest, and a centre of Greco-Roman culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria was pretty much the final blow to the (admittedly already declining) classical Hellenistic tradition of learning. Although there had been earlier burnings of the Library, in the previous instances the Library was reconstructed and restocked. Only the last and greatest destruction was irreversible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

Virtually all of the Eastern Mediterranean had a thriving Greco-roman civilization under the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquerors arrived. Sicily, Cyprus, most of Asia Minor, Catania, Greece itself, Albania, all were cultured and civilized places before they came under the scimtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_wars_%28780%E2%80%931180%29

Duk, he stated the ROMAN EMPIRE, not remnant latin civilizations. I agree there were remnant Roman civilizations, but the empire was long gone when islam spread around the Mediterranean. It was specifically due to this void that helped it spread so quickly.

I didn't hear him say Roman Empire, I think he said something like "classical Greek and Roman civilizations." I only watched the video once though, so I'll be happy to admit that I might have missed it.

The Byzantine Empire was officially known as the Roman Empire. It never referred to itself as Byzantine, that is a moniker that modern writers have stuck on it. Officially the Byzantine rulers considered themselves to be the legitimate successors to the original Roman Empire, although that of course is debatable. In the West, too, the Frankish Holy Roman Empire considered itself the legitimate successor to the western Roman Empire, as did the Venetians and no doubt many other fragments of the original.

At best what you have is a difference of interpretation with the OP, so saying "FULL OF SHIT" was hyperbole on your part.

[notyou2]

He actually stated "classical civilizations of Rome and Greece". I don't consider the remnants of the Roman Empire, 200 years after it fell, in Madrid Spain "Classical Roman Civilization".

[tzor]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

[saxitoxin]

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until Century XIII. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

Fixed to get rid of the Muslim numbers.

[tzor]

Fixed to get rid of the Muslim numbers.

I hate to break it to you, but they aren't "Muslim numbers." They were invented in India around A.D. 500.

The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825 in Arabic, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, "On the Use of the Indian Numerals" (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830. Their work was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle East and the West.

[saxitoxin]

Fixed to get rid of the Muslim numbers.

I hate to break it to you, but they aren't "Muslim numbers." They were invented in India around A.D. 500.

The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825 in Arabic, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, "On the Use of the Indian Numerals" (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830. Their work was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle East and the West.

Dark Age Europeans learned them in the great universities established by Arabs in Spain during the caliphate. That's why we call them Arabic numerals.

Good luck getting to the moon using a Roman numeral calculator.

[tzor]

Good luck getting to the moon using a Roman numeral calculator.

I'll use an Aztec one instead.
Base 20 is far better than base 10.