Norway Liberal Enriched By Diversity

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol if you're referring to The Crusades.

Jihad vs Crusades

I'm not.

"lol"

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol if you're referring to The Crusades.

Jihad vs Crusades

I was taught in a 400 level course on the Crusades that there was a Golden Age of Islam (700 years occupational government), where Portugal, Spain and France prospered under the government of Islam for 700 years and allowed freedom of religious practices. Jews, Christians, Muslims practicing in the same city peacefully respecting each other. Everyone held hands.

They said that Spain initiated the crusades unfairly against a peaceful and benevolent government under, that government being that of Golden Age Islam. A regime which was "very tolerant", the "most tolerant" government that Europe had ever seen, in fact.

We were taught this verbatim. Something to consider there are two sides to every story. You link a youtube video, but what University does this Dr. teach at? What are his credentials?

Don't believe everything you see from some white guy.

[eadric]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was taught in a 400 level course on the Crusades that there was a Golden Age of Islam (700 years occupational government), where Portugal, Spain and France prospered under the government of Islam for 700 years and allowed freedom of religious practices. Jews, Christians, Muslims practicing in the same city peacefully respecting each other. Everyone held hands.

They said that Spain initiated the crusades unfairly against a peaceful and benevolent government under, that government being that of Golden Age Islam. A regime which was "very tolerant", the "most tolerant" government that Europe had ever seen, in fact.

We were taught this verbatim. Something to consider there are two sides to every story. You link a youtube video, but what University does this Dr. teach at? What are his credentials?

Don't believe everything you see from some white guy.

It sounds to me that you had a biased professor. The true history of the Iberian peninsula is extremely complex. Were the Moors morally better or worse than the primitive Christians they conquered or the militant Catholics they were pushed out by? That's a matter for debate.

[sOurDieSel]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was taught in a 400 level course on the Crusades that there was a Golden Age of Islam (700 years occupational government), where Portugal, Spain and France prospered under the government of Islam for 700 years and allowed freedom of religious practices. Jews, Christians, Muslims practicing in the same city peacefully respecting each other. Everyone held hands.

They said that Spain initiated the crusades unfairly against a peaceful and benevolent government under, that government being that of Golden Age Islam. A regime which was "very tolerant", the "most tolerant" government that Europe had ever seen, in fact.

We were taught this verbatim. Something to consider there are two sides to every story. You link a youtube video, but what University does this Dr. teach at? What are his credentials?

Don't believe everything you see from some white guy.

I'm not surprised you were 'taught' that in school. Most history in schools is taught as "White Europeans are bad bad bad, everyone else was good good good." The notion of other people like Christians and Jews being happy and 'prosperous' under a 'benevolent' and 'tolerant' Islamic rule is laughable, because it sure isn't like that today with the Religion of Peace.

Why does it matter if the guy is White, if he had brown skin would you believe him then? I researched the facts and drew my own conclusion. One conclusion being that I nor anyone else I know would EVER want to live under Islamic rule no matter how 'tolerant' and 'benevolent' it may be.

Originally Posted by eadric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It sounds to me that you had a biased professor. The true history of the Iberian peninsula is extremely complex. Were the Moors morally better or worse than the primitive Christians they conquered or the militant Catholics they were pushed out by? That's a matter for debate.

I'm sure his professor was just teaching the normal Cultural Marxism that is prevalent at all levels of schooling as required curriculum. I doubt he informed you about the White Europeans (Christians) enslaved by the Moors either.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good post maskedmelon. There are reasons why Christianity will never be a threat on the same level as Islam but the difference doesn't really lie in the actual words.

Another thing I might add is that the Quran emphasizes the importance of actually following your Holy Book. It basically says the Jews receives the Word of God but didn't live up to His standards. The Christians received the Word of God and didn't live up to his standards. So now the Quran is more firm on living up to His standards. The Bible very clearly states that all these Sunday Christians who cherry-pick their passages are going to Hell so ultimately it has the same message but the Quran simply includes "REMINDER: ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD TO DO" every few pages.

Then there is also Arabic culture which slips in (I would argue that a lot of the women unfriendly attitude comes from that culture. The Quran is more pleasant for women than the Bible) and the political situation in the Middle East and North Africa. People have been invading Middle East for a very long time (pre-guns) and we're reaping the horrible fruits. It's a mixture of a lot of things + the religion.

I mostly agree with all of this, I just think you are still discounting the importance to christians of Christ, their namesake. The whole idea of christianity is that people no longer need to endure horrific penalties for ordinary actions everyone participates in because god sacrificed his own son so people would not have to pay for being their nasty selfs. That idea is what allows and encourages christians to function peacefully in society independent of Levitican law. And most do.

The west borough baptist church is a fringe group because it embraces principles, be they from the bible, that run contrary to Christ's later teachings, which Christianity is founded on. And most Christians whether they sympathize with the motives or not, call out that church on those grounds. That is something we don't get from followers of Islam. In fact we get the opposite and the reason is as you said, the law is they law, they've had no peaceful reformer who has said, "Hey, you don't have to do this anymore!"

[Csihar]

Would you mind replying to this quote attributed to Christ first?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Not 100% sure of your point (I can see it going two ways) but I think your answer to this would clarify it. Also, it's always interesting to place this side by side with the whole "let he who is without sin.." bit.

[maskedmelon]

That quote is probably the best example of what I've said ^^. Blood sacrifice was the proscribed atonement for sin by the Hebrew god in the Old Testament. In the passage that you quoted, he is saying that atonement for all sin is achieved through his coming death.

The law demanded blood sacrifice for atonement of sin, a benevolent god sent his son in human form as sacrifice for global atonement, fulfilling the requirement of the law. That is central idea of Christianity: All people have done wrong and will go to hell, but for the sacrifice of a benevolent creator.

[Csihar]

I think especially among Messianic Jews it holds a very different meaning. The law also, in my understanding refers to the Torah (aka the Book of Laws).

"not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Here I see that the Law stands until the end of days.

But that's a different discussion.

I do understand and very much agree with your point (if I understand it correctly). Christians tend to look at Christ mostly and therefore use the New Testament as a guide. I agree that this is a factor which tends to differentiate Christians from Muslims in terms of violence.
I don't, however, feel it's Biblically justified. A lot of Christians speak of the Old Testament as if it's an old TV in the attic. Outdated, out of use and since been replaced wih the new TV.
The Old Testament simply means the divine contract of Abraham which preceeded the divine contract with Yeshua. It just means 'old' in terms of time.

Yeshua's "sacrifice" did negate the blood sacrifices (that God so enjoyed the aroma of) that were necessary in the times of the Old Testament and it introduced Heaven and "corrected" the mistakes of the Garden of Eden etc. but it didn't negate the Old Testament.

So I agree that Christ is the reason why Christians don't pose as much of a threat as Muslims but I don't think the difference is actually in the writing (which I'm not sure you disagree with).

Bit tired and wrote this out fast. But in short: I agree with your original point and I should have mentioned Christ in differentiating Islam and Christianity.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think especially among Messianic Jews it holds a very different meaning. The law also, in my understanding refers to the Torah (aka the Book of Laws).

"not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Here I see that the Law stands until the end of days.

To quantify the bible in a simplistic way, from a point of it meaning what it says in a literal fashion (that what it says is what it means), the flow of the OT is looking forward to the future fulfillment of Christ on the cross, the work of redemption, while the NT is looking back to the fulfillment of Christ on the cross.

The OT not only looks forward to this work, but also provides a filter, in that no common man is able to fulfill, that man always falls short of perfection and in no way could fulfill the work of God's son on the cross. The law, especially, was put there not to save in any way, but is death to man, as no man can pass through such a filter, but only look forward to one that can and will do so.

Now looking back as the NT does, the law was fulfilled, it served it's purpose, and is credited so by Christ who fulfilled the law, applied to him. It's not gone, it's just fulfilled, and a reminder that only the Christ had the ability to fulfill the requirements of the law, and even still today no other who attempts to fullil that law is able to, even though they can try if they wish as it hasn't been taken away or destroyed.

So in other words, the law is still there if you want to try to prove that you are the real christ spoken of in the bible (and needs to be perfect from birth to grave). But for everyone else, it was already fulfilled and now it is replaced with grace thru the one that fulfilled it.

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"And the Lord said to him, 'How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'" (1 Kings 22:22)

The Bible does promote deceit, as you can see above.

That was from the deceiving spirit, not God directly. I see no problem with it. umm... I'll put it this way in context of the thread. The man got raped, the victim turned in the perpetrator in which he went to prison. You know what happens in prisons? Robbery, rape, murder etc. and the perpetrator became subject of that by being sent to it. Oh and then deported.

Now did the victim directly send the perpetrator there himself and by his own power? No, someone else, like a judge or magistrate, they sent him there on behalf of the victim who sent the judge to deal with him. Does that mean the perpetrator is now the victim and the victim the perpetrator since all the unspeakable things are or may be happening to him in prison? That would be nuts, the victim is still only the victim and whatever happens to the perpetrator, it's of no fault of the victim. The victim didn't pass sentence, didn't judge him, only testified.

This is no different. This was a judgement carried out, and the spirit used deception to do it, no different than in a modern court of law with lawyers and such. Do we throw judges into prison dependent on what lawyers, juries, witnesses, bystanders do? If we don't like the way the layers handle things to make a case do we throw them out and let the defendant fend for himself? No, the lawyers do what they do, however they may do it by their own choices, their own discretion. Even the prison warden is not micro-managed by the judge, has their own task and their own choices in which to deal with things.

See if we follow the other logic, we close all prisons, no more judges, no more lawyers. Then everyone becomes a victim and a perpetrator, just as much as the victim in this case feels as a perpetrator over the rapist being deported. I could probably write this better, more understandable, but I'll roll with it.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That was from the deceiving spirit, not God directly. I see no problem with it. umm... I'll put it this way in context of the thread. The man got raped, the victim turned in the perpetrator in which he went to prison. You know what happens in prisons? Robbery, rape, murder etc. and the perpetrator became subject of that by being sent to it. Oh and then deported.

Now did the victim directly send the perpetrator there himself and by his own power? No, someone else, like a judge or magistrate, they sent him there on behalf of the victim who sent the judge to deal with him. Does that mean the perpetrator is now the victim and the victim the perpetrator since all the unspeakable things are or may be happening to him in prison? That would be nuts, the victim is still only the victim and whatever happens to the perpetrator, it's of no fault of the victim. The victim didn't pass sentence, didn't judge him, only testified.

This is no different. This was a judgement carried out, and the spirit used deception to do it, no different than in a modern court of law with lawyers and such. Do we throw judges into prison dependent on what lawyers, juries, witnesses, bystanders do? If we don't like the way the layers handle things to make a case do we throw them out and let the defendant fend for himself? No, the lawyers do what they do, however they may do it by their own choices, their own discretion. Even the prison warden is not micro-managed by the judge, has their own task and their own choices in which to deal with things.

See if we follow the other logic, we close all prisons, no more judges, no more lawyers. Then everyone becomes a victim and a perpetrator, just as much as the victim in this case feels as a perpetrator over the rapist being deported. I could probably write this better, more understandable, but I'll roll with it.

Remember that I was replying to Blitzers. In the passage God sanctions the deceit, which I find to be of equal footing with the quote from the Quran. I made no judgement about God's action itself, it was all just pointing out the error in Blitzers' post.

I don't really see how that led you to the rest of your post.

Regardless, I don't think any analogy comparing human beings with God ever works. God is not a human being and the circumstances are never, ever the same.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To quantify the bible in a simplistic way, from a point of it meaning what it says in a literal fashion (that what it says is what it means), the flow of the OT is looking forward to the future fulfillment of Christ on the cross, the work of redemption, while the NT is looking back to the fulfillment of Christ on the cross.

The OT not only looks forward to this work, but also provides a filter, in that no common man is able to fulfill, that man always falls short of perfection and in no way could fulfill the work of God's son on the cross. The law, especially, was put there not to save in any way, but is death to man, as no man can pass through such a filter, but only look forward to one that can and will do so.

Now looking back as the NT does, the law was fulfilled, it served it's purpose, and is credited so by Christ who fulfilled the law, applied to him. It's not gone, it's just fulfilled, and a reminder that only the Christ had the ability to fulfill the requirements of the law, and even still today no other who attempts to fullil that law is able to, even though they can try if they wish as it hasn't been taken away or destroyed.

So in other words, the law is still there if you want to try to prove that you are the real christ spoken of in the bible (and needs to be perfect from birth to grave). But for everyone else, it was already fulfilled and now it is replaced with grace thru the one that fulfilled it.

Remember that the OT is only the OT for Christians. Your interpretation would not be agreed with by any Jewish person. Considering the Old Testament/Tanakh and even the New Testament are very much Jewish books I tend to side with the Jewish interpretation.
The Christian version (and I think 'version' is the right word here) is marred by its translation, politics and non-Jewish interpretation.

To be a bit less general, I'm not seeing why 'the law' is being interpreted as the messianic prophecy? Why does 'the Law' not refer to the Torah? The numerous laws have been summarized into 1 or 2 sentences (can't remember which) even before Christ.