• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. I just wanted to share something my fiance' came up with. She is a jewelry designer and has a shop with her daughter. They asked if I had an outlet for some of their items and I told them I would share it with everyone here at CF. So I started them an Etsy Shop account to showcase what they have done. And this is the first items! Check it out and let me know what you think!

    Thanks so much! - Rex

    Click here to see it!

"The Voters have Spoken!"

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by FaithLikeARock, Mar 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. b&wpac4

    b&wpac4 Trying to stay away

    +371
    Judaism
    Engaged
    I asked you this before but do you feel that actions during the Crusades and the Inquisition were all justified and correct, or do you feel that some of them were excessive and bad? If you feel some were bad, why do you think they were?
     
  2. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +318
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    Calling me a liberal isn't going to change the historical facts that people have used the Bible as an excuse for violence and hatred.

    You COULD say that, but you'lll look sort of silly if you do. Invaded peoples have a right to self defence, it is the invaders who need a reason, and, in the cases cited, the invaders sought justification in the Bible.

    Sure everyone is intolerant of some stuff. That doesn't change the fact that some people use the Bible to justify their intolerance.

    Pope Urban didn't have any troops, nor did he raise any money. He simply preached a crusade. The First crusaders were english, French and German, and they weren't paid and lived of the land en route.

    Given that Europeans were a greater threat to Byazantium in the 1090s than the turks were, it would seem you are lacking a few of the facts. Read up on Alexius's campaigns against Normans in Western Anatolia. also, feel free to look up Alexius's response when the unwanted swarm of undisciplined Crusaders decended on Constantinople, he considered them a plague!

    This much is true. However, there is a big difference between requesting a few companies of knights to aid in defence, and requesting a popular migration with military conquest as its goal.

    Um, Peter the Hermit led his popular crusade in 1096... Byazntium fell to the Ottomans in 1453... Now, theres two things I should point out here... you know who sacked and conquered Constantinople before 1453? Thats right, The 4th CRUSADE in 1204! So saying the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression against Constantinople is woefully misguided, since it fails to address the fact that the Crusaders were a bigger threat to Constantinople than the Muslims were. Also, interesting point, the Ottoman dynasty, which did eventually succeed in sacking Constantinople, would never have come to power were it not for the Crusades. Islamic extremism was a direct response to the Christian Crusades, which all stemmed from a misunderstanding over what Alexius wanted. Wierd, huh?

    *LMCO* Well now I KNOW your just pulling terms out of thin air... The Moors ruled spain from 711 AD, the Iberian peninsula wasn't even fully Christianised at that point. The reconquista drove the last of the Muslim rulers out of the Iberian Peninsula when Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The Spanish inquisition didn't even start until 1478, and its purpose was to persecute Christian heretics, not Muslims.

    And you know what? I believe the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Reconquista and even the Conquest of the New World are perfectly appropriate given their contemporary context. But for good or ill, whether they ended in benefits for humanity or blatant atrocity, or a bit of both, it doesn't alter for a moment that they were all justified using the Bible.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2009
  3. CreedIsChrist

    CreedIsChrist Well-Known Member

    +189
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Oh, so it only becomes self defense when it is your perceived view of who it is?

    But what I can do the same. I could say the Crusaders were defending they're lands against muslims with the right to "self defense" as you say


    Right so he would hire troops from an area that is a bigger threat to him than the muslims.. :doh:

    Contanpinople didn't have problems until around the 4th crusade, which was sparked by dishonesty from the EO.


    This is just an ad-hominem. You don't know that. THe west aided the east for the betterment of christendom. THe goal was to repel muslims invasion in the east.

    I was using Ottoman to show you that Peter wasn't, as you say "blowing things outta porportion". The ottoman takeover is quite the opposite example of that.

    And what does the 4th crusade really have to do with this convo, were talking about the Muslim threat during the first crusade.

    And muslim extremism was a result of the Crusades? Have you even read the hadith or the few hundred years of war mohammed was in before he even got to europe?? They took over all of persia and arabia eventually extending to northern africa, medina, Uhud, the Arabian peninsula, badr and the trench.

    Blaming muslims extremism on the crusades is ridiculous



    They ruled much longer than that! Granada ring a bell? Wow. If your not saying the Moors had allot to do with the inquisition then I think your the one pulling yout terms outta the air..

    Here Ill post it from wiki for you:


    The Spanish Inquisition was motivated in part by the multi-religious nature of Spanish society following the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors (Muslims). Much of the Iberian Peninsula was dominated by Moors following their invasion of the peninsula in 711 until they were expelled by means of a long campaign of reconquest. However, the reconquest did not result in the full expulsion of Muslims from Spain, but instead yielded a multi-religious society made up of Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Granada to the south, in particular remained under Moorish control until 1492,
     
  4. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +683
    Baptist
    Married
    What happen 300 before eventually lead up to the events in 1776.
     
  5. Belk

    Belk Senior Member

    +4,206
    Agnostic
    Married

    How is that in any way shape or form an ad hominem?

    I am confused here. :confused:
     
  6. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +318
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    No, you can't say that because the Muslims in Anatolia were not a threat to Britain, France or Germany where the crusaders came from.
    Such was the realpoitik of the Middle ages. Don't take my word for it, do 5 minutes research on Alexius's campaigns against the Normans in Eastern Anatolia.
    Once again, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on this issue. The Byzantines clashed with Crusader forces from the beginning of the first Crusade. The level of friction was variable, but it was always there. Once again, do some research if you don't want to take my word for it. Again, Alexius considered the Crusaders a plague. Yes, Constantinople wasn't utterly sacked until the 4th Crusade (see the treasury of St Marks) but the fact is that Constantinople was sacked by Christian Crusaders BEFORE it was sacked by Turks.
    How the heck is "This much is true. However, there is a big difference between requesting a few companies of knights to aid in defence, and requesting a popular migration with military conquest as its goal." an ad hominem against anyone???
    How can the Ottomans of 400 hundred years AFTER Peter be relevant in discussing Peter's appropriateness or otherwise? Especially since the Ottoman expansion was A RESPONSE TO THE CRUSADES, and not the other way around? You might as well say that The Holocaust was a response to Israeli agression, Or that the American revolution was a response to the War of 1812.
    Well you brought up the Ottomans, who didn't attack Constantinople until AFTER the 4th Crusade... so if the 4th Crusade isn't relevant, then how are the Ottomans, who didn't even EXIST at the time of the first Crusade?

    There was no direct threat to Constantinople from Turkish expansion at the time of the first Crusade. Byzantine territory had been under threat in the late 10th century, but by the actual time of the first Crusade, this had passed. Alexius had in mind troops to strengthen his border defences, he did NOT request an Anti Turk expeditionary force. And lets not forget Edessa!
    So... how come there is not a single example of Muslim extremism against Christians pre-Crusade?
    Did you even read what I said? I clearly mentioned Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Iberia, falling to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The inquisition was only started in 1478... and, (again, go do some research) it ONLY HAD JURISDICTION OVER BAPTISED CATHOLICS! The inquisition had nothing to do with Muslims.

    Here's what I said again. Maybe read it this time?

    "
    *LMCO* Well now I KNOW your just pulling terms out of thin air... The Moors ruled spain from 711 AD, the Iberian peninsula wasn't even fully Christianised at that point. The reconquista drove the last of the Muslim rulers out of the Iberian Peninsula when Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The Spanish inquisition didn't even start until 1478, and its purpose was to persecute Christian heretics, not Muslims.

    And you know what? I believe the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Reconquista and even the Conquest of the New World are perfectly appropriate given their contemporary context. But for good or ill, whether they ended in benefits for humanity or blatant atrocity, or a bit of both, it doesn't alter for a moment that they were all justified using the Bible. "
     
  7. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +318
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    Ad hominem seems to be the default term used around here when you present someone a lay down misere that proves they are wrong, regardless of whether or not it is in any way an ad hom or not.

    Some people don't seem to understand that being shown they are wrong is not actually a personal attack.
     
  8. eMesreveR

    eMesreveR The Light Fantastic

    76
    +7
    Humanist
    You know, Creed, you could get out of this very easily by just saying that humans have abused God's Word for their own selfish ends.
     
  9. BigBadWlf

    BigBadWlf Guest

    +0
    Differences that you are unable to provide biblical support for













    In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that for an unspecified price you can redeem (replace) that child with an ass or with a sheep

    "At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
    "So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter."Judges 11:29-40

    The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel." Joshua 7:15

    At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." 1 Kings 13:1-2


    “He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.” 2 Kings 23:20
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2009
  10. Andreusz

    Andreusz Newbie

    +71
    Atheist
    Married
    X doesn't like Y's arguments.
    Therefore X decides that Y's arguments are fallacious.
    Ad hominem is a well-known logical fallacy.
    Therefore Y's arguments are an ad hominem.
    Simple!
     
  11. Polycarp1

    Polycarp1 Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

    +1,544
    Anglican
    Married
    US-Democrat
    It's really simple, actually -- some people are arguing that ad hominems should have the right to marry! ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...