June 23, 2018, 10:41:40 AM

Author Topic: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision  (Read 2392 times)

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2017, 02:44:59 PM »
I think it's funny how everyone thinks this decision will cause everything to meltdown instead of it being one big strongly worded letter of protest, a shrug, and then back to the big issues of Saudi reform, Yemen, mopping up ISIS, Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, internal Egyptian struggles, Libyan unrest, and even more mundane stuff like some guy from Dubai flying over to NYC to catch a Warriors-Knicks game.

But yes, go ahead and believe another intifada is right around the corner with massive death, every nation in the Middle East declaring war on Israel and severing ties with the U.S., all our European allies abandoning us and so on.

If you really think any of that is going to happen, you're an idiot.
That'd be great. Too bad we have to wait for the next president to have a coherent foreign policy agenda.

Trump has defeated isis in one year .  That is not in the media .
Continuing Obama's (and the Kurds and Iraqis) efforts. How much of that was in the media? But how trump-like to try and take all the credit.

The truth is the government/military doesn't really want the public to know just how militarily involved we are. And trumpy can't tweet it because he promised to get us out of war, but he's actually doing the opposite, getting us more involved.

Lol you americans create Isis and do all you can to help it for years.. and then claim the glory once Putin takes a few weeks to destroy them?  :laugh:

You guys make me laugh. Are you going to claim credit for the defeat of napoleon next?

Isis is dead thanks to Russian intervention. Lets get that straight.

Hilary created isis to go in and destabilize Assads government. Obama continued to subtly arm them and fund them. Isis aims were in the interest of Washington.
Russki political technologists at work. What have you guys got on trump that sessions won't have the (in)justice department do anything to safeguard the 2018 elections against more russki interference?

Hopefully, congress will act.

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2017, 02:50:24 PM »
A third intifada is coming and the world WILL turn on Israel.

Where have i heard that before? Mein kampf?

Quote
And when that comes I hope Trump is not in office and we have a president with a backbone to see the complexities of the situation. Also, to be anti Israel is not synonymous to being anti-Semitic you simple minded f**ks. The holocaust happened...yes. But what is happening to the Palestinians since 1948 is a slow, less visualized holocaust that is sanctioned by the U.S.

Stop frothing at the mouth for a moment.


The standard of living of Palestinian Arabs is surprisingly high. They are at the top of the medium human development index group, quite a bit better off than most Muslim majority countries.
Imagine your Korea...

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2017, 03:30:36 PM »
A third intifada is coming and the world WILL turn on Israel.

Where have i heard that before? Mein kampf?


The Book of Revelations?

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2017, 12:48:10 AM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals . 
Bonzai!

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2017, 12:56:58 AM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.

Muslim jihadis, terrorists or separatists are involved in over 90% of conflicts in the world today.

Islam has been spreading by violence, forced conversion and military conquest since the 6th century.

Try reading this:

..Islam, The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
by Peter Hammond
http://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781612154985

That actually looks like a good one.
Just gotta be careful when the guy who thinks Putin is great and North Koreans are smarter and better  than Americans recommends a book. 
Bonzai!

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2017, 11:39:09 AM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals .
No, his work in the sociology of religion predates his "conversion"--he's still not much of a believer. At some point in time he became convinced of the superiority of the Christian cause and focused his research on proving that.

Paid protestors is the conservatives' game--don't believe the lies of the russki political technologists. So dukes who pay others to kill in God's name are worthy of admiration, but a person who funds support of education for all, human rights and the like is "dangerous" because his politics are progressive?

"As far as I know"--don't you mean what the blogs, the kochtopus and the like tell you to think? Remove the scales from your eyes.


Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2017, 11:49:12 AM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals .
No, his work in the sociology of religion predates his "conversion"--he's still not much of a believer. At some point in time he became convinced of the superiority of the Christian cause and focused his research on proving that.

Paid protestors is the conservatives' game--don't believe the lies of the russki political technologists. So dukes who pay others to kill in God's name are worthy of admiration, but a person who funds support of education for all, human rights and the like is "dangerous" because his politics are progressive?

"As far as I know"--don't you mean what the blogs, the kochtopus and the like tell you to think? Remove the scales from your eyes.

Right they were just paid to kill others in God’s name .  That’s it.  No provocation . Seriously something wrong with the education system today. 
Bonzai!

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2017, 01:28:30 PM »


Quote
Algeria – 52.2
Jordan – 51.7
Palestine – 51.2
Iraq – 49.2
Tunisia – 48.3
Morocco – 47.9
Syria – 47.1
Saudi Arabia – 46.0
Yemen – 43.0
Lebanon – 42.9

-according to the 2012 Happy Planet Index, which is a survey conducted by the New Economics Forum to measure happiness around the world – Palestine was the third happiest Arab country and the 30th happiest in the world. Making Palestine happier than many developed countries like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and Canada.


Average income

An obvious measure of the standard of living is the economy (GDP) of a country, particularly when divided by how many people live in that country. When we compare the GDP per-capita of impoverished nations with Palestine, it is clear that at an individual level Palestine is far more affluent than many states.

Palestine – $4,422
Yemen – $2,518
Mauritania – $2,061
Chad – $1,687
Sierra Leone – $1,407
Comoros – $1,237
Guinea – $1,080
Eritrea – $729
Liberia – $649
Somalia – $578

Oh those poor suffering palestinians
Imagine your Korea...

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2017, 05:04:31 PM »


Quote
Algeria – 52.2
Jordan – 51.7
Palestine – 51.2
Iraq – 49.2
Tunisia – 48.3
Morocco – 47.9
Syria – 47.1
Saudi Arabia – 46.0
Yemen – 43.0
Lebanon – 42.9

-according to the 2012 Happy Planet Index, which is a survey conducted by the New Economics Forum to measure happiness around the world – Palestine was the third happiest Arab country and the 30th happiest in the world. Making Palestine happier than many developed countries like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and Canada.


Average income

An obvious measure of the standard of living is the economy (GDP) of a country, particularly when divided by how many people live in that country. When we compare the GDP per-capita of impoverished nations with Palestine, it is clear that at an individual level Palestine is far more affluent than many states.

Palestine – $4,422
Yemen – $2,518
Mauritania – $2,061
Chad – $1,687
Sierra Leone – $1,407
Comoros – $1,237
Guinea – $1,080
Eritrea – $729
Liberia – $649
Somalia – $578

Oh those poor suffering palestinians
The power of positive thinking, Islam-style?

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2017, 05:07:29 PM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals .
No, his work in the sociology of religion predates his "conversion"--he's still not much of a believer. At some point in time he became convinced of the superiority of the Christian cause and focused his research on proving that.

Paid protestors is the conservatives' game--don't believe the lies of the russki political technologists. So dukes who pay others to kill in God's name are worthy of admiration, but a person who funds support of education for all, human rights and the like is "dangerous" because his politics are progressive?

"As far as I know"--don't you mean what the blogs, the kochtopus and the like tell you to think? Remove the scales from your eyes.

Right they were just paid to kill others in God’s name .  That’s it.  No provocation . Seriously something wrong with the education system today.
Commandment 6. Thou shalt not kill.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

My education is just fine. I'd see to yours though, if I were you.

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2017, 07:13:16 PM »
Quote from: parynp
But what is happening to the Palestinians since 1948 is a slow, less visualized holocaust that is sanctioned by the U.S.

 :laugh: You're hilarious.

















Palestine has one of the highest standards of living of muslim countries. Thanks to its proximity to Israel.



« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 08:14:01 PM by Aurata »
Imagine your Korea...

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2017, 11:03:08 PM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals .
No, his work in the sociology of religion predates his "conversion"--he's still not much of a believer. At some point in time he became convinced of the superiority of the Christian cause and focused his research on proving that.

Paid protestors is the conservatives' game--don't believe the lies of the russki political technologists. So dukes who pay others to kill in God's name are worthy of admiration, but a person who funds support of education for all, human rights and the like is "dangerous" because his politics are progressive?

"As far as I know"--don't you mean what the blogs, the kochtopus and the like tell you to think? Remove the scales from your eyes.

Right they were just paid to kill others in God’s name .  That’s it.  No provocation . Seriously something wrong with the education system today.
Commandment 6. Thou shalt not kill.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

My education is just fine. I'd see to yours though, if I were you.
Oh so now you are deeply religious.   You lefties will put on any mask . 
So you can’t think of any time or circumstance where you might be forced to kill someone. ?   You are a saint. Or spineless.   Or lying.    I’m gonna go with spineless. 
So what should the US do when an Islamic country attacks us?   
Bonzai!

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2018, 03:52:16 PM »
Equating  Islam with Christianity is Soooooo stupid,     You have to think that the answer to what would Jesus do would be very different if he lopped off the heads of hundreds, was a Penderaf , and his last words were slay them all until they say there  is no god but Allah.       Tell me that Muslim men don’t aspire to be like Muhammad.     It’s not like 1AD where little was documented,  it was the 7th century so it’s documented  well. 

During medieval times, there's little to separate Christians and Muslims in terms of how they treated non-believers and viewed the world. Sackings, forced conversions, massacres, inquisitions, torture of heretics, mandated belief for the populace, belief in the divine right to rule the world, etc. It was all pretty much the same. 

I’ll help you out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians lived in these countries.   Now they make up  about a few percent, four in your bastion of Christian flourishing, Jordan.     The  punishment for apostasy is death according to islamic law?  SO I’ll tell you what happened.  They were humiliated, made to pay jizya and essentially forced to convert or remain slaves.  They were either converted killed or fled.  Some stayed and didn’t and don’t thrive like you dishonestly portrayed.

Up until the Invasion of Iraq and the Mideast mini-meltdown, those populations were relatively stable. Naturally as small minorities, they would likely see their numbers diminish somewhat as some would assimilate and those in the majority culture are more likely to thrive and prosper.

I mean, one could say that there were once hundreds of thousands or even millions of native Americans until Christians came along and now they're what? 1% of the U.S. population? They were humiliated, forced to sign treaties, and basically made to accept 2nd class citizen status and were either killed or fled.

I 100% support Trump's Jerusalem move, but people make really bad arguments about Islam, many of which lack self-awareness when it comes to actions by Americans/Westerners.

‘Bearing false witness’ by Rodney Stark a highly distinguished history professor debunks many of the myth surrounding the inquisition and other false narratives slandering the Catholic Church.   
As far as massacres there was one documented in around the 6 th century maybe 14 people died, then there weren’t any until the 12 century and that was brought about by the crusades.   In the 12th century The massacres were the fault of a duke who instead of following orders and going to fight against invading Muslims, stayed home and persecuted Jews.  His superiors ordered him not to and there were decrees, like there always were, by the Catholic Church not to harm Jews. 

Rodney Stark uses strick documentation to prove this. 

Islam compared to Christianity is a huge false equivalence.
The inquisition took place, but was not as bloody as depicted in art and literature, which used it as a symbol of intolerance. People were tortured, just not all who were arrested since the threat of torture was enough to get most to convert. The "decrees" you mention were often blatantly ignored.

As for the Crusades, the Roman Empire never initiated a war. They always defended themselves or acted to help a tribe that was an ally of Rome. It didn’t matter, they were just excuses to justify the conquest of a new province.

The same happened with the Crusades. There were religious reasons or petitions to help by Christians (like the Crusades that happened in Spain), but they were only that: excuses.

The Muslims conquered Spain because it was there. The Europeans conquered the Holy Land because it was there. A conquest supposes loot and new lands and that is all that matters. An Empire always expands as much as possible.

Putin's wars would be a good modern example.

Personally, when it comes to religion, I say pull the log out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

No no no no na .     Europeans were defending the Roman Empire, which lasted until the 15th century from Muslim encroachment.    Not because it was there.   Also in Rodney starks book he proves that the crusaders did not go for loot.    They went at a great cost to themselves , many of them selling their land and fortune to go die.     Spare us your Marxist materialist explanation.
The threat of Islamic invasion and expansion was and is very real.   That is why the crusades were fought.   The crusades should be celebrated not apologized for.
LOL
Quote
Christians understood the Crusades as a path to salvation for those who participated. As the French monk Guilbert of Nogent wrote in his twelfth century chronicle of the Crusades, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in its wake… might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in some measure God’s grace while pursuing their own careers, with the liberty and in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Those who “took up the cross” were recipients of both spiritual and earthly rewards. The spiritual reward was the indulgence, or the forgiveness, of sins. The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority.

Lots of rewards there to compensate for the "costs" you claim.

Quote
The First Crusade, proposed by Pope Urban II in 1095, was undertaken by many as a devotional act of pilgrimage.

That does not sound like a struggle to "defend" one's home and lands.


Stark comes at his research with a pre-determined perspective, the superiority of Western culture and civilization created in part or whole by the influence of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, although ironically stark for most of his life was agnostic, but it is only one perspective.

I'm a believer in western culture, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that I, especially as a Christian, have to depict all Muslims as evil.

They went because pilgrims were being robbed,  brutally murdered and because of Muslim encroachment.   They felt a spiritual obligation to help.    You wrote that loot is all that matters.  Well it’s  not only loot.  He also goes into detail about dukes giving up everything they had to go to fight and to finance others to fight.

So if stark was agnostic most of his life and then as an academic realized that western culture and Christianity were reasons for western success and the modern world, then what about that is ‘predetermined’?  If anything academia has predetermined views that the west is and was bad .
I didn't write anything about stark's views changing. And there's nothing, as you imply, about stark's views that are all that novel; much has been written about the positive effects of western culture by many an academic.

Dukes who were trying to buy their way into heaven. What's your opinion of George Soros and all the many millions he has donated in the cause of freedom and human rights? Is he a crusader for justice?

No you wrote that his views were predetermined .   Your views are predetermined not his .  He went from agnostic to believing that the west and Christianity has something special to offer after he studied a lot. 


As far as the dukes , at least they believe in something, unlike postmodernists and nihilists.    george , Soros  as far as I know,  has no god or honor.   I think he’s just an idiot who is playing with his money on the wrong side of the tracks .  Very dangerous to give billions to paid protestors and other radicals .
No, his work in the sociology of religion predates his "conversion"--he's still not much of a believer. At some point in time he became convinced of the superiority of the Christian cause and focused his research on proving that.

Paid protestors is the conservatives' game--don't believe the lies of the russki political technologists. So dukes who pay others to kill in God's name are worthy of admiration, but a person who funds support of education for all, human rights and the like is "dangerous" because his politics are progressive?

"As far as I know"--don't you mean what the blogs, the kochtopus and the like tell you to think? Remove the scales from your eyes.

Right they were just paid to kill others in God’s name .  That’s it.  No provocation . Seriously something wrong with the education system today.
Commandment 6. Thou shalt not kill.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

My education is just fine. I'd see to yours though, if I were you.
Oh so now you are deeply religious.   You lefties will put on any mask . 
So you can’t think of any time or circumstance where you might be forced to kill someone. ?   You are a saint. Or spineless.   Or lying.    I’m gonna go with spineless. 
So what should the US do when an Islamic country attacks us?   
That's an easy question to answer. Don't do what bush did.

As for religion, you're the one who brought it up. I just pointed out the flaw in your argument regarding the crusades and all those pious dukes you mentioned.

Offline andy80

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2018, 08:55:54 AM »
I think it is good Israel has control of Jerusalem and the US is recognizing this. Jerusalem is important to multiple faiths and Israel is a country which has more religious freedom than most countries in the middle east. Religious minorities weather Christian or  Druid, and  Muslims have more freedom and safety in Israel. For example in Egypt Christian teenage girls are routinely kidnapped and forced to marry Muslim men. Often times the Egyptian police don't even care. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/egypt-christian-girls-kidnapped-forced-to-marry-and-convert-to-islam/88241.htm
In Israel this would not happen, and if it did the police would arrest any Jewish men who did this. Christians have a lot of freedom in the Jewish state.

Look at druids who serve in large numbers in the IDF and are completely free to practice their faith.

Muslims in Israel are free to make any religious statements they want without another Muslim group like ISIS with a different interpretation of Islam blowing up their mosque or school.


 

Online zola

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2153
  • Gender: Male
Re: One Very Human Repercussion from Trump's Jerusalem Decision
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2018, 10:09:08 AM »
Look at druids who serve in large numbers in the IDF and are completely free to practice their faith.

Druze.

Though it's kind of funny imagining some Druids serving in the IDF
Kpip! - Martin 2018

 



Learn new things. Meet new people. Be inspired.
Check out a KOTESOL chapter event near you!
koreatesol.org/nc2018