|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 8:24:24 GMT -5
what a crock!!
THAT should get blondie licking his/her chops....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 8:36:37 GMT -5
Way to go, Mark*...
there's your ammo, Blondie...
*for those who didn't hear it, that would be Mark, the caller...NOT Mark the producer...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 9, 2007 21:15:16 GMT -5
I caught part of the show this morning, but not that particular part.
What was the gist of the conversation?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 10, 2007 3:16:12 GMT -5
I caught part of the show this morning, but not that particular part. What was the gist of the conversation? Essentially, it was that the crusades were appropriate, and that any true Christian should be engaged in exactly that... It wasn't much of a "conversation"...the Attack Machine was unusually tolerant, and let the guy make a total fool of himself... It just hacked me off that he thought he was representing true Christianity...exactly the kind of "Christian" that gives blondie his/her material...
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 10, 2007 12:22:16 GMT -5
I did not hear the "conversation," and do not know what type of fool a caller might have made of themselves. But if, the point of the call was as bamagatr suggests, .... that the crusades were appropriate.... then perhaps bamagatr would like to tell the forum how a military response to 463 years of naked aggression is not "appropriate."
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 10, 2007 15:25:26 GMT -5
MG has a good point.
I don't necessarily agree that we are now engaged in a religious war, but I can certainly see how someone who does believe it could present a rather strong case.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 10, 2007 21:10:22 GMT -5
MG has a good point. I don't necessarily agree that we are now engaged in a religious war, but I can certainly see how someone who does believe it could present a rather strong case. I'm sure our enemies consider it a religious war...or "jihad"... But if the crusades were military engagements in the name of Christendom, that would not be something consistent with the teachings of Jesus...hence ..."inappropriate"
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 10, 2007 23:07:27 GMT -5
But if the crusades were military engagements in the name of Christendom, that would not be something consistent with the teachings of Jesus...hence ..."inappropriate" That would mean that no war is ever justified. Do you believe this? Or are you, as I suspect, ignorant of both why and when the first crusade was called?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 4:13:12 GMT -5
But if the crusades were military engagements in the name of Christendom, that would not be something consistent with the teachings of Jesus...hence ..."inappropriate" That would mean that no war is ever justified. Do you believe this? Or are you, as I suspect, ignorant of both why and when the first crusade was called? I think maybe we have different perceptions of "crusade,"...so be it... My perception was that the caller was referring to the Crusades as those wars that were IN THE NAME OF CHRIST for the purpose of eradicating the enemies of Christianity... When Dale questioned him about it, he responded with the typical "how dare you disagree with me" attitude that got louder and wordier...hence my assessment of "making a fool of himself"... As far as "no war ever being justified," no I do not believe that. My point is that Jesus does not expect his disciples to wage physical or "military" war on behalf of His kingdom...especially from a base of anger that was displayed by the subject caller...
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 11, 2007 8:35:15 GMT -5
I think maybe we have different perceptions of "crusade,"...so be it... My perception was that the caller was referring to the Crusades as those wars that were IN THE NAME OF CHRIST for the purpose of eradicating the enemies of Christianity... And what makes you think that "eradicating the enemies of Christianity" was the purpose of the Crusades? As I had suspected you seem ignorant of the history leading up to the first crusade in 1095 having been preceded by the complete ruin of the Armenian Church, the dhimmitude of the Copts, the subjugation of Sicily, the looting of Rome in 836, and the then present danger to Byzantium. When Dale questioned him about it, he responded with the typical "how dare you disagree with me" attitude that got louder and wordier...hence my assessment of "making a fool of himself"... I did not hear the call and do not really care what type of fool the caller might have made of himself. The Crusades were a defensive action that occurred a full 363 years after moslem invaders had to be halted at Tours by the armies of Charles Martel. As far as "no war ever being justified," no I do not believe that. My point is that Jesus does not expect his disciples to wage physical or "military" war on behalf of His kingdom...especially from a base of anger that was displayed by the subject caller... In fact you are correct. I believe that a Christian could devote themselves to complete pacifism without being in conflict with the teachings of Christ. Likewise, I believe that a Christian can take action to defend others without being in conflict with the teachings of Christ. And so how are the defensive actions of the crusades to be considered "inappropriate"?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 8:39:29 GMT -5
A physical, miltary war in the name of Christ is inappropriate...being "defensive" doesn't change that principle...
There was also no evidence (to me) that the caller was referring to the Crusades as being "defensive"...
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 11, 2007 9:26:40 GMT -5
A physical, miltary war in the name of Christ is inappropriate...being "defensive" doesn't change that principle... Again, it would seem you are totally a pacifist. Or that you think war is only justifiable, so long as Christians conceal their true concern for oppressed brethren. If war is not just, "in the name of Christ", then can it be at all just? There was also no evidence (to me) that the caller was referring to the Crusades as being "defensive"... The caller no longer matters in this discussion of your mis characterization of the crusades.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 9:38:42 GMT -5
My characterization of the crusades was never relevant to this thread...
It is my perception -- whether you agree with it or not -- that the caller was calling for Christians to act like jihadists -- and he made a fool of himself in his attitude toward same...
That was the sole intent of the initial post in this thread...
It seems to me that you make no distinction between a Christian's spiritual battles against evil, and physical warfare...I do...if that makes me a "pacifist" then have it your way...
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 11, 2007 12:14:28 GMT -5
My characterization of the crusades was never relevant to this thread... Your characterization became relevant, when you stated that the gist of the conversation was that, "Essentially, it was that the crusades were appropriate, and that any true Christian should be engaged in exactly that..." You have called the crusades "inappropriate" and have subsequently not backed up this claim. To believe that the crusades were "inappropriate" is to either be ignorant of what necessitated them or to be completely pacifist. You have already stated that you are not a complete pacifist, and you have now been informed of some of the events leading to the crusades. Will you persist in calling the crusades "inappropriate?" It is my perception -- whether you agree with it or not -- that the caller was calling for Christians to act like jihadists -- and he made a fool of himself in his attitude toward same... That was the sole intent of the initial post in this thread... Is your "perception" meant to be above reproach? Perception is not reality, no matter how many times the radio hosts may say it. And again, I did not hear the call. But I do notice now that you characterize the call now as an appeal for a jihad rather than a crusade. It is a start. It seems to me that you make no distinction between a Christian's spiritual battles against evil, and physical warfare...I do...if that makes me a "pacifist" then have it your way... You have already stated that you do not believe all wars to be unjust. Why then, would I call you a pacifist? Are a Christian's "battles against evil" to be limited to spiritual? If an aid worker moves a physical care package toward the needy, has he broken some bamagatr commandment? In fact I do make distinctions between physical and spritual strifes. It is you that seem to assume that the crusades were an evangelical enterprise. They were not. They were a defensive reclamation of Christian lands that had been reduced to dhimmitude under moslem oppression.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 11, 2007 17:45:54 GMT -5
Some people do, in fact, believe the war going on now is a resumption of the Crusades.
I have no doubt that the Jihadists believe that- or at least want their followers to believe they believe that. President Bush didn't hurt their case whn he called the action a "crusade" (little "c" but the distinction is lost on the fanatics).
However, some of the people who think what's going on now is a resumption of the Crusades are Christians (or at least claim to be), who believe that we are engaged in a religious war against Islam. Not just the Jihadists/Fundamentalists. >ALL< of Islam.
It would be hard for me to conceive of a viewpoint more dangerous to us.
If we're fighting a small percentage of Muslims whose views of Islam are every bit as flawed as Eric Robert Rudolphs's is of Christianity- and this I believe strongly- then the last thing you want to do is convince the moderate and even conservative Muslims that we're out to eradicate all of Islam. That is a war that could not be won.
Bush, despite his linguistic missteps, has done a pretty good job of reassuring the moderate Muslims that we have no quarrel at all with "mainstream" Islam; the problem we have is with those who have perverted Islam to their own ends.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 12, 2007 12:50:30 GMT -5
Some people do, in fact, believe the war going on now is a resumption of the Crusades. When in fact it is the resumption of fighting that predates the Crusades. Islam is both a religious and political entity. A political entity that in its central texts clearly states its intent to subjugate all unbelievers by violence. That intent was made even more evident by moslem aggression before, during, and still after the Crusades. I have no doubt that the Jihadists believe that- or at least want their followers to believe they believe that. President Bush didn't hurt their case whn he called the action a "crusade" (little "c" but the distinction is lost on the fanatics). The distinction is lost because islam makes no such distinction itself. Jihad is against unbelievers. To say otherwise is either prevarication of jihadists or ignorance of the munafiq. However, some of the people who think what's going on now is a resumption of the Crusades are Christians (or at least claim to be), who believe that we are engaged in a religious war against Islam. Not just the Jihadists/Fundamentalists. >ALL< of Islam. It would be hard for me to conceive of a viewpoint more dangerous to us. And yet very easy to observe a more dangerous viewpoint in yours and others comments. We are not in open and armed conflict with all muslims. We are in open and armed conflict only with those that have actually read their korans. We are in clear conflict with the tenets of islam. It is dangerous to be willfully ignorant of this. It has led modern open and welcoming societies such as Sweden, Britain, Netherlands, and France to now wonder where the radicalization has come from. It comes from the koran. The conceit that America is to be spared radicalization of muslim youth, because we are more accepting of foreign cultures than the Dutch is both unfair to the dutifully multicultural Dutch and dangerous to our future security. Our goal should not be the death of all muslims, but our goal should be the death of islam. If we're fighting a small percentage of Muslims whose views of Islam are every bit as flawed as Eric Robert Rudolphs's is of Christianity- and this I believe strongly- This strong belief is borne out by no facts. If you wish to drag out the tired cliche of 'Rudolph did it too,' then at least honestly compare the alluded to percentages. How many Christians exist in the United States versus Rudolph? -and what ever others you can think of- This is a clear minority is it not? And now how many muslims are in the United States versus 9/11, Chapel Hill Jeep Jihad, Salt Lake shootings, Portland Synagogue etc? Islam is disproportionately violent. And it can not be blamed on the ethnicity of the belligerents because earlier migrations of Christian dhimmis from the middle east have left peacful populations that still outnumber muslims in America. What is the last Maranite or Coptic terrorist that you can name? then the last thing you want to do is convince the moderate and even conservative Muslims that we're out to eradicate all of Islam. That is a war that could not be won. Then we have already lost. Understand that islam must be defeated. Due to the misunderstanding of many munafiq we still have the ability to destroy islam through encouragement of apostasy. It need not be a bloodbath, but we can not shrink from the clear conflicts between our values and a backward 7th century death cult. Bush, despite his linguistic missteps, has done a pretty good job of reassuring the moderate Muslims that we have no quarrel at all with "mainstream" Islam; the problem we have is with those who have perverted Islam to their own ends. What perversion? The jihadist are the true believers. But yes I have no problem with reassuring muslims that we have no desire to kill all of them. But we should resist any imposition of sharia anywhere. Oddly enough that amounts to a war on islam. The muslims that will actually read the koran and honestly search for this oft referenced but never produced "religion of peace" will either apostatize or join jihad. We are foolish to think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 12, 2007 17:48:26 GMT -5
MG-
Then you believe that people like Irshad Manji are the apostates?
I bring up Rudolph not to demean Christianity, but to point out that there are those who have read the Bible and either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted it. blondie has often quoted sections of the Bible, ususally the Old Testament, to bolster his ceontention that Christianity/Judaism demand things of its adherents that could be considered every bit as abhorrent as anything the Q'uran says.
I think the applicable difference between Christianity and Islam is that, for the Muslims, no New Testament has been revealed.
If Christianity and Judaism didn't have a New Testament, then we'd see the countenance of violence against nonbelievers among Hindus, Sikhs and, yes, Muslims, that we see them perpetrating on us.
As for what's going on in Europe, no disagreement by me on that point. Check out what Mark Steyn has said about that situation in his book "America Alone". I read excerpts of it- I've got the book on order- and the scenario it presents isn't a pretty one.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 12, 2007 18:09:19 GMT -5
MG- Then you believe that people like Irshad Manji are the apostates? Irshad Manji has never declared herself apostate. I believe she is munafiq. I feel she honestly believes that she can help bring about a peaceful islam. If she is in any way successful, then it will be a new creation. I bring up Rudolph not to demean Christianity, but to point out that there are those who have read the Bible and either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted it. And how do you decide who misinterprets. It is quite clear that it is the well intentioned Irshad Manji that misinterprets rather than Zarahiri. blondie has often quoted sections of the Bible, ususally the Old Testament, to bolster his ceontention that Christianity/Judaism demand things of its adherents that could be considered every bit as abhorrent as anything the Q'uran says. To what end? Do you think they are equally abhorent? I do not. As harsh as the Old Testament reads it is all limited. Nowhere does the Old Testament call for the subjugation of all unbelievers to be made evident in current Jewish or Christian actions. I think the applicable difference between Christianity and Islam is that, for the Muslims, no New Testament has been revealed. The koran is the new testament. Both Judaism and Christianity existed when mo' sought to be recognized as a prophet of Jewish tradition. When he was rejected as a prophet he raised an army and revealed abrogating verses that called for the violent subjugation of all unbelievers. If Christianity and Judaism didn't have a New Testament, then we'd see the countenance of violence against nonbelievers among Hindus, Sikhs and, yes, Muslims, that we see them perpetrating on us. Judaism doesn't have a New Testament and yet they manage not to cause the world wide violence that is called for by the koran. As for what's going on in Europe, no disagreement by me on that point. Check out what Mark Steyn has said about that situation in his book "America Alone". I read excerpts of it- I've got the book on order- and the scenario it presents isn't a pretty one. Am I to assume that there is also no disagreement on how it is dangerous to assume that we are more welcoming than have been the Europeans? Thanks for reminding me about Mark Steyn's book. I have not read it but have some familiarity with his online publications and have intended to get a copy.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 13, 2007 14:48:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by J H Carrell on Apr 13, 2007 15:00:31 GMT -5
Crusades Justified??? ... whatever happened to the idea of religious tolerance? Although it seems to me that the crusades of century's past had about as much to do with wealth as it did religious ideology.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 13, 2007 16:21:06 GMT -5
The Roman Catholic Church led the crusades not "Christianity". The Roman Catholic Church answered an appeal for help from an Eastern Orthodox Church that was under siege from moslem aggression. I suppose the Eastern Church is also not the "true" church in your opinion? What about the smoldering ruins of the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Armenian churches? Smug Baptists would do well to at least acknowledge the very real sacrifices made by their precursors. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. NEVER CONFUSE THEM! Doctrinal differences with the RCC aside, the faithful, even if you are to assume misinformed, Christians and even muslims suffered less under the Latin Kingdoms than under moslem oppression. For an hour or so? Will my education be complete then? Can you actually relate a coherent reason why the Crusades are to be understood as anything other than a defensive action preserving of a Christian tradition that eventually would lead to Reformation and Enlightenment, or is your argument solely based upon an hour of watching videos?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 13, 2007 16:36:55 GMT -5
Crusades Justified??? ... whatever happened to the idea of religious tolerance? Although it seems to me that the crusades of century's past had about as much to do with wealth as it did religious ideology. In fact yes. The Crusades were justified. That does not disprove the need for religious tolerance nor even the God given right of religious liberty. I'm sure you are aware of the excesses of crusaders, but are you also aware that muslims were allowed to practice their religion -or at least they were allowed to pray, they were not allowed to practice islam's requisite oppression of unbelievers. How exactly is the Christian world supposed to have profited from the destruction of Byzantium? The loss of the first churches? Yours is an ignorant claim. The wealth of Crusading orders did not come from the east, but from western benefactors.
|
|