Crusaders Theory
Vulgar_Menace
Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22118Members
Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22118Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">hhmmm....</div> I have a hunch, people so desperately want to believe God exists therefore anything you say/do in the name of God people will tend to believe due to the desperate belif of existance. In theroy, the crusaders could have been some of the most intelligent manipulators in the history of the world. What do you think?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You are misinformed. I have a Muslim friend and he's **** on what the general concensus is about his religion. The terrorists may say they are doing things for Islam, but the Quran never said to kill thousands of innocents
*edit* the terrorists that is
That sounds dangerous.
I guess we should nuke them before they strike.
I suppose there are radicals in every religion. Those are the true nutjobs.. not the kind of people you'd show to mom.
2) The crusades were not a nobles-only business. Lots of farmers did also participate in them, without any promise of wealth. In fact, they totally outnumbered the nobles.
2) The crusades were not a nobles-only business. Lots of farmers did also participate in them, without any promise of wealth. In fact, they totally outnumbered the nobles. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Farmers and peasants etc get recruited to fight as soldiers in these sorta thing. Actually they were probably surfs, not freemen, and as such HAD to follow their masters to fight in the Crusades.
Only the Templars from memory. Who then decided it would be a good idea to borrow lots of money and then kill the lenders. Then they decided to butcher some Jews afterwards, which was made easier still by the fact that Jews were the ones lending them money ANYWAY.
They did some horrifically brutal things under the notion they had a get to heaven free card.
<a href='http://derekdf79.tripod.com/QuranQuotes.htm' target='_blank'>Yes, there are quotes that encourage violence</a> <a href='http://snell.mystarband.net/philosophy/islam/islam_quran.htm' target='_blank'>But it also has some good stuff in there too</a> which cannot be ignored.
Notably:
<i>
5. "The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self." (Bukhari)
38. "He, who wishes to enter paradise at the best gate, must please his father and mother." (Bukhari & Muslim)
27. "The best richness is the richness of the soul." (at the field of Tabuk, Syria, Rajab 9 A.H.: Bukhari)
48. "Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind." (Muslims & Bukhari)
49. "Conduct yourself in this world, as if you are here to stay forever; prepare for eternity as if you have to die tomorrow.",
(Bukhari)
</i>
Like the Bible, The Quran is also contradicts itself.
Also try to remember that Islam borrows heavily from Christianity, though there are notable differences they worship the SAME god as Chrisitians do, they simply view Him in a different light from christians.
One of the main differences though is that Christians are supposedly the descendents of Issac, while Muslims are supposedly descendents of Ishmael, or something along those lines in any case...
Of course they worship the same God, because there are no others. However, their conception of God is radically different from and incompatible with the Christian Trinity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the main differences though is that Christians are supposedly the descendents of Issac, while Muslims are supposedly descendents of Ishmael, or something along those lines in any case...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The main difference is that Islam is a book religion. Muslims consider the words of the Quran a direct message from God to man.
Of course they worship the same God, because there are no others. However, their conception of God is radically different from and incompatible with the Christian Trinity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the main differences though is that Christians are supposedly the descendents of Issac, while Muslims are supposedly descendents of Ishmael, or something along those lines in any case...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The main difference is that Islam is a book religion. Muslims consider the words of the Quran a direct message from God to man. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spiritualism is still spiritualism.. at one point, Muhammed seeks guidance with a Christian temple in Mecca. Irrelevant to the conversation, but still interesting. Wish I had a copy of the Qu'ran infront of me.
Also, the Bible is supposedly the word of God, at least in the eyes of fundamentalists. I think Craig Thompson put it best when noting that Ecclesiaticales, or however you spell it, has passages added from the original scrolls to "soften" the more depressing aspects of the book (gonna take a sharpie to my free Gideons copy). Both books are transcribed by men... many different men over a long period of time.
I don't know, killing in the name of God and killing in the name of economy or ethnicity are pretty much equal in my book... it's all killing. Unless someone wants to get into the whole "killing" vs. "murder" argument.
I fail to see any concrete contradiction in the bible thus far. Enlighten me.
I fail to see any concrete contradiction in the bible thus far. Enlighten me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
now this should be worth seeing...
/me grabs popcorn and m4gic b33r
<a href='http://derekdf79.tripod.com/QuranQuotes.htm' target='_blank'>Yes, there are quotes that encourage violence</a> <a href='http://snell.mystarband.net/philosophy/islam/islam_quran.htm' target='_blank'>But it also has some good stuff in there too</a> which cannot be ignored.
Notably:
<i>
5. "The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self." (Bukhari)
38. "He, who wishes to enter paradise at the best gate, must please his father and mother." (Bukhari & Muslim)
27. "The best richness is the richness of the soul." (at the field of Tabuk, Syria, Rajab 9 A.H.: Bukhari)
48. "Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind." (Muslims & Bukhari)
49. "Conduct yourself in this world, as if you are here to stay forever; prepare for eternity as if you have to die tomorrow.",
(Bukhari)
</i>
Like the Bible, The Quran is also contradicts itself.
Also try to remember that Islam borrows heavily from Christianity, though there are notable differences they worship the SAME god as Chrisitians do, they simply view Him in a different light from christians.
One of the main differences though is that Christians are supposedly the descendents of Issac, while Muslims are supposedly descendents of Ishmael, or something along those lines in any case... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In summary, "Sure, our religion suggests violence, but nevermind that.. look over here! They say good stuff too!"
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not making fun of Muslim religion, specifically. All religions are basically full of it. At one time or another they've all said or done something contradictory to something else they've said or done. Christians might be asking themselves "what possibly has the catholic church done to contradict itself?"
Remember Corpernicus? Gallileo? Gallileo was even slaughtered for saying something contrary to the church at that time which was that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth. Years later after he died, they pretty much said "Oops.. he was right. Our bad!"
All religions do this. In a belief system springing from a "perfect" God, how can it be so flawed?
I fail to see any concrete contradiction in the bible thus far. Enlighten me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
now this should be worth seeing...
/me grabs popcorn and m4gic b33r <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh, I just mentioned one. The whole Ecclesiastes (or however you spell it) revision.
And the reason why the belief system is so flawed? Because we're human. Religions tend to get money from humans. And money is power, which gets misused. Thus those crazy crazies running the crazy christian religions back then... God already said he'd leave us alone since he thought Jesus dying was enough (when he said "hey, I just killed my son.. you don't need any other proof, I don't need to talk to you directly. You're cool.")
Sure, you'd think that Christian religion would be better off than it is, but, well, we're only human, divine guidance or not.
I fail to see any concrete contradiction in the bible thus far. Enlighten me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't get in to this too throughly(partly because I don't have time, partly because I don't know enough about the subject and mainly because I don't want to de-rail too much) but for example Bible says "Thous shalt not kill" and somewhere in the same book, IIRC, it says it's okay to punish and kill criminals. Same could be applied to "turn the other cheek" and "criminals can be punished".
All heavier-than-bricks, 2000-years-old, based-on-several-humans-writings -books contradict themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IV--CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made:
1 1:5 the place--his place (1638)
2 2:16 shall be--shall all be (1629)
3 8:17 out, yea further--out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)
4 11:17 thing is it--thing it is (?)
Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation ("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That's more than 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus, the KJV did undergo some changes, but they were in minor, nonessential words, and have been corrected in the more recent translations.
Check off Ecclesiastes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thous shalt not kill" and somewhere in the same book, IIRC, it says it's okay to punish and kill criminals. Same could be applied to "turn the other cheek" and "criminals can be punished".
All heavier-than-bricks, 2000-years-old, based-on-several-humans-writings -books contradict themselves<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thou shalt not kill, the 6th commandment found in Exodus 20:13, uses the Hebrew phraise "lo tirtsach"
Lo is the hebrew negative, the NOT, Tirtsach is the imperitive.
It is translated as Kill, Murder, or simply to take life.
If we take this strictly to say that it means kill, and any form of killing is bad, then there is a direct contradiction. In the same book.
But seriously, how stupid do you think Moses/God was/is? Anyone with a second grade education would see that as a contradiction while writing it. The error here is in translation, not the actual context of the passage.
Not suprisingly, the NIV, NASB, NSRV, and NKJV all translate that phrase as You shall not murder.
Which, of course, implies killing with malice aforethought, not the just punishments warrented by breaking any of the first 7 commandments?
By the way, while poking around on hebrew dictionaries, I found that KHARA is the vulgar form of poop. Who'da known?
You might want to check your history here. Galileo died a natural death. And he was condemned not for his conclusions, but rather his methodology, but that's beside the point.
On topic, I found <a href='http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> a nice overview over the Crusades.
I was wrong to flat out say the bible contradicts itself as there is no definite and concrete evidence that it does, even so, some extremists do take passages of the bible to extremes (KKK anyone?) just as Muslim terrorists take the Quran's passages to extremes.
You might want to check your history here. Galileo died a natural death. And he was condemned not for his conclusions, but rather his methodology, but that's beside the point.
On topic, I found <a href='http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> a nice overview over the Crusades. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you are right he did not get killed, however he was criticised for BOTH his conclusions (which he was forced to revoke on his death bed) and the way he did things.
It was a German monk called Bruno something that came up with the EXACT same conclusions as Gallileo who was burnt at the stake (earlier too). People usually get the two confused, I did at one point!
Or heck, every other episode of Jesus' life is him contradicting the Old Testament. The OT says to stone adultresses, but Jesus says "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." "An eye for an eye" is superceded by "turn the other cheek."
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The King James version of the Bible. quotes provided.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh using the King James - what a surprise. Lets not use anything up to date, we want to find as many "contradictions" as we can. Let us also hope that the difficult english KJV will confuse them also.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Self-contradictions of the Bible.
William Henry Burr
ISBN 0-87975-416-8
Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908.
Self-contradictions of the Bible / William Henry Burr ; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books], c1987.
Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism.
UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987
UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987
Cooper, Robert, secularist.
The "Holy Scriptures" analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : shewing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities / by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840.
Series title: Goldsmiths'-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887.
UCLA AGSMgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm
DeHaan, M. R.
508 answers to Bible questions : with answers to seeming Bible contradictions / M.R. DeHaan. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, [1968?], c1952.
UCSB Library BS538 .D43 1968
Thaddaeus, Joannes, fl. 1630.
The reconciler of the Bible inlarged : wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions throughout the Old and New Testament are fully and plainly reconciled ... / by J.T. and T.M. .. London : Printed for Simon Miller ..., 1662.
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1052:9.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform
Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.
Annotations upon the Holy Bible. Vol. II : wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annex'd, together with the parallel scriptures : the more difficult terms in each verse are explained,... The third edition, with the addition of a new concordance and tables, by Mr. Sam. Clark; the whole corrected and amended by the said Mr. Sam. Clark and Mr. Edward Veale .. London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst [and 6 others], MDCXCVI [1696].
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1041:1.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform
"the x-rated bible" by ben edward akerley, published by american atheist press, austin texas, 1985.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reference list - rofl. Only one book manages to make it into the 20th century - one other does but thats actually a book defending the bible. What I find funny is that it seems that as time marches on less books attacking the Bible's consistency can be found, hence their very short references list. They have to go digging for books written in the 17,18 and 19C. Several of those I have already answered in my Accuracy and Consistency of the Bible thread, purely off the top of my head.
Those people who write that have firstly little/no respect for context, as they themselves state, and I suspect are hoping that no one with the slightest knowledge of anything Jewish/Greek comes along, or even someone with a decent understanding of the book. In that rather comprehensive list, I'm sure there a maybe one or two contradictions that would make a Biblical Scholar squirm, but the fact they went KJV, with resources that were around since before my grandmothers grandmother, and littered the thing with simple context misunderstandings means I'm going to have to sift through a whole stack of garbage to find anything decent.