Norway Liberal Enriched By Diversity

[sOurDieSel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Daywolf]

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

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

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

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

You mean God the Father? Analogies are all there, among other things, in every place you look. Archetypes, analogies, metaphors, just different ways to coney a structured logic in a message, and usually well formatted so not to confuse say metaphoric parables with historic accounts of specific people and events etc.

But Blitz puts it, God cannot lie. And your response is by proxy, that he deceives. But this was a judgement, and that from their own doing and by the will of the deceiving spirit (which are usually demons). In this case God allowed it, just as he allows suffering and free-will etc. The bible doesn't "promote" deceit, just recognizes it.

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

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

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

What, relative truth? i.e. what is true for me is not necessarily true for you? People can be 100% wrong and in denial of it. Gosh, human history shows this so well, people can be wrong. The only way that could be is by absolute truth. Even relative truth at it's core is defeated by absolute truth. One would say what is true for you may not be true for me, well that in itself is an absolute truth, or attempts to be, this defeats itself.

So yeah, at a point, things changed (were fulfilled as I explained), and in an absolute way, for everyone, as happens by many examples. Those that stayed with what was... well are in error. After all, in this case, the beginnings of the church were 100% jews until it was given to Paul to reveal it to the gentiles as well. Even today, jews still become Christians, while others don't.

Now, there is a movement like that, it's called Eccumenicalism, in which a form of relative truth is practiced. In this case, Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, everything and everything, is all the same one in all and all in one. imo defies logic though, even mathematically. 1 + 1 always equals 2 no matter what the new logic in colleges try to teach which is relative logic/truth (e.g. 1 + 1 is not always 2). So it's not really by a basis of any spiritual belief that I think it's kinda bunk, but that there is mathematical logic that never takes everything and adds it together to make up some relative product that works for every answer or position.

[Daywolf]

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

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

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

So to expound on this a little more clearly (was in a rush to go somewhere), this isn't true of all jews. Like I said some do become Christians even today, as has happened the past couple thousand years and even started as such.

Interpretation is not withstanding here, as I pointed out from saying a generally 'what it says is what it means' prospective. I'm just not defining the nuances here for great wall of text sake. And really, much of today's Judaism is not so much based on the original Abrahamic religion as given to the 12 tribes, but engrossed with it's own commentaries which propel themselves over the actual text of the scriptures. Which was true to even 2k years ago, and part of the message given within the NT and the many commentaries delivered by the first century church about the issue.

I mean after all, even as you said "jewish interpretation", but you do realize there were another 11 tribes those scriptures were delivered to, right? These tribes were dispersed, but very likely still exist today by blood line anyway, possibly regionally at that. And 2k years ago this issue with the jews were in question, even to rebuke, to just how they interpreted what they did believe, because they really didn't believe, not all of them anyway. And note the correction was made, and the scriptures as well dispersed and back into the hands of those lost tribes and the rest of the world as well. It wasn't exclusively a jewish religion to start with, and still isn't today due to what transpired 2k years ago.