Christianity ruins families.

[giblets]

Thus sayeth the holy prophet Albert Speer.

Arabs don't even claim to be these tribes. They claim to be children of Esau. At best they'd be Edomites, which aren't even on the list. And that's if you believe they are in fact Edomites, of which the only evidence we have is scanty.

The pre-Israelite populations had nothing in common with the Arabs, who were first in the Levant in 630.

I thought the myth was that they are descended from Ishmael?

[Ben Kenobi]

All of the Middle East are Christian lands so the Crusades were justified because it was a defensive war to re-take Christian lands from the Muslims.

Not quite.

Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Alexandria were all Patriarchates. They are currently in muslim hands and should be restored to the Christians. They were all founded by Greeks. Same goes for Carthage and the rest of North Africa

I'm only arguing for the lands owned by Christians prior to the defeat of the Sassinid Persian Empire by Heraclius. Not the entire middle east.

They are Christian lands because they were Roman lands.

As the Romans at this point in time, they were Christian lands. They were also extremely significant in the Church wrt to Church governance.

Yes, the Romans conquered them from the Greeks, Persians, and Israelites, those groups having conquered them from Medeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. etc. in a constant cycle of conquests.

Which does nothing to explain why the four cities I mentioned, including Carthage were very significant Christian centres in the Near east.

Since the Middle East is the homeland of Christian Romans, they have a legitimate claim over those lands and so a war by other Christians unrelated to Romans would be defensive in nature and justified.

Not just the Christian Romans. The Near East is the home of the Christians. The religion was founded in Jerusalem, and spread from Jerusalem to the rest of the Christian world.

The Israelites simultaneously have a claim to these lands.

The Israelites have a claim to the land from the near side of the Euphrates in Syria to the river of Egypt, from the near side of the Jordan to the sea. This is only a small part of the formerly Christian Near east.

The Israelites conquered these lands, which according to Scripture, were the homelands of a bunch of other groups. Still, though the Israelites conquered them so it's their homeland.

Scripture doesn't say that it was the homeland of these tribes. Only that these tribes resided there. The Hittites at the very least were from the mountains of Turkey. The rest we don't know enough. All we know is at this time, several tribes of these peoples resided in Canaan.

Meanwhile, the US is the homeland of the American people who liberated the Native Americans.

Of which a segment of the American people are the Native Americans is a better wording.

The US didn't conquer the West, they purchased it from European powers and Mexico after the US didn't engage in a war of conquest with Mexico in the 1840's. The US only liberated the people who were there.

Mexico is no different from America, as the former colony of Spain as compared to the former colony of Britain. Neither have a prior existance before being a colony.

The Sioux, Apache, Comanche, etc. etc. all the tribes in America could not claim those lands as their homeland because [they each claimed the land for themselves].

There was no general consensus among these tribes as to the 'homeland' of each other.

Note, there are people still around who claim Indian ancestry so the argument with regards to Hittites et al doesn't quite fly in this case.

These people are also Americans. They were born American citizens and have the same rights as any other American.

Meanwhile, Christians were being oppressed by Evil Islam because they had to pay a tax which is equivalent to slavery.

Christians were oppressed because they were defeated in battle, killed unless they submitted to Islam or paid the Jizya. Christian property was seized without compensation. Christians were subject to slavery. They were not permitted to worship openly. The list goes on.

If muslims were so benevolent, why do they not grant equal rights to their Christians?

Christian treatment of Muslims is irrelevant to the Evils of Islam. So is Christian treatment of Jews, heretics, and even fellow Christians.

Christians who were willing to cooperate with Muslims (ie the Byzantines), were subjugated. The only Christians around are those who successfully defeated them.

[OzzyKP]

WOOSH ! And again he misses the point.

Loyalty is good... lying your ass of isn't.

There are plenty of dumb arguments on both sides here. In most of the Ben arguments there is plenty of obstinance to go around. Which is why I just stay out of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh yeah and Ben, would you care to share with Apolyton the consequences of not paying "Peter's Pence"? Tithing was MANDATORY in Christian Europe. You would get killed if you did not pay God's due

Peter's pence was instituted after the capture of the Papal states by Italy. You don't have a clue what you are talking about Albert.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tithing is mandatory in Islam.

wow, what a tolerant religion.

Anyway, Ben, you can say whatever you want but you are not giving an ounce of effort to defend Christian treatment of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and other nonbelievers. The Christian record is atrocious.

Compared to whom?

Muslims who killed Christians wherever they could? Who went abroad, captured Christians and enslaved them for close to a thousand years?

Muslims who still practice involuntary servitude to any unfortunate who happens to travel there for work? You do know that there are many people who are trapped in muslim countries after their employers steal their passports?

[Ben Kenobi]

The ancient inhabitants of the Middle East (Phoenicians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Philistines, Egyptians, etc. etc.) were never exterminated. They assimilated into the conquering populations of Persia, Greece, Rome, and finally, Arabia, whose military force only consisted of a few thousand men (desert nomads are never numerous). Your average modern Lebanese has Phoenician ancestors. Your average Iraqi has Babylonian and Assyrian ancestors. Etc. Etc.

Thus sayeth the holy prophet Albert Speer.

Arabs don't even claim to be these tribes. They claim to be children of Esau. At best they'd be Edomites, which aren't even on the list. And that's if you believe they are in fact Edomites, of which the only evidence we have is scanty.

The pre-Israelite populations had nothing in common with the Arabs, who were first in the Levant in 630.

[Ben Kenobi]

HOW THE **** IS PAYING A TAX WHICH EVERYONE ELSE (MUSLIMS) HAVE TO PAY ANYWAY AND BEING EXEMPT FROM MILITARY SERVICE EQUIVALENT TO SLAVERY?!?!?!

When you execute people for refusing to pay.

[C0ckney]

albert has kindly provided a summary...

[Barnabas]

I am not reading all this thread, what has Ben argued for?

[MrFun]

You guys won't even let someone back Ben a bit up in the lion's den
You're really cruel

What is so wrong about being intolerant of bigotry?

[Wezil]

**** I only wish I had a lion's den I could throw Ben into.

[rah]

If it was anybody else, maybe

[Robert]

You guys won't even let someone back Ben a bit up in the lion's den
You're really cruel

[Al B. Sure!]

Let's quickly review Ben's arguments... I'm being as unbiased as possible and re-stating what I believe his argument is.

All of the Middle East are Christian lands so the Crusades were justified because it was a defensive war to re-take Christian lands from the Muslims. (wow that is retarded but lets continue...)

They are Christian lands because they were Roman lands.

Yes, the Romans conquered them from the Greeks, Persians, and Israelites, those groups having conquered them from Medeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. etc. in a constant cycle of conquests.

Nevertheless, those lands are truly Roman.

Romans became Christian centuries after they conquered those lands.

Since the Middle East is the homeland of Christian Romans, they have a legitimate claim over those lands and so a war by other Christians unrelated to Romans would be defensive in nature and justified.

The Israelites simultaneously have a claim to these lands.

The Israelites conquered these lands, which according to Scripture, were the homelands of a bunch of other groups. Still, though the Israelites conquered them so it's their homeland.

It is their homeland because the groups who were originally there as stated in Scripture are no longer around... no one today claims to be a Hittite or a Canaanite.

Meanwhile, the US is the homeland of the American people who liberated the Native Americans. The US didn't conquer the West, they purchased it from European powers and Mexico after the US didn't engage in a war of conquest with Mexico in the 1840's. The US only liberated the people who were there.

The Sioux, Apache, Comanche, etc. etc. all the tribes in America could not claim those lands as their homeland because... (no argument given by Ben) Note, there are people still around who claim Indian ancestry so the argument with regards to Hittites et al doesn't quite fly in this case.

Meanwhile, Christians were being oppressed by Evil Islam because they had to pay a tax which is equivalent to slavery.

Christian treatment of Muslims is irrelevant to the Evils of Islam. So is Christian treatment of Jews, heretics, and even fellow Christians.


Did I get it right, Ben? Did I miss anything?

[dannubis]

He's just trying to defend his religion.
It's as with my school when I was a teenager, when I was talking with my school-mates we all hated it, but when an outsider critisized the school I defended it. The school sucked though
It's called: loyality. It's good that people have some loyality.
But it's also good indeed to admit mistakes and wrongs, especially if they're very clear

(that counts for all of you as well :P)

WOOSH ! And again he misses the point.

Loyalty is good... lying your ass of isn't.