Crusades: Good or Bad?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Slavery and misogyny aren't just merely a "social evil". Jesus Christ, Elok!

And read the post I inserted before yours - Post #89. I've long said that Islam was looking to more of a reinstatement of Judaic principles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Slavery we've gone over before, and my position hasn't changed: slavery made sense within the economic realities of the time. It doesn't anymore. It was not abolished (in this country, where it never really resembled the Classical/Biblical models anyway) when we suddenly realized people don't like being property, but when it had become largely obsolete and the number of people who felt threatened by it overwhelmed the much smaller number who continued to profit.

Also... What in the flying **** is this? Slavery was abolished when slavery was obsolete? Did you ignore that massive war the United States had to have to get rid of it? Or the huge role of Christian abolitionists in stirring the moral consciousness of the US?

[NICE MOBIUS]

This thread appears to have turned into a moral crusade, at least on one side. The other side's morals seem ambiguous...

[giblets]

Also... What in the flying **** is this? Slavery was abolished when slavery was obsolete? Did you ignore that massive war the United States had to have to get rid of it? Or the huge role of Christian abolitionists in stirring the moral consciousness of the US?

Slaves were worth a lot of money in 1860... so I would say that claiming they were "economically obsolete" is ludicrous.

[Elok]

Slavery and misogyny aren't just merely a "social evil". Jesus Christ, Elok!

Third commandment, Imran! Salvation is something to be pursued both collectively and at an individual level, but given Christianity's explicit rejection of worldly entanglement, attempts to totally reinvent society are problematic at best.

And read the post I inserted before yours - Post #89. I've long said that Islam was looking to more of a reinstatement of Judaic principles.

Yeah, that's another thing that puzzles me--Islam is basically Muhammad looking at the changes made by Jesus and the Apostles and saying, "Scratch that, scratch that, scratch that . . ." No Trinity, boatloads of legalism, church and state so entangled as to become perfectly synonymous. The only thing he kept was transcending race. Islam is little more than Judaism with different ritual trappings and a proselytizing bent. Why didn't he just become Jewish? As for "common in the ancient world," IIRC there's something like 1400 years between Deuteronomy and Muhammad's time. When Deuteronomy was written, there was no Classical Greece, Rome, or Persian Empire. It was an entirely different era. The Hijaz was one of a few bass-ackwards corners of the known world where tribal raiding was still the norm. Well, until the Empire fell, anyway. Then the barbarian edges flooded in.

Re: American slavery, I'll see if I can start a separate thread so our arguments don't get tangled. Yes, it was obsolete.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh... I think taking the Lord's name "in vain" is overstated. Jesus tried to reinvent society. That's what he did.

IIRC there's something like 1400 years between Deuteronomy and Muhammad's time. When Deuteronomy was written, there was no Classical Greece, Rome, or Persian Empire. It was an entirely different era.

So you are saying it was contextual then? Muhammed compared to his Arab contemporaries was far better.

[Proteus_MST]

But Jesus also said that he hadn´t come to replace the old laws (i.e. the old testament parts)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fulfill the law. Basically complete them.

[Proteus_MST]

Fulfilling may also be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies about the coming of the moshiach ... after all there are lots of passages in the bible that just serve this function ... i.e. "proving" that Jesus is the moshiach (for example the 2 different lineages from David ... his virgin birth ... riding on an ass into Jerusalem ... and many more)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed, but if that is fulfilled, maybe that means a new type of law is advanced. What else is the Messiah to do (I mean aside from the Jewish view that he'd conquer all the enemies)?

[Bereta_Eder]

Any idea why the shifting from polytheism to monotheism is usually regarded as an "advancement"/progression of human societies in societal studies?

[dannubis]

because sid meier said so...

[Elok]

Eh... I think taking the Lord's name "in vain" is overstated. Jesus tried to reinvent society. That's what he did.

In the sense that He created an entirely apolitical Church, yes. As for the Third, you're using your deity's name as an expletive here. It's like if I said "the dog made an Imran on the rug," only you're doing it with God.

So you are saying it was contextual then? Muhammed compared to his Arab contemporaries was far better.

No, I'm saying that (quick Wiki check) Deuteronomy is believed to have its roots in texts from the eighth century BC, and modified up through the sixth. You're using "at the time" to refer to incidents more than a thousand years apart. It's like if future historians noted that the Holocaust "was typical of its time period" by pointing to Spain in the late 1400s. Actually, twice as bad as that; there's only 450 years between those two. Deuteronomy and early Islam are similar in that they involve partially civilized Semitic tribesmen, but you needn't lump them and everything between together.

Like I said, I don't know how Jews deal with the bloody roots of their religion, aside from taking comfort in the fact that much of it is ahistorical. I suppose that bothers me less than Islam because Hebrew religious nationalism is largely confined to a few wackos in Israel at present. Not that they aren't doing plenty of damage there. So, for the record, that's also bad.

[Proteus_MST]

Hm ... to say that the time period was bloody, you don´t need to point as far as the events of deuteronomy. You just need to look at the romans ... if we compare them to nowadays times and adjust population numbers for the way smaller population that we had at the times of the roman empire, we can surely say that the romans, with their massacres and enslavement in conquered countries ... and their punishments of provinces that dared to do uprisings ... were at least as bloody as the Nazis with their 3rd Reich ... probably even more so

[Elok]

Well, yes, I didn't mean to claim that the Romans spent their time sipping tea. I objected, somewhat pedantically, to his implication that Deuteronomy and Islam were somehow contemporary. At any rate, I don't hold up the ancient Romans as a moral example. We canonized Constantine, but in his case it's sort of honorary, like a British knighthood for exemplary services (despite the part where he mostly just worshiped himself). Same thing for "Saint" Irene (killed her own son, but hey, icons are back!) and the lately-canonized Romanovs (because **** THE COMMUNISTS).

I'm just saying, if Jesus and Paul and everybody else in early Xianity had spent the bulk of their time invading, killing and enslaving, I might very well note that they had interesting ideas or were ahead of their time in many ways or what-have-you, but I would never dream of treating them as examples to follow. Or even of identifying with their teachings.