What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[abradley]

The Byzantine Emperor was considered to be the Vice-Gerent of God, Equal to the Apostles, and Head of the Christian Church. Does it then make sense to ascribe to Christianity the death and devastation that ravaged Italy during Justinian's Italian Wars? The atrocities of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer?

Depends, was he following Christ's example and teachings when he committed the atrocities.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Please show where I was "apparently objecting to the one "from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia".

Here is what you stated:

Hmmm, so the Muslims deemphasized the Muslim jihad wars starting in the 9th Century and that "most Islamic theologians in the classical period (750–1258 C.E.) understood jihad to be a military endeavor". ""Muslim theologians broadened the meaning of jihad, de-emphasizing armed struggle and, under the influence of Sufism, adopting more spiritual definitions".

...

So wouldn't that mean there were not many military endeavors after 1258 C.E.?I'm so glad that the Muslims had "internalized" their military jihad efforts after 1258. Imagine how many more additional wars and conquests might have been undertaken by the Ottomans (Muslims)?

Are you now claiming this was not a response to the wiki definition of "jihad" I had just posted which contains many of these very same statements? That it wasn't a supposed rebuttal? That you just decided to make it for no apparent reason at all? That it is all just a mysterious coincidence? Really?

 

[Arakhor]

Depends, was he following Christ's example and teachings when he committed the atrocities.

We ascribe to St Paul several small-minded attitudes because he claimed to be writing on behalf of the ascended Christ.

 

[abradley]

Since 911 the meaning of Jihad has been argued ad nauseam, hears another try:

Jihad and the Professors

by Daniel Pipes
Commentary
November 2002
{Snip}
http://www.danielpipes.org/498/jihad-and-the-professors

The article starts with his asking professors Jihad's meaning and almost to a man it was 'inner struggle'.

Then he starts quoting people like UBL who called their attacks Jihads and then sez:

THE TROUBLE with this accumulated wisdom of the scholars is simple to state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was saying when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago and then repeatedly murdered Americans in Somalia, at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September 11, 2001. It implies that organizations with the word "jihad" in their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's own "International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusade[rs]," are grossly misnamed. And what about all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger?

But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history..

{Snip}

As I can attest, one who dares to dissent and utter the truth on the matter of jihad falls under enormous censure—and not just in universities. In June of this year, in a debate with an Islamist on ABC's Nightline, I stated: "The fact is, historically speaking—I speak as a historian—jihad has meant expanding the realm of Islam through armed warfare." More recently, on a PBS Lehrer NewsHour program about alleged discrimination against Muslims in the United States, a clip was shown of a role-playing seminar, conducted by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, in which Muslim "activists" were practicing how to deal with "hostile" critics. As part of this exercise, my image was shown to the seminar as I spoke my sentence from the Nightline debate. The comment on this scene by the show's PBS narrator ran as follows: "Muslim activists have been troubled by critics who have publicly condemned Islam as a violent and evil religion." We have thus reached a point where merely to state a well-known fact about Islam earns one the status of a hostile bigot on a prestigious and publicly funded television show.

AMERICANS STRUGGLING to make sense of the war declared on them in the name of jihad, whether they are policymakers, journalists, or citizens, have every reason to be deeply confused as to who their enemy is and what his goals are. Even people who think they know that jihad means holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists brandishing notions like "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights." The result is to becloud reality, obstructing the possibility of achieving a clear, honest understanding of what and whom we are fighting, and why.

It is for this reason that the nearly universal falsification of jihad on the part of American academic scholars is an issue of far-reaching consequence. It should be a matter of urgent concern not only to anyone connected with or directly affected by university life—other faculty members, administrators, alumni, state and federal representatives, parents of students, students themselves—but to us all.

It continues with two updates and 218 comments.

This is a Nov, 2002 opinion piece, do things change? No.

Worth a read

 

[abradley]

We ascribe to St Paul several small-minded attitudes because he claimed to be writing on behalf of the ascended Christ.

Small-minded attitudes, can you be more specific?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, you do have his famous statement Suffer not a woman to teach, amongst others (assuming of course that you subscribe to the view that Paul actually wrote all the letters attributed to him, which is somewhat unlikely), and then you have his somewhat Levitican views on sexuality, despite Jesus being rather reserved on the issue.

Either way, you could probably count the number of European rulers who truly epitomised the teachings of Jesus on two hands throughout all of history, and I would be surprised if that's dissimilar to other historical rulers and their chosen religions.

One thing is certain though - people have always claimed (and will almost certainly continue to do so) to have God or gods on their side, no matter their motives or goals. A brief recollection of how many US presidential candidates claimed to be on acting on God's will in 2012 will serve that example easily enough.

 

[abradley]

Well, you do have his famous statement Suffer not a woman to teach, amongst others (assuming of course that you subscribe to the view that Paul actually wrote all the letters attributed to him, which is somewhat unlikely),

Ain't no theologian, so I'll pass it to them, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

and then you have his somewhat Levitican views on sexuality, despite Jesus being rather reserved on the issue.

What sexuality are you referring to?

Either way, you could probably count the number of European rulers who truly epitomised the teachings of Jesus on two hands throughout all of history, and I would be surprised if that's dissimilar to other historical rulers and their chosen religions.

True, very few, if any, could measure up to Christ's example and teachings, but, IMO, many could measure up to Mohammed's and that's my point.

One thing is certain though - people have always claimed (and will almost certainly continue to do so) to have God or gods on their side, no matter their motives or goals. A brief recollection of how many US presidential candidates claimed to be on acting on God's will in 2012 will serve that example easily enough.

So, that's one of the proofs of a God, people have a natural craving for him and where people have these cravings (thirst, hunger, ect) it indicates there's something to satisfy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8VP2D6vC9c&index=2&list=PLB2F5D0E547546E69 1:40

 

[Arakhor]

.So, that's one of the proofs of a God, people have a natural craving for him and where people have these cravings (thirst, hunger, ect) it indicates there's something to satisfy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8VP2D6vC9c&index=2&list=PLB2F5D0E547546E69

Although I happen to believe in God, what with being a fairly unorthodox Christian and all, just reading about paraeidolia and apophenia will tell you that not everything our brain is working hard to tell us necessarily exists.

True, very few, if any, could measure up to Christ's example and teachings, but, IMO, many could measure up to Mohammed's and that's my point.

Which is worse - the people who persistently fail to act according to their religion, whilst claiming to do so, or those who it is alleged are carrying out the tenets of their religion, even if they aren't?

 

[abradley]

Although I happen to believe in God, what with being a fairly unorthodox Christian and all, just reading about paraeidolia and apophenia will tell you that not everything our brain is working hard to tell us necessarily exists.

I believe in Natural Law and that's what I was attempting to describe.

 

[abradley]

Which is worse - the people who persistently fail to act according to their religion, whilst claiming to do so, or those who it is alleged are carrying out the tenets of their religion, even if they aren't?

Just a fast glance and HUH, when you get to the pearly gates ask Peter? I pass.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ain't no theologian, so I'll pass it to them, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

What sexuality are you referring to?True, very few, if any, could measure up to Christ's example and teachings, but, IMO, many could measure up to Mohammed's and that's my point.So, that's one of the proofs of a God, people have a natural craving for him and where people have these cravings (thirst, hunger, ect) it indicates there's something to satisfy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8VP2D6vC9c&index=2&list=PLB2F5D0E547546E69 1:40

Which of that batch of videos are we supposed to watch? The one that came up first is over 14 minutes long.

So if you have a craving for God, that proves he exists?

Seems to me all that proves is that some people have a craving for the supernatural.

 

[abradley]

Which of that batch of videos are we supposed to watch? The one that came up first is over 14 minutes long.

Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis (Part 2 of 24) starting at 1:40

So if you have a craving for God, that proves he exists?

Seems to me all that proves is that some people have a craving for the supernatural.

C.S.Lewis does a better job then I can at explaining.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ain't no theologian, so I'll pass it to them, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

What sexuality are you referring to?True, very few, if any, could measure up to Christ's example and teachings, but, IMO, many could measure up to Mohammed's and that's my point.So, that's one of the proofs of a God, people have a natural craving for him and where people have these cravings (thirst, hunger, ect) it indicates there's something to satisfy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8VP2D6vC9c&index=2&list=PLB2F5D0E547546E69 1:40

CS Lewis is pretty interesting and a thoughtful theologian. He is not proving that god exists, but just making a logical argument that he does. BTW, the Sufis would agree that people do have an innate longing for god.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis (Part 2 of 24) starting at 1:40

C.S.Lewis does a better job then I can at explaining.

Sounded like a lot of droning, to me. As someone pointed out awhile ago, I seem to have appointed myself the "video guinea pig of OT" (meaning that I tend to watch stuff that people post)... but this time I'll pass. Someone else can do the honors, because I couldn't even take 5 minutes of this.

 

[Nathiri]

Interesting discussion, but also rather disappointing to read. There does not seem to be a balanced debating back and forth on both sides. When one hints at supporting one side, he is instantly attacked for his views by the supporters of the other side (For example, the debate between the Christian and Muslim encounters in the Crusades). There does not seem to be a good debate (without slander) of answering the questions from the people of the opposite views and then themselves asking questions.

The side of the Christians is also not being debated from what they profess to believe and hold to. This is not necessarily surprising as quite a few Christians today do not even follow the Bible and/or barely even study it, for it is preached that it is 'prideful' to study and acquire knowledge of the Bible, when the Bible actually teaches to do the exact opposite. With the start of this false teaching and others, the failure to defend positions of the Bible became common.

When someone mentions some of the things the Muslims have done, they instantly cry 'hate' or 'islamiphobia', but yet constantly say what the Christians have done and misrepresent Christian views and no defense from or for the Christian side. If there is, the person either does not state a proper defense, or is attacked by the opposing side (not just for the person's views, but things the person has done in the past which are not necessarily true, or misrepresented, or he/she is slandered for any negative found in the his/her character). I am not necessarily referring to posts here on this forum, but mainly by the media and others.

 

[abradley]

CS Lewis is pretty interesting and a thoughtful theologian. He is not proving that god exists, but just making a logical argument that he does. BTW, the Sufis would agree that people do have an innate longing for god.

Yes, IMO his point, by itself, doesn't prove God, but it adds to the circumstantial evidence that there is a God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSOfrVG7TUY

 

[Funky]

Then replace "ideology" with "behaviour" or "lifestyle". You'd have a website telling people to judge the facts of homosexuality for themselves, those acts committed by people who identified as homosexual, pro- or anti-homosexual legislation and so on, as well as the same warnings about not mistreating or shaming anyone for being homosexual because they are still human, even though every sane person should be critical of the homosexual lifestyle.

Such a website would still come across as obsessive and creepy at the very least.

As has been pointed out, homosexuality is neither an ideology nor a lifestyle. If it was, if homosexuals had written down a set of doctrines, let's call it gayslam, if among these doctrines was the command to kill all straight people, if large parts of the gay community supported this notion, and if gays were reliably killing straight people around the globe on a daily basis, then every sane person should be critical of this ideology. That doesn't mean that we should stereotype all gay people, since many of them may not adhere to this ideology or at least not to this specific tenet.

Likewise, every sane person, that is to say everyone who believes in human rights, liberal values and is generally for the well-being of his fellow humans, should be critical of Islam.

 

[abradley]

Interesting discussion, but also rather disappointing to read. There does not seem to be a balanced debating back and forth on both sides. When one hints at supporting one side, he is instantly attacked for his views by the supporters of the other side (For example, the debate between the Christian and Muslim encounters in the Crusades). There does not seem to be a good debate (without slander) of answering the questions from the people of the opposite views and then themselves asking questions.

The side of the Christians is also not being debated from what they profess to believe and hold to. This is not necessarily surprising as quite a few Christians today do not even follow the Bible and barely even study it, for it is preached that it is 'prideful' to study and acquire knowledge of the Bible, when the Bible actually teaches to do the exact opposite. With the start of this teaching and others, the failure to defend positions of the Bible became common.

When someone mentions some of the things the Muslims have done, they instantly cry 'hate' or 'islamiphobia', but yet constantly say what the Christians have done and misrepresent Christian views and no defense from or for the Christian side. If there is, the person either does not state a proper defense, or is attacked by the opposing side (not just for the person's views, but things the person has done in the past which are not necessarily true, or misrepresented, or he/she is slandered for any negative found in the his/her character). I am not necessarily referring to posts here on this forum, but mainly by the media and others.

Jump on in and give it a go, apply your views to the debates. The more the merrier.

 

[Funky]

When someone mentions some of the things the Muslims have done, they instantly cry 'hate' or 'islamiphobia', but yet constantly say what the Christians have done and misrepresent Christian views and no defense from or for the Christian side. If there is, the person either does not state a proper defense, or is attacked by the opposing side (not just for the person's views, but things the person has done in the past which are not necessarily true, or misrepresented, or he/she is slandered for any negative found in the his/her character). I am not necessarily referring to posts here on this forum, but mainly by the media and others.

Welcome to the world we live in.

 

[abradley]

Welcome to the world we live in.

So true.