posted
Thanks Squick, I'll check it out. I'm also going to try to get ahold of _Surviving the Mongols: The Continuity of Ismaili Tradition in Iran_ by Nadia Eboo Jamal, which sould prove interesting even if it doesn't turn out to be relevant to this particular inquiry. Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to suggest that most books that deal exclusively with Islam and the Crusades tend to magnify the issues involved between christianity and islam (versus the mongolian invasions) and books written recently tend to have an "anti western" domination built into them.
If you look at the changes in the Arabic culture before and after the Mongolian invasions you will see something much more profound. Islam was fairly confident (with good reason) that they could overcome Christian kingdoms, this is evideneed by the eventual ouster of all remanants of Christians. The invasions from Europe around 1100 had already been repulsed and Jerusalem recaptured. It doesn't get better for the Christians from there. Then around 1215 the devestating Mongol invasions came. You had the mongol leader preaching to Muslims about how lowly they were or God would not have had them conquered (the Khan was good at rubbing their face in it because he was that powerful).
A good comprehensive view I read a few years back was "Muslim History from 570 to 1950".
posted
Baldar has it spot on that the crusades were little pinpricks to the muslim world. The first one only worked because they weren't expecting it and most towns weren't terribly well defended.
While they were ineffective against the muslim world, the crusaders committed great atrocities to civilians in cities friendly to them on the way. The acts of war against islam, while perhaps motivated for the wrong reasons, were not inherently evil or barbaric. The conduct of the crusaders against civilians (friendly and enemy) was the evil part.
posted
Jacare, The way I see it, if you take what's said in the Old Testament as actually what's meant, God is evil. If you want for God not to be evil, you can say "That's not how I interpreted it." or "That's a translation error." Of course you're going to see God as good, if you're going to automatically discount anything that disagrees with this.
I'm not interpreting. I'm using the words that are written in the book and taking them at face value. Is there any preface or addedum to Job that says "Oh, this is just a metaphor. You're not supposed to believe that God actually did this."? In my Bible there isn't. A literal intepretation of the Book of Job, with God actually doing what he is said to have done, shows that God is self-centered and immature. A literal reading of Exodus shows that God is willing - more accurately eager - to torture and kill innocent people, if it suits his purposes to do so.
I don't know how you can defend the murders of a God by saying, "Well, killings not that bad." when that God actually comes out and makes "Thou Shall Not Murder" one of his primary commandments. I also don't see how you can look on a book like Leviticus and say "We don't follow that because the rules are savage and the punishments horrifying." without laying any responsibility at the feet of the entity that is supposedly responsible for those rules.
Another thing not in my Bible is Satan getting Cain to offer God inferior sacrifices. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe that it simply states that he and Abel give their sacrafices and God favors Abel over Cain. Where does what you claim happen?
posted
You know, I never claimed that the Mongol conquest had no effects or denied that these efffect were even greater than the Crusades, just that the Crusades had a significant effect on making Islam and much less inclusive religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I misunderstood you Squick--I thought you were saying that the Crusades were at least as important, if not more so, to the development of Islam's attitude toward the non-Islamic world than the Mongol invasion.
Baldar, are you sure about the title of that book? When I did a search for it on Amazon.com, the closest thing it could come up with was _Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live_. While that might be a very interesting book in its own right, it's not quite what I was looking for.
posted
I do want to stand up and say that dismissing the Crusades as having almost no effect on Islamic thought is, in my opinion, a big mistake. From what I read, they had a profound effect.
aside: My high school's mascot was the Crusader. Looking back years later when I know a lot more about the nature of the Crusaders, I find this ironically disturbing.
posted
Squick- see, the problem here is that you don't see your interpretation as interpretation. For example:
quote:In the Garden of Eden, god gave a comfortable living in exhange for worship and no free will.
is Squickese for "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
...
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the bknowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
You'll forgive me for not equating your interpretation with what is actually said in the scriptural account. It seems that what you said to me applies in equal measure to you: if you are determined to see God as evil you will do so whether evidence to the contrary exists or not.
quote:Another thing not in my Bible is Satan getting Cain to offer God inferior sacrifices. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe that it simply states that he and Abel give their sacrafices and God favors Abel over Cain. Where does what you claim happen?
You are right- I had forgotten that this part was not in Genesis. In LDS canon Moses 5:18 says: And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
Although this distinction does not matter as much as the fact that Cain deliberately offered an offering which went counter to the whole purpose of the thing.
quote:I don't know how you can defend the murders of a God by saying, "Well, killings not that bad." when that God actually comes out and makes "Thou Shall Not Murder" one of his primary commandments.
There is a distnction here that needs to be made: it is alright for God to kill people. Such a thing is not murder. It is man that is prohibited from killing. this much should be obvious since it is generally believed among Christians that God decides when a man will die. If this is the case then every death that occurs would be "murder". Therefore I see no distinction between God deciding to kill a certain person or group of people at one time or another; they weren't about to make it out of life alive anyway.
quote: I also don't see how you can look on a book like Leviticus and say "We don't follow that because the rules are savage and the punishments horrifying." without laying any responsibility at the feet of the entity that is supposedly responsible for those rules.
Actually as I understand them those rules were pretty enlightened for their place and time. These progressive rules no doubt replaced previous actions which were much more reprehensible; As I understand it God will only lead a people as far as they are willing to be led; the more they are willing to accept God's guidance the farther they may progressw hich is the whole reason for the existence of prophets.
quote: Is there any preface or addedum to Job that says "Oh, this is just a metaphor. You're not supposed to believe that God actually did this."?
The thing is, Squick, the Bible was written by humans for humans. A commonly used tool of human communication is analogy and symbolism. Surely you will agree that many, many passages of the Bible are written as analogy and symbolism? Surely "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory;" from the song of solomon is not literal? And no, there is no chapter heading spelling it out; one has to figure it out for oneself (that is what the Holy Ghost is for).
[This message has been edited by Jacare Sorridente (edited November 06, 2002).]
posted
I think that Squick's point (about your last statment) was that although it is possible that much of (or little of, depending) the Bible is a metaphor, the Bible presents it as absolute fact. When you start making comments about how some of it must be metaphorical or symbolic, it is no longer doing a straight reading, but degrading into interpratation.
Also, I don't see how God killing people is better than people killing people. If you do believe that God decides when everyone dies, then he must also decide that people must be murdered by other people, which seems to me that it would put human homicide on the same moral level as God's killings'.
posted
No one is saying the crusades had no effect. However the crusades did not effect Islam to any significant level compared to the mongol invasions. Note that Christians and Muslims still worked together during the crusades, and the battles were often more political than religious (religion being the excuse used on both sides). You seem to be interpeting what we say as the crusades having no effect. Really, relative several failed invasions, the loss of additional land, the Muslims had more of an effect on Christian kingdoms than vice versa.
Lets put it another way:
On one side you have unlearned barbarian Christians that might be good fighters but seem to be constantly losing territory to you.
On the other side you have a mongol horde that blows every army you have out of the water and says God does not love you from your own mosques (in Mecca) because God is the Khan. So tell me, which effects you more?
posted
I thought I read once that the Mongols wound up killing 25% of the worlds total population during their rampages.
I would not be surprised to find out that number is wrong, since it is so staggering. But the point is, they certainly reshaped the world in their wake.
The crusaders were lucky when their boats didn't sink in the channel.
posted
Well, I don't believe in God (I don't dis-believe either, but that's another topic) so I'm not going off of rock solid info, but based on Jeni's quote, Jebus, your statment is wrong.
quote:There is a distnction here that needs to be made: it is alright for God to kill people. Such a thing is not murder. It is man that is prohibited from killing. this much should be obvious since it is generally believed among Christians that God decides when a man will die.
If God decides when a man will die, He must decide when a man murders another.
posted
To keep from biting all the way through my tongue, I’m going to throw in a couple comments on biblical interpretation.
First, every reading of the Bible (or any other text) is an interpretation. Ever since Martin Luther (and likely before) various people and groups have claimed to ignore interpretation in favor of “the plain sense” of the text. It’s never too hard to show that they are, in fact, reading from a particular perspective. It’s nonsense when fundamentalist Christians make this claim and it’s just as nonsensical when non-Christians make it. Everybody brings their own perspective to everything they read.
Second. The idea that the God of the Old Testament is somehow a distinguishable being from the God of the New Testament (which was declared heresy in the 2nd century, but keeps popping up) has been a contributing factor to a great deal of anti-Semitism, up to and including the holocaust. I just thought I'd mention that, since we’re discussing evil, and contributing factors thereto.
posted
Regardless of interpretation, the Bible clearly states that God has not only ordered numerous massacres but has participated in several Himself -- and intends to wipe out most of the world some time in the future. Unless you're REALLY going to stretch the text into an unusual metaphor, you have to grant that particular interpretation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well this raises an interseting question (one that OSC brought up in Ender's Shadow); even if we KNOW that God exists, does that mandate that He is good? I'm not sure if I'm up to answering that one, so I'll give it some thought and come back.
posted
That arguments has the flaw that if someone (anyone at all) creates something good, that doesn't mean that they are always good. I think we can all agree that creating Tammy was indeed a good thing ( ), but that doesn't require that whoever (your parents, or whoever we assign the credit to )created you is overall a good person.
posted
Tom - Certainly. (The massacres anyway. The future intent part isn’t quite so unambiguous.) I don’t go in for elaborate allegorical interpretations anyway, I also aim for the “plain sense” of the text. It’s just that I realize what I see as the obvious interpretation is conditioned by my own culture, history, etc. And I know that other people interpret what the text “obviously” means differently than I do.
But if we were going to go strictly by what the Bible clearly states, we’d have to conclude that God is good. The Bible says so quite clearly. “O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, his steadfast love endures forever.” – Psalm 118.
posted
I think that just because we might not understand what He is doing, that doesn't mean that we can't try. And if we think that we do understand what He is doing, we have every right to question it. It seems that if He didn't want us to, one of two things would be true. 1) He made a mistake when giving us the mental capacity to reason. 2) He doesn't take critisim well, which would be a plus for Him (not that it would make Him evil, just it would make Him imperfect, which most religous people seem to think is not true). Furthermore, the fact that He had a plan that was impossible for us to understand, that doens't make it good, it just makes it impossible for us to understand.
P.S. I come off sounding kind of negative in this post. I'm still not sure if God's existance is proof of his perfection, but I just felt that there was a flaw in Tammy's reasoning. (Also, just to re-itterate, not only am I not a good speller, I'm not an Atheist )
posted
Tammy, I'm not sure that you can consider someone "good" just because they made some stuff, especially if they've stated their intention to break the same stuff some time in the future. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a contradiction because Tammy's definition of "God" is "perfect being who is absolutely good," or else her definition of "good" is "behavior approved by God." It's not an uncommon situation. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I believe in the accuracy of the Bible.
I believe it to be a gift from God.
Because of human imperfection, I believe that there may very well be "typos" in the Bible. But for the most part...I take it to be inspired by God. His words.
No where in the bible does it state that God is wrong, evil, mistaken, unjust, ridiculous, or comparable to mere humans or any other entity for that matter.
I believe. I have faith.
So there lies the contradiction in my mind.
If I believe what is written to be words inspired by him..... then of course I believe that he's not wrong and he is good.
[This message has been edited by Tammy (edited November 06, 2002).]
posted
Look, I really didn't mean to stir up anything with this. My main point is that, if the Old Testament was just a story that you came across, I think that most people would conclude that, unless you were Jewish, God, as it is written, was a pretty bad guy. I think that the lessons taught by his actions, as they are written, are bad ones. I think that if you look at it with an honest, unprejudiced eye, you'll at least admit that such a belief is not "silly".
You know, I'm trying to withdraw from the conversation, but by writing what I think, I'm just saying "worse" things. So be it. That's what I really think. I do not judge christians or christianity by this, just the literal writings. The experience of truth in all its forms is constantly changing.
dkw, The separate gods theory wasn't a cause of anti-semitism, it was an excuse for allowing it. The people using it wanted to hate jews already, they just had to come up with a reason for why it was ok.
quote:I believe he created us with the capacity to think. To decifer right from wrong.
That it is explicitly stated in the Garden of Eden story that he did nt create us as such, that it is in fact said that he didn't want us to "eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is the reason why I dislike the messsage of that story.
Please understand, I talk of these things as written as lessons, not as historical events. When the writers say that God did such and such, I don't necessarily believe that this is objectively true, but rather the lesson to be learned is what would be true if such a thing happened. To me, to study the bible or any religious/philosophical text is to see what lessons were intended and what lessons are actually learned from it. I view the idea that humans' perfect intended state is that of contented beasts that lack the ability to tell right from wrong as a bad lesson, and so I dislike the story.
quote:No where in the bible does it state that God is wrong, evil, mistaken, unjust, ridiculous, or comparable to mere humans or any other entity for that matter.
Well...if the Bible is, in fact, a "gift from God"...it wouldn't say he was evil, now would it? God's not gonna diss himself!! And if the Bible was changed and/or interpreted over the years by different sects of people all working towards teaching people *their* way of life -- they wouldn't describe their God as wrong, evil, or mistaken either!
posted
I don't know that I've heard of that reason for anti-semitism, dkw; do you have any links I could link at (or just a summary of why you think that would be better)?
Constantine's Sword by James Carroll is a good one, although it's rather long it's quite readable. It traces Jewish-Christian relations over the last two millenia.
For a summary, it's fairly simple. The idea that the OT God = evil, NT God = good, translates fairly easily into Jewish God = evil, Christian God = good. From there it's a pretty short step to Jews = evil, Christians = good.
Not a part of our heritage to be particularly proud of, but there it is.
posted
dkw, thank-you for the book, but I doubt that I'll have time to read at any point in the near future (right now, I don't even have time to be on Hatrack ). I see the logic (even if I disagree, but I don't think that that is the point). However, I've never heard of that as a reason before, which was more what I was getting at. DO you know of any instances (historical events...) where this logic was cited as a reason for hating Jews?
quote:For a summary, it's fairly simple. The idea that the OT God = evil, NT God = good, translates fairly easily into Jewish God = evil, Christian God = good. From there it's a pretty short step to Jews = evil, Christians = good.
Well, one could also interpret it as Jewish God: disciplined, Christian God: easy. But, then again, it's all in the interpretation...
Question: do Christians believe in the OT God AND the NT God, or just NT? I was always confused on that point, because the Bible contains both testaments, but no explanation as to why God suddenly became so much less...ruthless i guess is a nice way of putting it. If they believe in both, how do they explain the change?
posted
[EDIT: Leonide posted before me, this next comment is for dkw] Sounds fair to me.
Back to something that was said earlier (can't rember who said it, just that someone did ) I thought that Stalin killed more people than Mao, does anyone have any figures on this (I thought that it was something like 30 million to 20 million)?
...Just looked through the old posts, it was Fugu who said
quote:I think I shall go with Chairman Mao. The man was more ruthless and unrelenting than Stalin, and his policies certainly killed more (comes from having a larger population to work with, largely).
<--*Goes off to do some info hunting*
Hobbes
[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited November 07, 2002).]
posted
Well after a little hunting (rember, this is strictly google search stuff, nothing to bet the farm on) I found that Fugu is very very correct. I found from 20-30 million killed by Stalin (depending on the source), and 30-65 million killed by Mao! Numbers that large are hard to comprehend! Imagine if over 1/6 of America was just suddenly snuffed out. As I recall, a first strike war with the Soviet Union was predicted to cause less causulties than that (less US casualties of course).
posted
I had a thought the other day that is sort of relevant to the Stalin/Mao discussion. All mainly socialist counties that I can think of have a very strict definition of citizenship. This makes pefect sense, as you want to keep the number of citizens that you are supporting with your socialist programs as low as possible while keeping a viable, growing society.
Now, both China and Russia had extremely large populations at the time of their communist revolutions and subsequent governmental mass-killings. Even now, China is so bent on shrinking their population that they've taken the one-child policy to the forced abortion of second children. I'm wondering if the apparent low value they put on human life is a direct result of the economic realities of trying to support huge populations in the communist system. If perhaps, the famous purges and massacres were at least partially conscious attempts to decrease the population to more manageable numbers.
I don't know, the little men down there send up some wierd thoughts from time to time. This is one of them, I think.
That is an interseting point; I'm not sure how much of it is economical, and how much is based on the Communist model. Just before people start calling me on the Communism is an economic model, it isn't. Communism is based on the Socialist economic model, but has other concerns as well. Of course Marx never put anything like this in his Manifesto (sp?) but you're right, it does seem to appear a lot in Communist countries. However, the ideal socialistic model is based on the assumtion that there is enough produced for everyone, so that it can be shared among the entire population and still keep everyone happy. Since we must assume that this was the basis for the leaders actions, that would mean that their actions could not be based off of the fact that there were too many people for his ideas. And much of what they did reflect this. They attempted to increase the number of jobs to solve whatever problems there were. So it seems that the murders would have occured not off of lack means of production, but lack of control.
Note: Before you continue reading, sit back, take a deep breath, and rember that the above was written in a very small text box by someone who needs more sleep . I'm sorry it was a bit...all over the place; but I'll try harder for my next post
quote: good (MORAL RIGHT) adjective morally right or based on religious principles ; behaving well ; kind and helpful May you lead a good life and live long. Try to set a good example to the children. Do a good deed every day. If you're a good boy (=If you behave well) at the doctor's I'll take you swimming afterwards. It's good (=kind and helpful) of you to offer but I can carry the shopping. He's always good (=kind and helpful) to his grandchildren. The college has been very good (=helpful) about her health problem.
Good can be used to make particular exclamations stronger. good gracious/grief/heavens/God/Lord
Someone, esp. a child, is as good as gold if they behave very well. She's been as good as gold all evening.
If you are (as) good as your word, you do what you say you will do. He was as good as his word about phoning.
If you do (someone) a good turn, you do something which is helpful or kind. You did grandma a good turn by carrying her bags.
(saying) 'One good turn deserves another' means that it is right to do a helpful or kind act for someone if they have done something for you.
If something is done in good faith, it is done sincerely and honestly. She was acting in good faith for her client.
(dated) The good book is the Bible.
A good cause is either something which deserves effort, or a strong reason for doing something. Please give what you can, it's for a good cause. The judge ruled her actions were done without good cause.
In the Christian religion, Good Friday is the day Jesus is believed to have died, the Friday before Easter Sunday.
Someone who is good-hearted is kind, helpful and generous.
If someone or something is good-natured, they are kind and friendly. a good-natured child/manner
(formal) Good offices are the helpful actions of someone, esp. if they are in authority. Thanks to the good offices of the senior administrator, the annual party will be held again this year.
A good Samaritan (also samaritan) is a person who is always ready to help someone else.
(saying) 'If you can't be good, be careful'.
good noun [U] There is an eternal struggle between good (=the force which produces morally right action) and evil. Ambition can sometimes be a force for good (=morally right action). The government could do a lot of good (=provide help) by sending aid to the area. Even a small donation can do a lot of good (=provide help). I'm punishing you for your own good (=to help you).
Someone who is up to no good behaves in a dishonest or bad way. Anyone who spends so much time taking other people to court is up to no good.
good plural noun The good means all the people who are good. You can't buy your way into the ranks of the good.
goodness noun [U] Mother Teresa's goodness is an example to us all.
FORMAL Would you have the goodness to (=please) phone me as soon as they arrive.
goody noun [C usually pl] A goody is someone who is good. It's one of those films where you don't know until the last moment who are (the) goodies and who are (the) baddies. The goodies usually win in the end.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
), but that doesn't require that whoever (your parents, or whoever we assign the credit to 
Numbers that large are hard to comprehend! Imagine if over 1/6 of America was just suddenly snuffed out. As I recall, a first strike war with the Soviet Union was predicted to cause less causulties than that 
