Posted on 09/15/2014 8:56:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[SNIP]
Well, if ISIS is not Islamic, then the Inquisition was not Catholic. The fact is that there are no defensible criteria for whether a faith is “true,” since all faiths are man-made and accrete doctrine—said to come from God, but itself man-made—that becomes integral to those faiths. Whatever “true faith” means, it doesn’t mean “the right religion: the one whose God exists and whose doctrines are correct.” If that were so, we wouldn’t see Westerners trying to tell us what “true Islam” is.
No, if “true” means anything, it must mean “true to some principles.” As far as I can see, there are only two such principles: true to scripture or true to some code of conduct that the writer approves. But these definitions often contradict each other, so no “true” religion can be specified.
First, the truest religion could be that which sticks the closest to scripture. In that case the “truest” Christianity and Judaism would be literalist and fundamentalist. They would adhere to the creationism set out in Genesis, as well as to the immoral behaviors sanctioned by God in the Old Testament. These include killing those children who curse their parents, as well as adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath. Although these are clear moral dictates of God, no modern Christians or Jews obey them, for the rules are reprehensible. Nevertheless, there is a case to be made that a fundamentalist Southern Baptist is a “truer Christian” than a liberal Unitarian, and a misogynist Orthodox Jew a truer believer than a modern reform Jew.
You can cherry-pick the Qur’an as easily as you can the Bible, for both are filled with calls for violence and genocide that distress us.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
Does my posting a excerpt require me to also be an advocate for that position?
“Does my posting a excerpt require me to also be an advocate for that position?”
Nope. But do you find God’s Old Testament law reprehensible, Alex?
Do you think that I do, vladimir998?
“Do you think that I do, vladimir998?”
Do you find God’s Old Testament law reprehensible, Alex?
You don’t advance a society when its brightest minds are shackled in fear that they will be accused of heresy and burned or imprisoned for their writing or discoveries. You don’t advance knowledge by banning books with which you disagree. And you certainly don’t grow an economy by crusading against your own people that might believe differently than the state or the majority religion. It should be obvious, especially from our perspective. Look at the prosperity and rapid growth of America. What was the primary difference between us and the rest of the world - freedom from both religious and state despotism.
There was not a specific year, or even century, but a gradual decline in the despotism of religion and the state. On a spiritual level, I think a good answer can be found in Psalm 119:130 - The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. There is a whole lot of Truth in that verse. When people finally had the opportunity to study the Word in their own language and in their own home, the Blessing began to work in their lives just as God promises.
If I had to pick a moment, I think the invention of mass communication - the printing press starting in the late 15th century, is a good place to start, but one of many factors. Historians claim anywhere from the 13th to the 14th as the end of the Dark Ages. It certainly varied throughout Europe.
Muslims and Protestants were founded for the same reasons. They both hate the Catholic Church.
The Kennedys and the rest are as much christian as the millions and millions of protestants that voted for Obama. But you know what, there’s one big difference in pro-abortion Cafeteria Catholics and pro-abortion protestants. At least the pro-abortion catholics admit they are for abortion. Try asking any of the 95% of black protestants that voted for Obama if they believe in killing babies on demand. The vast majority of them will say they are pro-life and don’t believe in abortion, and they stay in church just about all day on Sunday. Praise da lawd, now don’ be talkin’ bout Obama, cause dat make you a racist.
well then, ISIS is islam
that is the point the article is trying to make
if all Christians were crusaders then all muslims are ISIS
lol!
Martin Luther was just like Osama Bin Laden
I guess I will just have to see if I can get by with letting people believe what they will or what they won`t.
My faith is in Jesus Christ and what he said, religion may or may not have anything to do with faith so there is no such thing as a true religion unless maybe it is Satanism.
I am not an apologist, I believe what you see is what you get.
hate to burst your bubble pal, but the inquisition was NOT catholic...
is was the spanish government that imposed this one..
as a matter of fact, when the accused were faced with the inquisition, they BEGGED to be tried by the catholic church...
although the catholic church was indeed complicit, they accounted for less than 10% of the sentences...
facts are a funny thing, if you look for them, there they are...
and whoever wrote this thing is complicit with the KKK, Nazis, Communists, and any other organization that has declared war upon christians ( yes catholics are christians)....
I asked for the following:
“Tell me the year - or even the century - in which the “Dark Ages” ended and which saw the dawn of an age of “more religious, personal, and academic freedom, sparked technological advancements and thriving economies in the West, even more with New World wealth and resources.””
I got:
“You don’t advance a society when its brightest minds are shackled in fear that they will be accused of heresy and burned or imprisoned for their writing or discoveries.”
And when and where exactly did that happen?
“You don’t advance knowledge by banning books with which you disagree.”
When did the banning of books coincide with no advancement in society? Give me an exact example.
“And you certainly don’t grow an economy by crusading against your own people that might believe differently than the state or the majority religion.”
But every historian talks about how the crusades did “grow an economy” from East to West. Also, if a society thinks a crusade against its own members, then the growing of the economy is not the major issue now is it?
“It should be obvious, especially from our perspective. Look at the prosperity and rapid growth of America. What was the primary difference between us and the rest of the world - freedom from both religious and state despotism.
“There was not a specific year, or even century, but a gradual decline in the despotism of religion and the state.”
Really? Where? When? Name the place and time. It certainly wasn’t with the end of the Dark Ages.
“If I had to pick a moment, I think the invention of mass communication - the printing press starting in the late 15th century, is a good place to start, but one of many factors.”
Movable type presses did not end but instead helped make more possible the despotism of the state. Also, the economy had been rapidly growing for more than 300 years before that. The ‘Dark Ages” ended 300 before that as well. Thus, your “pick” makes no sense when compared to your earlier claims.
“Historians claim anywhere from the 13th to the 14th as the end of the Dark Ages.”
That is laughably wrong. I have a PhD in Medieval History. No reputable historian claims the ‘Dark Ages’ ended in the 13th to 14th centuries. This may be more your speed on this obvious fact: http://www.amazon.com/Search-Dark-Ages-Michael-Wood/dp/0816047022
That’s why Ker wrote in 1904: “The Dark Ages and the Middle Ages — or the Middle Age — used to be the same; two names for the same period. But they have come to be distinguished, and the Dark Ages are now no more than the first part of the Middle Age, while the term mediaeval is often restricted to the later centuries, about 1100 to 1500, the age of chivalry, the time between the first Crusade and the Renaissance. This was not the old view, and it does not agree with the proper meaning of the name.” W. P. Ker, The Dark Ages, (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1904), 1.
And Christopher Snyder refers to the “so-called Dark Ages” in 1998: “Historians and archaeologists have never liked the label Dark Ages...there are numerous indicators that these centuries were neither ‘dark’ nor ‘barbarous’ in comparison with other eras.” C. Snyder, An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600, (Univ. Park: Penn State Univ. Press). 1998), pp. xiii–xiv.
As Ralph Raico wrote: “The stereotype of the Middle Ages as ‘the Dark Ages’ fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars.” http://mises.org/daily/2404
I suggest you read a good book.
“It certainly varied throughout Europe.”
Not as much as reliable knowledge about history varies on FreeRepublic.
Who decides which historians / history is reputable?
“well then, ISIS is islam”
Yes, it is.
“that is the point the article is trying to make
if all Christians were crusaders then all muslims are ISIS”
False comparison. ISIS is ISLAM because ISIS theology and practice is part and parcel of ISLAMIC theology and practice. Not all Christians need be crusaders for the crusades to be Christian.
Joe,
You wrote:
“hate to burst your bubble pal, but the inquisition was NOT catholic...”
Yes, it was, in itself, although it was based upon an ancient Roman legal practice.
“is was the spanish government that imposed this one..”
Yes and no. Not all inquisitions were in Spain. The Spanish one was not imposed by Spain without the Church for the pope gave permission for it. The problem with the Spanish inquisition was that it was heavily controlled by the SECULAR government and resisted repeated attempts by popes to reform it to bring it into proper legal practice.
By the way, if you read the pope’s establishment letter given to Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1470s it is clear the pope wanted to save souls and stop violence. The Spanish monarchs, however, viewed the inquisition as a tool to aid their program of nation building by uniting people.
“as a matter of fact, when the accused were faced with the inquisition, they BEGGED to be tried by the catholic church...”
Actually, when faced with a SECULAR trial, people often begged to be tried by a Church court - a bishop’s court. That probably also applied to inquisition courts because they were so much more lenient than secular courts.
“although the catholic church was indeed complicit, they accounted for less than 10% of the sentences...”
I don’t know what that means. What sentences? Where? When? Which inquisition?
I’ll assume you are being sarcastic because the other possibility would be too funny/tragic.
Actually, the Spanish inquisition wasn’t catholic but secular. It was even condemned by the pope.
the papal inquisition was catholic and had stricter rules than the secular courts at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.