- Reaction score
Nobody forces you to read or to reply.
No body forces me to do my laundry either, but it gets done nonetheless.
And we are still talking about the same thing. Only this time, the question has been turned around on its head and your "shared observation" and its validity is what is being questioned.I certainly don't know what is in your head, or what point you think you are making. We were talking about the difference between shared observation and private revelation as sources of truth,
Somebody? LoLz...and I agree that neither is infallible, but certainly trying to find out the truth by taking as our first principle,
"Believe whatever somebody says if he claims to speak for God,"
Mr. Elijah, I am not one to follow just anybody. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that already.
Here's my principle: I don't exist, and neither do you. Nothing has any inherent existence except God, as He was the only entity that was not created. I call this reverse existentialism. As it agrees with the proposition: existence before essence, only it does not consider anything created as having properties of fundamental existence.
No contradiction required whatsoever. Faith does not claim a rational motivation or purpose. I believe the Quran is the word of God and the Prophet is the final messenger as a proposition based in faith, not reason. I believe this because it is written in the Quran and resonates with me on a personal level.would only lead to contradiction, since you would have to believe the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita the same as the Bible and the Qur'an.
At the same time, even though I believe those who do not accept this reality are mistaken, I do not see myself as superior to them because I did not EARN this knowledge. (occasionalism, again).
I was quite the rebel actually and rejected everything my parents ever told me. And by the way, my parents were never the ones who forced religion on me, I was pulled towards that direction by abstract forces that I have no reason to explain to you.You would need some prior principle to decide which prophet you were going to rely on. Most people who rely on some spokesman for God make their choice on the principle of believing what their parents told them, but of course we all learn that our parents are just fallible people, not the gods they appear to infants.
I would not be "defending" the Quran by claiming any such thing. In fact, I would be going against its own verses. It is stated in the Quran that if God wanted to convert everyone to Islam through the Quran He would have. This verse was revealed at a time when the Prophet was severely distressed that his mission in Makkah was (seemingly) failing. God told him that it was not his job to convert everyone through the Quran.Your reply, apparently, is that no human reasoning leads to perfect truth: well, who said it did? We are always dealing in greater or lesser probabilities, not in certainties; we are finite beings after all. Do you have anything to say that would defend the Qur'an, make it seem more probable that it is a source of truth?
For Abdullah to claim that the Quran can be empirically verified as the truth goes against this principle. God created vareity in life and set man apart from man so that "we may know each other" and ultimately come to the realization that we are all the same, regardless of everything.
Now, why would I claim that the Quran is empirically the source of objective truth, knowing that? Because that is what I believe, is a separate issue and due to faith, not reason.
Indeed you are, from someone who does not sleep around and does not interfere in the affairs of others. I consider my own conduct more moral than Muhammad's in this respect.
what "rights" ???What does that have to do with the topic? We were talking about what justification there could be for giving lesser rights to the adopted than to blood kin.
The right to marry someone that person has already divorced??
Your the one who asked me if I knew what "books" were.If you're just going to be nasty, why don't you just go away? You seem to have ceased taking any enjoyment in the conversation a long time ago.
We're already past this. We both know your source is not even contradicting mine as he was talking about the 1860sUniversity of Toronto is a perfectly respectable school. So is New York University, which is somewhat larger. I did not disrespect your source, why should you disrespect mine? I did not "pull him out of a hat" for this discussion, it was the book on modern Jewish history that I happened to already have on hand.
figuring out my motivations is beyond your capacities.I do enjoy learning new things, which is my principal motive for engaging in such conversations. I'm not sure what the motive is on your side, since you show zero willingness to learn, and little taste for debate.
This contradicts your original position on the issue which states that "the Arabs started it"I am certainly not arguing that the Palestinian decision to turn to random violence came out of nowhere, with no grievances to drive it. I am simply saying that choosing the path of violence was a poor decision on their part, which has made their situation much worse than it needed to be.
You just admitted that they had legitimated grievances for their actions. To say that it was strategically a poor decision (in hindsight) means nothing. Their actions were a direct result of the Jewish actions in their homeland. So they didn't "start" anything.
I am sure if I do a little digging some dirt will be uncovered on this land grab as well. Maybe when I have a little more time.Yes, well, when you spend money and buy a home, one of the things you are supposed to get for your money is the right to live there. They didn't buy "all" the land, only from those who were willing to sell.
As if they really had their interest's in mind. If they did, you'd think they would have at least consulted them on it.Which would have been good for the Arabs as well, if they could have accepted it. Should it have remained an Ottoman province forever?
Ideally, the foreigner who buys the house next to yours, in your birth place, is not planning on separating and forming his own country next door.Ideally, if I buy the house next to yours, I would hope that you would not try to burn me out just because I am not "your kind" of person (wrong religion, wrong skin-color, wrong sexuality, whatever). If you liked the old neighbors better, fine, you don't have to invite me to your parties, but it's no business of yours who the neighbors chose to sell to.
The Arabs certainly thought they were about to... self-fulfilling prophecy? Not if you consider the recent evidence of Hess's influence on the entire movement.Uh... Jews weren't TAKING anything, at that point.
It's not the "living there" that set off the Arab attacks.You are claiming that, just by living there, they were committing a crime that justified murdering them.
I gave a quick example of how you were wrong. I never said that the first born rule was ALWAYS prevalent.No, succession by the first born was not an automatic thing until quite late;
But this still does not answer my objection that it doesnt matter how kings become kings or how dynasties start. The end result is a sharp distinction between royalty and the rest.
again with this...The kings were not a separate "class" from the knights:
Oh you mean the same blood that was kept "pure" through generations of incest among all the royal blood lines of Europe? Is that the blood your talking about, and how freely it supposedly intermingled with the rest?it was all one extended family, tied together by blood and intermarriage,
Kings wont even be PRESENT on most of the battlefields! And when the were, the idea that they often ended up "in the thick of it" is absurd. Sometimes, yea maybe.No: although the kings were always surrounded by guard units and their chances of getting killed were less than that of lower-ranking soldiers, they often ended up in the thick of it.
Exactly, like I said, most people use the term in that sense. If you want to get technical to that level, then fine, whatever.Didn't you even read your own link? It is just a pointer elsewhere: it says, if you find somebody talking about a "warrior monk" this or this is probably what they really mean.
Please show me a quote of myself saying that MOST of the crusaders were the Templars or Teutonics or Hospitallers. If that was the case, the Europeans would have easily won every single crusade.My objection was originally not about the fine semantics, but about your implication that most of the crusaders were monks in origin,
Again, this suggests the US requires no (nor did it ever require) as large a military as it possesses. When was the last time the US was threatened by an invasion from the outside?But defending from invasion by outsiders was not one of their concerns, so the need for a military dominating the governance of Niue as a whole never existed.
The fact is that you can not rest the claim that this society was not militaristic based on the fact that it was not expecting to be over run.
hmmmmm,Perhaps we are just not using the word "class" in the same way. There was always a sharp distinction of "rank" within the military caste, but I call the whole caste ("caste" in the Indian sense of an extended family with a shared occupation) one "class"; the medieval term was "estate".
i am willing to accept this.
tell that to that poodle sarkozyThe French almost never toe the American line. That rupture has never really healed.
in any case, i was talking about the german issue today.