Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 08:59 AM       
Eye Tie, your scholarship is admirable and trustworthy. What's your take on wether Christendom during the crusades prevented Muslims from taking over the world?
Reply With Quote
  #127  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:40 AM       
Now, Max, if IS agrees with me, will you admit that you are a moron and that I was correct?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:52 AM       
IF Eye Tie agrees with you, and IF he presents actual facts that corespond with a theory that I can then take a look at, as opposed to your factually incorrect off the top of your head shrieking, and IF those facts in some bizarre way line up with what you said, I will certainly have learned something and will publicly admit it here, as I always do.

Those are whole lot of IFS, but IF they come to pass, I will certainly 'admit' that you had more of a point than I aoriginally assumed and that I shouldn't have dismissed you out of hand just because you are... well... you.

Still reading? This hasn't gotten to hard for you?

Would that make me a "Moron" and you "right"? Hardly. It would make me capable of actively examining other viewpoints. The worst it would mean about me, is that I was more dissmissive of you than perhaps I should have been, and concidering how hard you work at making yourself dismissible, I'm not that concerned in any case.

Here's the thing, though. While Eye Tie was dissmissive of Chimps argument, he supported yours NOT AT ALL. So don't wet your pull ups just yet.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 10:03 AM       
I don't care which one he supports. I just want to see you admit you are a moron. And a Jewish vampire.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 10:09 AM       
If your Aunt had a penis she'd be your Uncle.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 10:10 AM       
"You are a Jewish Jew! OH! Kevin! I am desperate for you to blow me!"
-Vinth
Reply With Quote
  #132  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 10:39 AM       
I'm not interested in converting or anything ... but just as a means to satisfy my curiousity ... does anyone (Undeath) know of a good website that explains satanism? This is showing my ignorance of the topic, I know, but doesn't Satan imply God, and being so, wouldn't it be better to be on the side of good? ... i.e. good and evil is a dichotomy in which the existenc of one implies the other. Or do you think that the Bible has it reversed and that God is the evil? By the way, I'm in no way putting these beliefs down. I'm asking.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 11:33 AM       
Italian, your long post is commendable, but it still shows off your "West is best" view of things.

Quote:
how much farther into Muslim controlled lands can JERUSALEM get? also, Acre, Syria, Anatolia? do any of those ring a bell?
You distinctly mentioned "lasting until the 14th century." Sure, Jerusalem was out there in the thick of it, and they were forced to surrender to the Muslims in in the late 12th, after about a century of Christian rule. Some of the earliest states only survived for a while as a castle and a few town because they agreed to not attack nearby Muslims... hardly a bastion of Christian might

Antioch, Acre, Tripoli, Syria... in fact, I can't find any reference to a Christian state that lasted well into the 13th... so, either you know about some Lost Kingdom that I don't know about or it was a typo that confused my simian mind. Regardless, the Crusader states that lasted the longest were the ones nestled against the Mediterannean and in the north where they were near reinforcements.

Quote:
the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians.
Really? You mean the Crusaders weren't so fired up that they stormed the walls of Jerusalem and killed every Jew and Muslim that they could find? One account from the day claimed that so many pagans had died that they were "up to their ankles in blood" and the survivors made "pyramids of bodies" for funeral pyres in which "only God new the number."

The Crusaders are just as guilty of slaughtering civilians and plundering--Crusaders kept killing and robbing Jews despite the Pope's declaration that they were to be left alone--as the Muslims, so to say that one side is characterized by violence more than the other is bullshit.

Quote:
also, are you referring to the hotly disputed primarliy French and Venetian invasion attempt? 'cause you know, that is really considered more of a Byzantine civil war
Yeah, and the French and Venetians reacted badly when they realized they weren't going to be paid for lending their support. Don't you find it a bit impious that they would be marketing themselves as mercenaries in the first place?

Anyways, this argument is going no where at this rate. My original point was that Vinth's claim that the Church was the only reason why we're all not wearing turbans right now is crap. There are too many variables to make a generalization like that, chief among them, I think, is the fact that Muslims don't usually forcefully convert entire populations.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Isaac Isaac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near Detroit, Nearer Ann Arbor...
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 01:18 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
If your Aunt had a penis she'd be your Uncle.
what a brilliant revelation!
__________________
BLAH!
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Zosimus Zosimus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 02:23 PM       
Undeath, Could you please describe to me, what the difference is between a "modern satanist" and "an old fashioned" satanist? Though I agree with you that Anton LaVey wasn't a complete idiot, I do have some questions pertaining to his "faith" especially in aspect to present time.
__________________
~I doubt, therefore I might be~
Reply With Quote
  #136  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 02:32 PM       
aye, the 14th century was a typo, I was typing too fast to notice it. although, Cyprus was converted from its former Byzantine heritage to a Crusader state that remained under Christian rule until 1571, but I wouldn't really count that. anyway, when the power in the Outremer states began shifting from the Kings to the military orders (Templars and Hospitallers) the end was pretty much near. with the fall of Aleppo, the only noteworthy Outremer cities still under Christian control were Montfort (held by the Teutonic Knights), Belvoir (held by the Hospitaller Knights), Chastel Blanc, and Saphet (both held by the Templar Knights). When the Pope called for a crusade against Aragon in 1282, that, along with the shift of power from the royalty to the military orders, ensured the end of the Outremer states. I believe that Acre, the last of the major Christian states, fell in 1290 to a combined effort of multiple Muslim nations and tribes. the last permanent Christian presence, a Templar garrison on the island of Ruad, lasted until 1302.

I don't know where you got your information about this agreement, but www.clownpenis.fart is not the most historically accurate source. most of the crusader states were under CONSTANT attack, whether it be just a raid or a full out siege. in the north, it was mostly the Seljuk Turks and in the south, the Kaliphates were the most serious threat (at least until the Mamluks began gaining influence in Egypt, but that wasn't until much later). Like I said, there was indeed some brutality on the part of the Christians, but the muslims were by far the MOST violent during the Crusades. know why? because they were a warrior society taught to show no mercy to the enemies of their home and the enemies of Islam. of course, this period of history is marked by violence, so to say that neither side was so would be foolish.

that "crusade" against the Byzantines was doomed from the start and Alexius IV was a moron. of course, there were times when the Byzantine walls were manned ENTIRELY by Italian mercs, so maybe it wasn't so hopeless. the decadent Byzantine Empire was simply on its last leg. i think that we are in agreement on this point.

as for Vince's claim, I don't think that the Muslims could have taken over the world. hell, if it was the entire Empire of Islam against the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor, I think the Muslims would be hard-pressed to win. now imagine them trying to tackle the Chinese. the mongols created some problems for the world and would have created more after their...acceptance (not conversion) of Islam had they desired to. although the Hungarians and Polocks had severly damaged their forces at Wahlstadt and Mohi, the Mongols were adept at winning while outmanned. it was never their intent to conquer Europe, however, they only wanted to remove the threat of Duke Henry of Silesia and King Bela of Poland while reclaiming the Cumans who had fled to Hungary. so no, I don't think that there was ever any danger of a Muslim conquest of the world.
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #137  
UnDeath UnDeath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bremerton, WA
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 04:18 PM       
http://groups.msn.com/SatanicEquinox/home.htm
Theres a good site fer ya, Kelly.
And Zosimus, itll also answer your question. Im sure its in the top ten F.A.Q. link in the top right of the page.
If you guys have any other questions, just open a new thread, so this one doesnt go any more off topic. Ill be happy to answer any questions if any of you have em.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 04:40 PM       
LaVeyan Satanism is garbage. That scam artist Anton basically lifted the tenets straight out of Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy, Objectivism.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 04:51 PM       
Well, there we go. Everyone agrees you're an idiot Vinth.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:12 PM       
the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians.

You're neglecting what happened when the first Crusaders arrived at Constantinople three months after Urban II's Deus Vult speech. Thousands were massacered, mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews. From 1090 onwards, I think it would be fair to say that the relationship between Western Europe and the Bynzantine Empire was fairly amiable. Remember that the first Crusade was begun to avenge "our brothers in Christianity" (or something of that sort) who died in Jerusalem... they certainly weren't Roman Catholic. The popes continued to try to make amends with the East well into the late fourteenth century, so animosity between the two sides on religious grounds was really quite negligible. My impression has always been that the Bynzantines were largely ignored simply because their power was decaying so rapidly that the Westerners didn't need to take them seriously.

Oh, and I think the Templar stronghold at Acre fell in 1296, not 1290.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #141  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:43 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
You're neglecting what happened when the first Crusaders arrived at Constantinople three months after Urban II's Deus Vult speech. Thousands were massacered, mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews.

From 1090 onwards, I think it would be fair to say that the relationship between Western Europe and the Bynzantine Empire was fairly amiable... so animosity between the two sides on religious grounds was really quite negligible. My impression has always been that the Bynzantines were largely ignored simply because their power was decaying so rapidly that the Westerners didn't need to take them seriously.

Oh, and I think the Templar stronghold at Acre fell in 1296, not 1290.
I suppose I hadn't taken all of that into consideration. I will concede the point for now.

The way that I understand it is that the East and West had shaky relations. Until the Crusades, the Saracens had been enough of a threat to Rome that they were willing to leave the Byzantines to their own business in the East, but their was a certain mistrust and contempt for the Byzantine Greeks. They were seen as a treacherous people that had been corrupted by the decadence of their empire. The emperors employed eunuchs not only as bodyguards to his wives, but also as high officials in Church and State. there were only four (i think) positions that were denied to them. Liudprand of Cremona, sent to Byzantium on a diplomatic mission by Emperor Otto I, described the Byzantines as "full of lies, tricks, perjury and greed. the city is rapacious, avaricious, and vainglorious" plus there was more than a measure of resentment of the Byzantines arrogance and the envy of such a magnificent city as Constantinople, one city that surpassed Rome in size and splendor. it was also a deeply religious society that was better educated than any of the western nations. in short, they had stayed true to the "Roman ideal."

on the religious front, many of the differences that had been growing between the two sects finally came out, such as the primacy of the two patriarchs, the allegiance of newly converted people (Bulgarians, Moldovians, etc.), and, most importantly, on doctrine-namely the veneration of images or icons of Christ and the saints. they Byzantines had begun to accept the Islamic belief that the veneration of religious icons was indistinguishable from the worship of graven images and false idols. the Roman pope had condemned this kind of iconoclasm, if it had succeded there would quite probably have been no Renaissance art. hell, for a time, the two sects were lobbing anathemas and excommunications at each other.

however, when it came to conflict with Islam, the two branches stood fast by each other.

regarding the fall of Acre, we were both wrong. the templar stronghold fell in 1291.
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 10:24 PM       
The iconoclasm issue was one that both sides argued since the fourth century, and I've always found it rather asinine how ambivalent the East was on the issue. Rome, having a rich history of sacramentals dating back to the paintings in 1st century catacombs, was always an ardent supporter of icons. The East, however, I believe began denouncing their use around the time of the Nicean Council but the Patriarchs of Constantinople changed their minds a few times on the issue before the Great Schism. I believe that the use of icons was finally deemed acceptable in the East around 950, and the golden age of Eastern icons spanned roughly 1300-1550. During the Crusades period came the development of the Bynzantine style of mosaic work, and I would assume that such would go against an iconoclastic ideal.

The "official" reason for the Schism was the felioque clause amended to the Nicene Creed by the Pope. That the Bishop of Constantinople severed relations over that is laughable, considering that it should be obvious from the letters of Leo the Great (which the Bynzantines conceded were right) that the Holy Spirit proceeds both through the Father and the Son. Basically, the East found the most petty issue possible and used it as an excuse to tell the West "fuck you." So yeah, I agree with you absolutely that the Bynzantines were prissy pissants.

Have you any thoughts on Justinian and Theodora?
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #143  
UnDeath UnDeath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bremerton, WA
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 02:58 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
LaVeyan Satanism is garbage. That scam artist Anton basically lifted the tenets straight out of Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy, Objectivism.
Thats why Im not LaVeyan. LaVeyans more or less use his word as Law, while Modern Satanists (at least, me) just agknowledge it as good advice regardless of its orgin, and perhaps use it as a starting point on our own personal philosophy. The majority these philosophies are very similar, hence the reason we are actually abe to join together in our little groups (or that big farce, the CoS).

regardless, why is it garbage? so what if he ripped it off? I know hes a liar, scam artist, what-have-you, but what is written in his Satanic Bible seems good like good sense to me. Im not giving him credit either way for writing it, I honestly dont give half a fuck. Ive more or less had the same basic philosophy since I was 14, and Ive been a MS for only just over a year.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 09:46 AM       
My dislike of satanism, if anyone really cares, is that its selfish and named after the biggest loser in the existance of reality. Why would you want to name your "religion" based on a being that loses in the end any way you slice it? That would be like if I named a religious group the Buffalo Billonians.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 10:41 AM        Satanism
It still makes me laugh......no one gets the joke.
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 11:30 AM       
Is it just me or did Vinth utterly ignore that every single person in the conversation, while they may disagree strongly about the nature of the Crusades, all think Vinth is a simpleton for not just stating but inisting that if not for the Crusades we would all now be under the Muslim thumb?

I just keep trying to picture you in Seminary. Or did you mean something different when you claimed you studied for the Priesthood? Did you perhaps really mean you went to Catholic school and had vague power fantasies about being a priest?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 11:34 AM       
Are you drunk on that fermated Arab Children's blood again, Max?

What the flying fuck are you talking about?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 12:15 PM       
Yeah, you're right, Vinth. It's pretty hard to figure out.

IF YOU CAN'T READ.

1.) Everyone, including Eye Tie, knows you were totally wrong in your childish, uniformed take on the crusades.

2.) It's hard to picture a lightweight religous numbskull like you being allowed to study for the priesthood, so my guess is, like your Submarine letter, you took a fairly meaningless aspect of your life, ie. attending a religous school, and pretended it was something more impressive, like studying to be a priest. As opposed to just, you know, daydreaming about it.

Was that easy enough for you to understand? Here, here's a simpler version.

1.) Vince wrong crusades. Vince dumb.

2.) Vince to dumb to be priest. Vince lie.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 12:25 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I just keep trying to picture you in Seminary. Or did you mean something different when you claimed you studied for the Priesthood? Did you perhaps really mean you went to Catholic school and had vague power fantasies about being a priest?
If the question would have been about fashion, I'm sure Vinth would have had a history of walkin' the boards as a runway model.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 12:27 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
1.) Vince wrong crusades. Vince dumb.

2.) Vince to dumb to be priest. Vince lie.
Man, are you that drunk, Max? What do the people where you work think about your affliction?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.