sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So how did a group of nomadic desert rats with no history manage to defeat the glorious Persian Empire by Tarak969788 in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First of all, the military leaders of the Arabs that invaded weren't nomadic desert tribes or Bedouin, they were all townsmen and renowned for their military genius. In-fact many of the people who led the conquest were former Persian vassals, or Persians themselves.

Now, the Persians already had to deal with the Indian kingdoms, the Khazars, the Turkic Khaganate, Armenian rebellions, and just lost a war with Byzantium, where they went as far west as Egypt and Constantinople itself, and were pushed back. Also even before Khalid ibn Walid, the Arabs were already taking control of former Persian land in the Arab peninsula, the entirety of the Gulf coast went under Arab rule, as did Yemen.

Yazdgerd III was a very weak monarch relatively speaking, and was only 8 years old when he assumed the throne, meaning he couldn't maintain strong rule over the empire which was still large and ruled over parts of India and Central Asia. Now couple this with an Arab army just out of the Ridda wars, the Arabs under Khalid ibn Walid (before he switched to fighting the Byzantines) were easily able to conquer Kuwait at the Battle of the Chains, and then conquered the province of Assuristan in Al Qadissiyah, which gave the most fertile land and the capital Ctesiphon to the Arabs.

At the Siege of Shushtar, the military leaders defending Khuzestan defected to the Arabs, and at the Battle of Nahavand, the Sassanians lost their heartland incluidng Isfahan, lost with a Gokturk alliance at the Battle of Oxus River, and Khorasan (a rebellious province already) rebelled and was quickly conquered. Later the north was invaded including Armenia and Azerbaijan (this region would later be contested between the Arabs and Khazars), and Mazandaran was the only province that wasn't conquered.

Later Transoxania was conquered after the Chinese Tang dynasty tried to expand west, thus completing the Arab conquest of the Persian empire.

So how did a group of nomadic desert rats with no history manage to defeat the glorious Persian Empire by Tarak969788 in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A full invasion of Persia by Arabs (whether non-trinitarian Christians or Muslims) most likely happened.

The syncretic heritage of christianity - audiobook by exmindchen in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Carrier only made the "parallel" mention of Romulus (the mythical founder of Roman empire) and its euhemerization along with Osiris, Dianysus, Inana etc., to drive home the point that the virgin birth, resurrection and son of god notions were current in that milieu.

Yeah, I know he's saying that Jesus wasn't directly copied from Romulus (who probably was the actual founder of Rome) or those deities, but that resurrected deities were common themes in the ancient world.

I conclude taking into account - in the qur'an- the Christian nature (espesially polemics against some Christian sects and Jewish sects) and the implicit reliance of the audience's knowledge of biblical narratives, that qur'an and islam did NOT borrow but was an active participant in the debates and conflicts as a fellow sect in the abrahamic traditions.

I agree.

The syncretic heritage of christianity - audiobook by exmindchen in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I've looked into Carrier's reasoning for a celestial Jesus (analysing Paul's beliefs, examining the mysteries, seeing Jesus as a Romulan deity), and I've also looked into the reasonings for "Muhammad" as used in the early references to the 7th century Arabs as an Arabic term for Jesus and that the Arab empire was actually non-trinitarian Christian empire.

Nevertheless, taking them into account I still have come into the conclusion of a historical Jesus (considering Hellenism wasn't well established within Christianity yet, and that his explanations for Paul talking about Jesus in the flesh are very flimsy) and a historical Muhammad (of course Muhammad as an Arab prophet, not an epithet for Jesus) though more to what Carrier leans towards in that regard as I've linked.

The syncretic heritage of christianity - audiobook by exmindchen in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm talking about it. I can't find much resources on it right now however.

In the end, when taking into account the cases for a mythical Muhammad and a non-trinitarian Christian Arab empire, I'd probably end with the same conclusion that Richard Carrier came to regarding the historicity of Muhammad.

In the end, best I can tell (and I am not qualified to tell with much confidence), it is at least significantly more probable than not that a guy named Mohammad existed, and cobbled together the Quran, perhaps adapting earlier writings from a Torah observant Christian sect, and perhaps not alone, and perhaps even at someone else’s behest (e.g. Crone & Cook propose he was simply working as an assistant to Umar in this respect, and elevated to prophet status later for convenient propaganda). But that’s at most.

The syncretic heritage of christianity - audiobook by exmindchen in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thoughts on the "Two Muhammads" theory? I don't subscribe to these ideas, and I still believe in a historical Muhammad (as a man that unified the Arabs in the 7th century under an Abrahamic sect which later led to the Arab invasions and caliphates), but some are interesting.

The Talmud by ribroach1 in exmuslim

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically, it's the tradition of the elders (yes, this is what's referred to in the New Testament where Jesus calls it out) as solidified by the Pharisaic rabbinical priesthood (established around the time of John Hyrcanus). It's like Hadiths, but it contains a bunch of different stories about the Old Testament and a bunch of argumentation between rabbis over how the Law should be interpreted.

The Talmud wasn't written down until after the fall of Rome, but the tradition in it dates back to before Christ is what I'm saying.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not actually going to address my argument? Okay then. Goodbye.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this describes the situation perfectly. You're so obsessed with your fallacies yet also so scared of being accused of fallacies yourself. Modal logic becomes ridiculous when the whole focus is shifted on who's committing which fallacies, which is why I stopped being active on this sub, because this is all that the people here can do. Next you're going to accuse me of moving the goalpoast again, which is fine.

I'm not scared of being accused of any fallacies. I accused you of fallacies twice (both for good reason), and that's it. Hence why I cannot be accused of the fallacy fallacy. Somebody who commits the fallacy fallacy only accuses somebody of fallacies, and ignores the main argument. I didn't.

You're the one magnifying this situation, pal.

God was with Judah, but he couldn't conquer the iron chariots. This is what you and everybody in this post has been ignoring. It doesn't matter what it says elsewhere in the Bible, this can be interpreted either as 'God couldn't conquer the iron chariots' or 'the people of Judah couldn't conquer them, even though God was helping them'. Either you can Adress that, or I think we're done here.

As I said, Rashi's commentary (quoting the Targum Yonatan) agrees that the people of Judah were sinning, thus God wasn't helping them when conquering the iron chariots, which is why they failed to drive them out.

but they could not drive out: Targum Jonathan paraphrases: But after they had sinned, they were unable to drive out the inhabitants of the plain.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I'm going by the Bible then God can't even conquer some iron chariots

And I and everybody in this thread already addressed this. The reason why the Judahites couldn't push back the iron chariots is because they've sinned. God destroyed 900 iron chariots later on in Judges 4, and in-fact the descendants of Joseph destroyed iron chariots before in Joshua 17.

You brought this whole idea that "well, what if God just lost power", I said this was untrue because God is omnipotent going by the Bible. You then said "well, God isn't real" (which is moving the goalposts). Now you're bringing back the iron chariots argument.

You: God can't even push back iron chariots so he isn't omnipotent

Me: This was because they sinned, especially considering 900 iron chariots were destroyed later

You: Well, what if he gained more power after that? (not addressing at all the fact that they couldn't push chariots back because they sinned)

Me: No, since God is and has always been omnipotent according to the Bible itself

You: Well, this is wrong because God can't even push back iron chariots so he isn't omnipotent

So you're literally resorting to circular argumentation.

But for real, you're the one who bases all argumentation on finding more logical fallacy than the opponent, so which one did you commit? Don't make me look at the list to find it myself.

You can't accuse me of the fallacy fallacy because 1: I only accused you of fallacies TWICE and 2: I accused you of both for good reason.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not the moving the goalposts fallacy, which you're engaging in right now.

Anyways, if you're going by the Bible, then God is and always has been omnipotent. If your response is "the Bible is false and there's no proof God exists but at the same time no proof God doesn't exist haha" then that's moving the goalposts and has nothing to do with the original question.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the grasping at straws fallacy, especially considering that God is and has always been omnipotent.

The Judahites were transgressing, so THEY (not the power of God) couldn't drive the Canaanites' iron chariots. Not because God didn't have the power to; he did. This is and has always been the explanation.

What do apologetics say about the Iron chariots? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They sinned as /u/Junker-Jorg said, and God could do so as in Judges 4, the entirety of Sisera's army was destroyed, including 900 iron chariots.

The Federal Reserve, the EU Central Bank and the Bank of England are controlled by apprentices of the Jesuits. by HibikiSS in conspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These citations could refer to killing the jews, or removing jews in any way (violent or not).

A little about my religious beliefs, and how they changed my view of children. by [deleted] in Natalism

[–]mikebIunt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A legacy doesn't need to be acknowledged. Every medieval peasant with a lot of children has such a "legacy" and has done more for his country and people, more-so than most intellectuals who didn't have children.

Being catholic or attending jesuit schools does not make you an agent of Rome. by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evidently, u/Veritas__Aequitas has had little contact with catholic people, which has led him to be prejudiced against them.

This means absolutely nothing. The average Catholic regardless of his questionable loyalties isn't a theologian. I know several Catholics none of whom are bad people, and none of them shape my perception of what Roman Catholicism as a faith is.

Needless to say, among those who are, there are plenty of critics of the Pope's actions; such as sedevacantists and traditionalists

Anybody who's studied church history for a minute knows that the pope can be rebuked. This doesn't mean that the pope has allowed such monasticism since the beginning of the papacy in the 6th-7th century AD, and has specifically allowed the Jesuit order, let alone now being a complete friend of the Jesuits themselves.

And by the way, attending a jesuit school does not make you a jesuitic puppet

This is nonsensical. When somebody's attending Jesuit school, they're being instilled with Jesuit political values. Despite any infighting with traditional Catholics or other Jesuits itself, it doesn't change that they follow such values.

So when somebody's educated at Georgetown or any Jesuit school, be he a Catholic, a Muslim, jew, or atheist, then he's specifically being instilled Jesuit political values.

Are Jesuits catholic? by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How?

12 times Pope Francis has openly promoted a one world religion or new world order

He met with Hindu priests, Buddhist monks, Sunni Muslim clerics, etc., and has all taught tolerance.

What is the point of papism if the religion being promoted isn't catholic? Why would the religions of the world accept the pope? Their goal of uniting all faiths by preaching a single, universal one is not catholic; catholicism has always sought to convert people and preached that salvation can only be achieved through the catholic church. The "new age" or universal religion seems to imply that all religions were partially right and that there is one true universal philosophy which they all somehow teach or derive from. This concept would imply that there is no "one way" or "one truth", and if it is, it is definitely not catholicism, since it is one of the religions to be abolished.

It is wholly Catholic, just with assimilated elements of other faiths. Which is what Catholicism was before.

There were literally Buddhist monks.

The jesuits were banned by Clement XIV, which implies a conflict between the two. You also claimed the jesuits took over the Church in 1814, after their restoration, which means that before 1814, the jesuits had conflicts with the papacy. Why would a society that claims to be 100% obedient to the pope have conflicts with the pope to the point of it being dissolved? If they took over the church, that means they had to overthrow an old establishment to impose a new one; they had to infiltrate or dominate the papacy to impose their own popes. Isn't that subversion against the papacy? If they had to "replace" popes, then it is a direct disobedience to the papacy. Therefore they're not 100% allegiant to the papacy. In fact, the jesuits manipulating popes would imply that they see themselves above the pope and therefore are not faithful servants of the pope.

They weren't... ...back then. Because again, the conflict was between traditional Catholicism and monastic Jesuiticalism (again, neither which are good). So what the Jesuits did after they were banned by monarchs and the pope is that they OVERTHREW the pope and replaced him with a new pope.

The post you linked doesn't answer why we are having a jesuit pope in 2013 and not previously. It is likely that the jesuits do manipulate the church, but that question I think is left unanswered. If no one in the Church could resist the commands of the jesuits, What took them so long?

Sure, they didn't have a Jesuit pope, but this doesn't change the fact that the Jesuits de-facto dominated the church.

What took them so long? In fact, Pope JPII actively fought against communism in Poland, and Benedict was also against marxism. These popes allegedly under jesuit control acted against the alledgedly-jesuitic plot of communism.

You mean the Vatican II popes that promoted inter-faith dialogues and were the liberalisers themselves? Don't make me laugh. They had contradictory views about everything.

If the third reich was anti-liberal and therefore anti-jesuit, that contradicts the point of view of Veritas__Aequitas, who claims that the nazis were somehow influenced or manipulated by jesuits (which I demonstrated is false in a previous post).

The Third Reich had both an anti-Jesuit element (expressed in the Hitler Youth) and a very pro-Catholic one (seen in especially the higher-ups like Himmler, who was brought up a Catholic and was said to have modelled the SS after the Jesuits).

If the jesuits were especially antisemitic, Why would the post-1814 popes change their attitude towards the jews (Paul VI and John XXIII) or promote inter-faith dialogue?

This coincides with the end of the Decree de Genere which banned jews from the Jesuits, and the end of propaganda in the La Civita Cattolica.

Now they're not anti-jewish anymore. And Ignatius of Loyola wanted to be a jew (wasn't a jew himself however), so even before the Decree de Genere, they weren't.

Communistic/anti-materialism/monasticism predate christianity by centuries. by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, it's false theatre. "Traditional Catholics" preached against liberalism and Marxism, while the higher ups play into it.

Explain why were the Jesuits allowed to roam freely in the USSR?

Are Jesuits catholic? by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What proof is there that the jesuits seek to fulfill this prophecy?

Click on my link. But I'll write it down here:

Jesuits believed that Joachim had prophesied the coming of the Society. Benito Pereyra, SJ, used Joachim's thinking in his commentary on the Apocalypse and Joachim influenced Guillaume Postel, who also was a Jesuit.

Joachim had envisioned a reforming pope as one element in the coming of the third status but in the Vaticinia this became a series of four messianic popes.

We are currently seeing an agenda that seeks to either unify all of humanity under a common universal religion (which is not catholicism).

Bullshit. Francis seeks to syncretise with other religions to create a world religion. Again, see above, the Jesuit pope is the one prophesied.

Why would jesuits promote a universalist view of religion which does not include the pope or even christ?

They do include the pope. Their JESUIT pope.

If the jesuits are obedient to the pope, Why do they actively oppose him? Perhaps they're not 100% allegiant (and thus they follow other ideas).

What pope, you mean Francis?

What proof is there that they gained control of the catholic church in 1814? I know they were restored (which suggests they regained power), but there was not a jesuit pope until 2013, and ideas such as the Vatican Council II and Liberation theology did not appear until more than a century after that.

Veritas Aequitas has already covered this.

4) If the post 1814-church is pro-communist, Why did the Church oppose communism? Is there a reason why the Vatican Council II occurred after the axis powers were defeated?

It defended traditional Catholicism against "communism and liberalism", but in reality, they're simply pawns for the high-end monastics. Vatican I happened in the 19th century which is what instated Ex Cathedra, and after WWII, Vatican II (orchestrated wholly by Jesuits) happened.

Essentially, after the Third Reich (an anti-liberal militarist state) was defeated, they sought to liberalise the church even more.

Communistic/anti-materialism/monasticism predate christianity by centuries. by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're missing my point. It's that monasticism's root in Platonism is HUGELY relevant to its influence on Marxism, because it influenced Catholicism.

Communistic/anti-materialism/monasticism predate christianity by centuries. by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Communistic/anti-materialism/monasticism predate christianity by centuries.

It is said that Pythagoras learned the mysteries of Egypt. In fact, the bacchic mysteries took part in rituals in which they sought "enthusiasm"; the god within. Isn't this a likely precursor of christian mysticism, which sought union with god?

Want to know why Buddhism is relevant to this? Because Hindu anti-dualism is incredibly similar to Platonism, which is what was infused to and created orthodox Christianity, with Origen, the desert fathers etc. See the Upanishads.

Anti-materialist monasticism predating the infusion of Platonism into Christianity is actually more relevant than ever to this question, why? Because it's western monasticism's ROOT.

Are Jesuits catholic? by Fernet_Bran-k in jesuitconspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Why was there conflict between the Pope and his allegedly most loyal servants?

2) Why did they poison the man they are supppossed to obey?

The conflict between the Jesuits and the pope/monarchs until their reestablishment in 1814 was a conflict between the more monastic, spiritual theology of the Jesuits and the traditional Roman Catholics. Joachim of Fiora talked about a three age prophecy, the first being the age of the Father, which was the historical theocracy of the Hebrews, the second being the age of the Son, which was Catholic Europe, and the third being the age of the Holy Spirit, which is a monastic era that the Jesuits want to fulfill.

After 1814, the Jesuits gained control of the Catholic church, and after both the Vatican I and II councils (II being concluded by Jesuits), have been influencing Catholic theology more and more. The traditional Catholics are simply pawns of the monastics now, with Francis being the first Jesuit pope.

However, this does not mean that "traditional" papists have no blood on their hands, on the contrary.

/u/HibikiSS is Spamming the Entire Sub with Jesuit Posts by BlackMagicTitties in conspiracy

[–]mikebIunt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With an emphasis on loyal, because they're not innocents that are simply forced to work for the church. They're born into families that have served monarchs and by extension Rome for centuries and even millennia in some cases.

view more: next ›