Girl, 16, hanged in Iran

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-25 01:07pm

Thinkmarble wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote: If you were able to eliminate the centuries of learning, then yes, it might. Most of teh cruelty of the middle ages stemmed from ignorance and fear, which are not as prevelant today.
Gosh, I'm happy that we have had century of lerning so that it can not happen that people propose genocide by nuking the middle east.

I was thinking for of the Inquisition and witch hunts.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 01:10pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
Thinkmarble wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote: If you were able to eliminate the centuries of learning, then yes, it might. Most of teh cruelty of the middle ages stemmed from ignorance and fear, which are not as prevelant today.
Gosh, I'm happy that we have had century of lerning so that it can not happen that people propose genocide by nuking the middle east.
I was thinking for of the Inquisition and witch hunts.

That's...worse? Mr. Sheppard's idea of killing all the Muslims is medieval.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-25 01:12pm

And Shep is a rather...unique individual.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-08-25 01:13pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:And Shep is a rather...unique individual.

Little green footballs ?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 01:22pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:And Shep is a rather...unique individual.

You think he's the only person who wants to destroy the Middle East? He is hardly special or unique. Read through the right nation . us forums for a clue.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 01:46pm

Falkenhayn wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Christian fundamentalism in America has been bad for human beings, make no mistake, and it still is bad for human beings. But as a source of human suffering, it simply does not rise to the same level as extremist Islam.
America is a young country, historically speaking. It did not exist as a nation during the height of Christian atrocities, so this is a bit of a dodge on your part. Historically, medieval Christians in Europe did do most of the things that modern Muslim extremists do.

The modern prevailing interpretation of the Bible prohibits theocracy, but it's quite frankly absurd to say that the Bible intrinsically does so, since it contradicts itself on numerous levels and was interpreted as overt support for theocracy for centuries (does the "divine right of kings" ring a bell?).
In terms of Christian Theocracy, what is your opinion of the Byzantine Empire?

It declined soon after becoming a theocracy, and eventually collapsed. Theocracy is bad for both the state and the church, the state because it's being run by clergy who don't know what to do with a nation, and the church because of the corrupting influence of political power. It's a bad idea all around.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-25 01:57pm

Why? It wouldn't happen overnight, but given a couple of centuries with no more Bill of Rights and theocratic control of the state, I think it's inevitable that we would start seeing a return of medieval behaviour.

I don't think so. Christian fundies in America have at least advanced to the 1950s, where Islamic fundies still have to get past 950.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2004-08-25 01:59pm

Perinquus wrote: The Irish didn't have a standing tradition of terrorism before the 1920s either. Middle Eastern, Arab cultures appear to have developed theirs at about the same time.

Hmm I think the assassins can be called terrorist. They were formed in the eleventh centuary AFAIK. They employed sucide attackers just like many modern islamic terrorists.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-25 02:03pm

While we're on Iran, here's something I found that's kind of cool about how Iranian women are slowly chipping away at the dress code:

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August ... index.html

And some of these women are hot.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-25 03:33pm

Thunderfire wrote:
Perinquus wrote: The Irish didn't have a standing tradition of terrorism before the 1920s either. Middle Eastern, Arab cultures appear to have developed theirs at about the same time.
Hmm I think the assassins can be called terrorist. They were formed in the eleventh centuary AFAIK. They employed sucide attackers just like many modern islamic terrorists.

They were also destroyed by the Mongols during the Middle Ages, and the Islamic world had nothing like them for centuriesafter that, so this hardly represents a continuing tradition.

And they weren't really quite the same in any case. Leaders have been getting assassinated as long as there have been leaders. And the assassins were people who targeted individual leaders. They tried to kill specific people to achieve their ends. Modern terrorists kill more or less indiscriminately in order to spread terror widely among the whole populace. The assassins had some similarities to modern terrorists, but their methods were quite different.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-08-25 04:16pm

Joe wrote:While we're on Iran, here's something I found that's kind of cool about how Iranian women are slowly chipping away at the dress code:

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August ... index.html

And some of these women are hot.

Wow, a lot of them are really hot.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 04:34pm

Rogue 9 wrote:It declined soon after becoming a theocracy, and eventually collapsed. Theocracy is bad for both the state and the church, the state because it's being run by clergy who don't know what to do with a nation, and the church because of the corrupting influence of political power. It's a bad idea all around.

Gross oversimplification of the Byzantine Empire. The state kept a firm thumb over the clergy and held extraordinary influence over their church for its entire existance, much to the discomfort the western Patriarchs of Rome.

The Byzantine Emperors used religion properly, as a tool for keeping the uncleaned (and zealous, at the time) masses inline.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-25 04:43pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Joe wrote:While we're on Iran, here's something I found that's kind of cool about how Iranian women are slowly chipping away at the dress code:

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August ... index.html

And some of these women are hot.
Wow, a lot of them are really hot.

*gawks*

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-25 04:53pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Falkenhayn wrote:In terms of Christian Theocracy, what is your opinion of the Byzantine Empire?
It declined soon after becoming a theocracy, and eventually collapsed. Theocracy is bad for both the state and the church, the state because it's being run by clergy who don't know what to do with a nation, and the church because of the corrupting influence of political power. It's a bad idea all around.

Declined soon after becoming a theocracy? It did no such thing. From the first, when the Emperor Constantine ambraced Christianity after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the emperor set himself up as the head of the curch, and vice-regent of God on earth, with authority even over the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope). It was as head of the Church that Constantine presided over the first ecumenical council of Nicea in AD325. This situation remained right up to the very end, and religion and politics in the Byzantine Empire were always inextricably mixed.

By the way, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge was on October 28, 312, and the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire, marked by the fall of Constantinople was May 29 1453. So very far from entering a decline "soon after becoming a theocracy", the empire persisted as a theocracy for well over a thousand years.

What really sent the Byzantine Empire into an irreversible decline was the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which resulted in the loss of central Anatolia to the Turks. This was rich farmland, vital to the economic life of the Empire, and was also the primary recruiting ground for the army, which meant the Byzantines would be forced more and more to rely on mercenary troops from this point on.

I hate to break it to you man, but you really need to read up on your history before making statements like this. You couldn't be more wrong about this.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 04:57pm

Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-25 05:06pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...

They are Rome.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 05:07pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.

Rome let itself be overcome by Christianity?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-08-25 05:07pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.

I think he meant they Western Roman Empire, with the actual city state of Rome...

Then again, he could mean yellow chickens...

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-25 05:17pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.
Rome let itself be overcome by Christianity?

Christianity may have had something to do with the fall of the western half of the Empire, but it's rather doubtful. There were economic and political factors that had sent it into a decline even before Constantine embraced Christianity, especially the 3rd century crisis, when the Empire was wracked with civil wars for an entire century. This was followed by a long series of barbarian migrations and invasion which the weakned Empire was ill prepared to meet. And when Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople, shifting the political center to the east, the west really declined.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 05:22pm

Perinquus wrote: *snip*

Oh, I don't believe it myself. I was trying to figure out what Rogue 9 could possibly mean by "I meant Rome."

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-25 05:48pm

I feel a disturbance in the Force...could it be, a thread split? Please?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 06:10pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.

Not really. They're called the Eastern Roman Empire, but except for a brief interlude under Justinian, Rome itself was never within Byzantine borders.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-25 06:41pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.
Not really. They're called the Eastern Roman Empire, but except for a brief interlude under Justinian, Rome itself was never within Byzantine borders.

Yes, but politically, they were a direct continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which didn't fall when the western half did. The Byzantines never referred to themselves as Byzantines, that's just what we call them today. They always referred to themselves as Romaioi - Romans. And even centuries after Rome had ceased to be a part of their empire, the Byzantine emperor always was referred to as Basileus Romaioi - Emperor of the Romans - to show that he was heir to the throne and the authority of the Emperor Augustus, which he was.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-25 06:53pm

And take into account the fact that the Roman Empire (before west or east existed) moved the capitol to Constantinople. The Eastern and Western thing was really a government policy to control both halves, the West never "fell". The lands of what was the Western Empire slowly were taken, crumbled etc. Until it was up to the Eastern Empire borders, but it was still the same Empire. Justinian even pressed out to reconquer some of the lost lands, still as the Roman Empire.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-08-25 06:57pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.
Not really. They're called the Eastern Roman Empire, but except for a brief interlude under Justinian, Rome itself was never within Byzantine borders.

The last Empire that claimed to be a successor to the Roman Empire was the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, dissolved in 1806.
"Rome" doesn't necessarily mean the Roman Empire as it was first implemented...