There is nothing hilarious or ironic in cultural nihilism which you represent .

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jan 11, 2012 at 15:47

BB King wrote

> Ianus, at least come to this agreement. Please tell me that you find the irony hilarious.

I gave you a site, the title of which is: Jesus Never Existed. Many times on this very thread I have told you that I am atheist. Yet you quoted Jesus in order to defend yourself, counter my assertions and persuade me to see your viewpoint. ROTL LOL! <

I wish you were a more self-critical person. I doubt e.g. you can imagine that the authors of the webpage you rely upon so heavily are hardly competent to determine whether Jesus existed or not. But even assuming the most unlikely version that they are right and he didn't exist , so what? Does it follow that Jesus' teaching hasn't existed either or our moral values based upon this teaching are forthwith abrogated and nullified ? You must be a very poor in spirit person if you can't see this obvious point, namely that denying Christ's existence doesn't change that much. It doesn't abolish or even undermine the moral ideas of Christianity and the last 2000 years of our written history shaped by them.

> I don't care what your imaginary friend says. Please keep your delusions as Richard Dawkins likes to call it, to yourself do not infect me with it.<

What you call "my imaginary friend" is a person that has determined the course of moral and spiritual and thus material history for the last two thousand years in the civilized world and has a very compelling moral point. With all due respect for Dawkins' genius I doubt Dawkins or even you will determine a decade of history. Dawkins is an admirable scientist, yet I doubt he is himself without any "delusions" either and by denying two thouand years of recorded history I am afraid Dawkins has encroached upon a province he's alien to and can't ay so many relevant things about.

So do you think that I should find denying two millenia of our cultural existence hilarious ? You say you're an atheist. I can't clearly figure out what you mean by it. What I can clearly see though in front of me is a cultural nihilist, a dogmatic person,visibly unaware of what foundations our civilization have been built upon and happy to deny the person that have contributed so much to its construction. What I find hilarious is that at the same time I notice such a proclivity in you to moralize and preach in your other arguments. There is a suspicion I can't get rid of. Don't you say 'Jesus never existed' because you're trying hard to play his role here and there in miniature ?

> But on a more serious note you're using the Tu quoque fallacy.No nation in the history of the world has clean hands. This is because nations are social constructs i.e., human creations and human beings are fallible, greedy, murderous and inherently evil.Only the law restrains our darkest passions, which we no doubt exhibited in the jungle until one day as Thomas Hobbes said and I paraphrase we found out that: life in the jungle is nasty, brutish and short.<

And what is your point? That you're the Law , you know the Law or that the Law bought in America by different lobbies to promote their narrow interests makes you superior to the rest of mankind and gives you a right to be a judge while you're in fact just an interested party to the lawsuit?

<"Anyway, how many Tatar "national heroes" fought in the Polish army at the gates of Vienna in 1683 or during our earlier Polish-Turkish wars?">

This source claims: "The Lipkas (tartars) fought in 1683 under King John III at Vienna, and their merits were recognised and rewarded at the 1684 Diet."

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/ntstar/history.htm

Click on origin and history of Lipka tartars.

It also lists other wars the tartars fought for the Poles.

If you don't wish to refute the entire site but all means don't. I for one wouldn't want to impose such as Herculean task on you. You have a life no doubt and other business to take care of.<

Don't be so patronizing and indulgent. Wherever I see absurdities I can expose them without any harm done to my life,time or business.

Have you you ever really cared to read what you quote ? I doubt you have so now you have got a chance to. Your link states :

>... the massive influx of Tatar asylum seekers to Polish territory of the Commonwealth had aroused animosity and resentment from the side of the Polish nobility in the Kingdom; resentment degenerated into hatred as a result of the depredations and violent assaults perpetrated by other groups of Tatars in the service of the Kingdom (Crimean Tatars, Nogai Tatars, Budziacki Tatars and other professional pillagers). The Lipkas were not entirely blameless in this respect, as they occasionally indulged in such practices themselves.

Over the winter of 1671/72 a psychological war was played out that turned on the difficult choice between religion and fatherland. Were the Polish Tatars being driven to commit treason, or had their fatherland not first betrayed them by denying the rights? ... The first companies deserted at the end of 1671. These desertions were not the acts of small groups of soldiers but of the cavalry captains themselves, each of whom had under them from several dozen to over a hundred horse.

The first Lipka detachments went over to the enemy in November and December 1671, although at this time the desertion involved only a few cavalry companies. However, by spring this had developed into a general revolt with "over a dozen Tatar captains and lieutenants going over to the Turkish side with their companies. Captain Aleksander Kryczynski led the desertion." As foreseen by Jan Sobieski (at that time still Hetman, not King) the Turkish army first fell upon Kamieniec, while the Tatar light cavalry units, including the renegade Lipkas, laid waste to the Podole and the neighbouring voivodships.

After the fall of Kamieniec Podolski, the Tatars made wide-ranging incursions into the territory of the Commonwealth; against Wolyn and Red Ruthenia and even as far as the Lublin Voivoship that the ancient Tatar invaders had never set eyes on. "The fall of Kamieniec Podolski opened the road to the territory of the Commonwealth to the Turkish army. The advance of the Sultans army was preceded by Tatar czambuls whose vanguard was the companies of traitorous Polish Tatars. The Lipkas expertly disguised themselves in Polish uniforms and arms and deceived those fleeing in the path of the Turkish advance. They entered many Ukrainian and Podolski villages without a struggle, and having rounded up the animals and taken away in fetters the inhabitants thus caught by surprise, they then abandoned these areas to the following Crimean Horde who looted and burned the deserted villages."

I case you don't realize what your own source says , then it reveals high treason committed by the Tatars whom our president and you flatter so impudently. They defected to the enemy during a bloody war with the Turk, they looted our territory, killed and hunted our people to sell them into slavery. Do you think nobody remembers it because you hope that your source won't be checked and your half-truths and distortions will not be revealed ?

Tatars were almost never used in wars against Mahometans because they were wont to desert and betray us. They fought against Christians - the Germans, the Swedes , the Russians. At Vienna there were few Tatars who were needed as interpreters and messengers and were not used in open combat against the beastly Turks with whom they secretly sympathized and in case of our defeat were sure to turn on us joining hands with the Moslem. So one avoided relying upon them while fighting Moslems. Exactly the same situation prevailed in Moscovy with the Moscovite Tatars.

> However, since you assert that the authors of the particular webpage I cited and here it is again http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/baghdad-summer.html were not fully telling the truth about history and Islam, then you should counter their claims with evidence and facts. You did not provide counter-evidence, just your words not backed up by links, books, and other forms of documentation.<

A person who ignores Aristotle's first law of thinking, i.e. the law of non-contradiction, and proposes one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen, viz. that "The Muslim world embraced Hellenism" while in fact it did destroy Hellenism,now demands "links,books and other forms of documentation" where just basic common sense and the most rudimentary knowledge of history will do. Do you really believe you're a serious person?

> Don't subscribe to anything it says if your heart contends but tell me with empirical evidence why you feel that the authors of this site were wrong about Hellenism and Islam.<

If what I have written is not enough , then I am afraid nothing will. To understand the point you have to know more about Hellenism and Islam. If you know nothing or almost nothing about both, then you may really wonder what this crazy Ianus is talking about ? Well, contra negantem principia non est disputandum.

> I know no one who speaks German. Give me an English source. If your source is historical then no doubt it will be reported by other historians. Or are you claiming that only the historian of this book has a monopoly on the truth?<

You're really a queer fellow. What "historical source"and "monopoly on the truth" do you mean?You don't even know the most basic fact that the Turks occupied Athens, changed the Parthenon into a mosque , built a minaret over it and according to their creed five times a day they called the city of Solon and Plato to prayer. I don't know what I have to blame more for your amazing ignorance - your laziness , lack of curiosity or the fact that maybe you used to play truant too often during your school days?

As to "an English source", thanks to "Google Translate" tool any non-English source, including Ferdinand Gregorovius, can become understandable to you.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".