1. Come enter in the KCC Pet Photo Contest!

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We are pleased to invite you to participate in the Naruto Battledome Banner Contest.

    Dismiss Notice

In the name of God.

Discussion in 'Perspectives' started by sadated_peon, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. sadated_peon King of the potato people.

    Messages:
    7,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    393
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    New thread based on
    Grrblt

    MH to quote do the following
    before the quote put
    [quote="persons name"X
    and at the end put
    [/quoteX

    replace the X with a ]


    Yes, it is still murder, just as I said,
    "moses killed everyone but the virgins of Midianites it doesn't matter that he did it in the name of Christianity it's in the wrong anyway."

    I have read the bible, cover to cover. There are many war in the bible fought in the name of god, on gods command.

    The pope was infallible, the word was the word of god. Bush is neither of things things, nor considered so.

    I am as reliable as my own history teacher. But please show an education website that supports you.

    what does it stopping have to do with anything? The nature of the vikings had fit into the social fabric of christian society for over 200 years, there was nothing new or abnormal about this period of viking conversion that would call for a need of a crusade.

    ????
    That makes no sense, you argument said that the crusades were caused by the vikings, but the crusades continue long after viking conversion ended. The cause and motivation for the crusades continued long after your assumed cause of the vikings.

    It means that the church, and Christianity at the time supported their actions. You must understand that the pope was consider infallible, and therefore what he supported Christianity supported, as he was the voice of god to men.

    I am not ignoring anything, I am pointing out that atheist has nothing to do with communist imperialism, no more than Russian has to do with communist imperialism. The imperialism was communism, not atheism.

    No, as I said before communist crimes were done by COMMUNIST imperialism. That they are atheist means nothing, as it was not the atheist view that drove the imperialism, but the communist view.
    In the case of the crusades it was the Christian view, in the name of Christianity that these crimes were committed.

    If you want to show that Russia had a atheist imperialism, then show Russian speeches done in the name of atheism, because I have found nothing but doing in the name of communism.

    The pope was the voice of god, he said the bible supports a crusade, so therefore as he is the voice of god it was true that the bible supported the crusades.
    The people at the time believed that the bible supported the crusades, you disagree that it doesn't, and if they were here today they would disagree with you.

    I have no idea what your talking about or what you are referring to. Imperialism is the act of extending the control of a single nation over others. The nation does not have to be the same beliefs, it must only identify itself singularly.

    No, it wasn't basically the government, the government was the monarch. It was christianity killing people and taking their property in the name of god. Once again, you have to try and convince me that it was a incorrect practice, nor does it matter if I agree with you or not.

    What matters is the fact that christanity at the time believed it, that christianity at the time believe it was supported by the bible.

    IF Russia won, they would force communism down on us, as well as Russian.
    Does this mean that the Russian language was responsible for Communist imperialism? if no then neither did atheism.

    You are ignoring the fact that the cursades were supported by christianity, you are ignoring that the vikings had little to no effect on the cause of the crusades, you are ignoring that your conflict for the bible supporting the crusades is based on your interpretation and a response to another interpretation.


    You blame this on the pope, but the pope WAS christianity at the time.

    "As you said, the Pope commanded it, not God. They just felt his word was Gods. Whether they realized it or not, they were putting blind faith in a man, not God."

    You accept that the people believed that GOD commanded them through the pope to do these crusades, therefore you must accept that at the time christanity supported the crusades. Unless you can claim that someone believes that god is wrong and does not represent the christian faith, then anyone who follows the voice of god is following christianity. That god is the ultimate authority, then his command to go on a crusade means that chrisanity is commanded to go on a cursed.

    It was the religion that was to blame because the pope was the religion, he wasn't just the leader of the religion, he was the voice of god, he was the religion. At the time christanity was imperialist and the people supported this imperialism.

    I have nothing personally against christainity, I have a problem with people who try and deny its past, and arrogantly delude themselves to its present.

    you also have no excuse for not responding.
     
    Tags:
  2. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    I'd actually just like to point out a really stupid example MH used. A majority of Americans weren't opposed to going into Iraq.

    Less than a week into the U.S.- Iraq conflict, three of four Americans responding to a University of Maryland poll said they supported President Bush's decision to go to war.



    That's a pretty clear majority for rather then against. Please, if you must skew recent history don't be so dumbassed about it.

    Nevermind that destracts from the entire point that the US is still responsible for it's actions because it allowed, and even supported it's leadership to do so. Incidentally, a historical parallel fits exactly with the crusades with hordes of Chrisitians, rich and poor going off to fight. While we certaintly don't have public opinion polls from the era such a mass undertaken supported nearly by all of Western Europe indicates significant support.

    We can claim it's just a few bad apples, but that's a rather large bushel of them then.
     
  3. Giovanni Rild The mods are my enemy

    Messages:
    12,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    All I see in this thread is a disgraceful attempt to make christianity out to be the source of all bad shit in the world.

    I could disprove you, but fanatics like yourselves can't take the truth
    .
     
  4. Jin-E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    23,007
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1,208
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    I know its MH you are addressing but wanted to comment on some parts of your post.

    There are litterally thousands of branches of Christian sects. Obviously, the Pope doesnt represent the majority of them. Interesting enough, many Protestants actually view him(the Pope) as the Antichrist and the "Lawless one"(2. Thessalonians 2:1-12)

    If Atheism had absolutely nothing to do with Communism repression then how do you explain the animosity towards religion that was displayed in Socialistic countries? Stalin persecuted and killed a lot of people because of their religious beliefs. In the mid 1960's Albania(a communist country) declared itself as "The first Atheist Country" and persecuted people who had religious beliefs(mostly Christians and Muslims).

    Also, i sincerly doubt that those people who spearheaded the crusades really was driven by purely religious motives. The strategic and economic shouldn't be underestimated.


    First off, there is clear difference between claiming to be Gods spokesman
    and actually be it in reality. In the time of the crusades many Christian splinter groups existed who didnt accept the Pope's supposed authority(such as the Albigenses and the Waldenses). Besides you cant drag the Bible into this because the Bible was an rare, expensive book at that time(since every copy was handwritten). Besides the Bible only existed in Latin, a archaic language which only educated people could understand.The few who actually owned Bibles was for the most parts the Clergy and members of the Nobility. Thus the common citizen at the time had no realistic opportunity to examine the Bible to compare these scriptures to what the higher ups told them was Gods will. Thus they were basically at the Clergy's mercy when it came down to religious instruction.
     
  5. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    How quaint, a red herring.

    It's a sad strange world where someone saying that the Christians should be and are in fact responsible for the Crusades is a fanatic, and the apologists for said organizations aren't.

    if you weren't bothering to contribute, why the hell did you post? +1?

    Y'know it's funny you mention this. Name me the two sects that were around during the time. There weren't any protestants or breaks within the RCC yet hombre.

    The Eastern Orthodox effectively pleaded for help, the RCC was happy to oblige. All the sects were in on it, I don't really see how you can use this argument.

    Another small note, there's a firm reason the battle cry was "Dues Volt". Sure the knights and nobles may haven't have always been religious, but the peasantry that made up the grunt work of the army went almost solely on religious motive. They thought they were fighting the holy war and doing God's work.
     
  6. Jin-E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    23,007
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1,208
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    1. I have already mentioned two groups namely the Albigenses and Waldenses.

    2. Because he used the word "Christianity" instead of Catholics. I just stated that some Christian communities probably then and certainly now didnt agree with the Church's actions. Had this been a general critique of Catholicm who alone was responsible for this acts i would have no issues with it. To use an example, should the tragic events in Jonestown and Waco also be blamed on the collective Christian community?


    Of course many of the participants believed this to be a divine sanctified warfare. The Catholic Church had major influence on people in these close knit farmer societies in the Middle Ages. It's not primarilly the peasants i question the motives off but the Kings and higher ranking Clergy who pushed this war.
     
  7. MartialHorror The Convicted Cinephile!

    Messages:
    22,232
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    WOOT! This is the first time I have been so talked about in a thread I've never even posted in! Even if its mostly bashing, I feel so honored and loved.....in a bad way.

    Anyway, I promise I will respond tomorrow. I only have 30 minutes to finish a chapter of my fanfiction which is overdue........
     
  8. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    The cathers and a bunch of lay evangelicals?

    Well, it should be noted that the first crusade started 1095 CE, the earliest notions of the Cathers (Albigenses) isn't until afterwards, something around 1114, and wasn't really in full swing until 1147 when Pope Eugenius III took notice. In short, they came after the first crusades and I guess if we stretch it can include them for the 2nd and 3rd Crusades. However in 1209 we note that crusade and inquistional edict is declared against them and they quickly made their way to extinction so they aren't around for the fourth crusade (which is arguably the only one not inspired by faith).

    Then there's the Waldensians who fall under the same historical timeline dilema and weren't even a regionally powerful sect like the cathers.

    I dragged out of that info out of various books, if you want a cite I'll be happy to provide.

    When considering this I once again must point out that really the only two appreciable sects of Christianity for a good portion of the first and second crusades are the RCC and the Eastern orthodox, both of which condoned and/or issued the call for crusade.

    This is a flawed analogy because once again a few unappreciable (and usually very local) sects really don't add up to much in the long run of things. Given the massive support from around Europe it appears to have at least some overriding support across the board. Must we blame every christian ever born in the era for the crusade? Of course not. We can however levy blame at mass support for the crusades. One does not pull off a military venture like the crusades without it.

    It's complicated, but it was most certaintly a Christian endeavour. Remember, after all we blame Germany for the holacaust even though not every person was a Nazi.

    They still acceded to go off to war against the very principles by which their religion is founded. Their lack of critical thinking skills still doesn't mean they are free from guilt. "I was only following orders" goes so far today, doesn't it?

    By all historical evidence Urban II was doing this because he thought it was a holy cause and could help mend the gap between the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox.
     
  9. Cardboard Tube Knight Chika is god now.

    Messages:
    74,744
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    3,258
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    If Christians are still held accountable for the crusades then where's my damn reparations check?
     
  10. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    That's witty somewhere, but not here.

    Being accoutable and responsible for something and forcing reparation payments are very different things. Especially when things have been over with for well over 500 years.
     
  11. Giovanni Rild The mods are my enemy

    Messages:
    12,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    If the Religion promoted malice and genocide like you are trying to imply then The Ten Commandments wouldn't exsist

    And it says in the Bible that those in the Bible who killed were ordered by God himself, not a Pope

    The crusades was a sad case of men in power (The Pope and company) perverting a religion for the gain of more power.
     
  12. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    You are aware the ten commandments are OT right? Please tell me you know the point of the new convenent and why citing the old one in a debate about christianity is stupid.

    Then again, one only has to look at the Book of Revelations and the idea that God willingly casts people into hell for simple disbelief of something that provides no evidence to support itself. While we're on the OT have you forgotten just how much of a genocidal fucker God can be?

    Oh wait, "he's not like that anymore!" So why are you hellbent on using IT scripture to back yourself up?

    So it's only OK if God orders it, not a fully ordained and appointed leader of his church. If he didn't approve of it why didn't he stop all the shit that was going on in his name? Either your God is non-existant, extremely bi-polar, or just letting his creation suffr criminal neglect.

    Gain more power? They already had a near vice grip on society. It's very difficult to rival the amount of influence the Popes had at the time. How did they "gain more power"?
     
  13. Giovanni Rild The mods are my enemy

    Messages:
    12,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Like many things, this debate is largely opinion

    Are you offended by the christian belief that non-believers will burn in hell? You don't believe in hell, so why should you be bothered?

    I'm not here to back my story up. I'm here to smash yours to pieces

    Why do you care? according to you, God is non-exsistant. So how could a imaginary being cause a war fought in the name of a false religion?



    Genghis Khan held and ruled more land than any conqueror ever in history. Do you hate him also?
     
  14. Eagle88 Hunter-nin

    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    I do have other things to take care of you know. I'm limited on time. (even now) Gotta go.
     
  15. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Aren't you cute? Try to blantantly contradict canon and Christ more.

    Who said I was bothered about that? I'm certaintly not since the greet sphagetti monster is there for me. What bothers me however me is the claim that God is merciful and all forgiving when half of his selling point is the threat of eternal damnation.

    *snickers*

    They haven't a prayer -1st Company tactical dreadnought litany

    When the fundamental underpinning of your argument is invalidated you're going to have problems smashing my position to pieces. You also have an obligation to support your side, get cracking.

    Typical fundamentalist, ignoring anything they don't agree with and trying to skew the argument by misdirection. My opinion on your sky donkey means nothing in regards to the matter. Answer my question and stop falling back on rather blantant red herrings.

    If God was opposed to this, why didn't he intervene? After all, letting things be done in your name is a tacit approval.

    Uh huh, and his stated intention was to rule the land and conquer. Pope Urban II? Not so much. Answer the question, what possible power could he gain form all of this?

    As stated earlier the move to reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox indicates a distinct urge to cooperate with powers at hand rather then try and forcibly subdue and control them. Oh wait. Thinking.
     
  16. Razgriez Banned

    Messages:
    13,186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Its not the religion and its principles that make it evil, its the leaders and preachers that scew the teachings in their favor that makes the perception of it being evil. The masses follow those who are able to present their message the best way.
    Lets just look at Hitler as a perfect example. The guy knew how to speak and motivate his people into a immoral and horrible war against the world.

    Also, consider this that back around the crusades public opinion really didnt matter since a lot of the countries were ran by monarchies or dictatorships and the people just went off with their leaders simply because thats how things were. Imformation was a lot more easier to bullshit than then it is now.
     
  17. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Alright. Scientology. Some principles/religions are fundamentally evil.

    The masses are still at fault. Sure they were tricked, but when someone gets hit by a scam we still go "shame on you" for not thinking it through.

    Public opinion still sent legions of volunteer troops to the holy land. Public opinion refused to raise its voice in protest. Some protest might make the case worthwhile, but the sheer fact of the matter is that no one actually thought to consider the ramifications of this action vs. their faith. One can justifably argue that it's not theologically correct, one cannot however argue that this wasn't a mass undertaking by Christiandom.
     
  18. Razgriez Banned

    Messages:
    13,186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    I was refering to "main" religions. There are some religions that are fundamentally evil.

    Yeah, but it always shows how pathetically easy it is to sway the public into your favor and how stupid the general public is. Whats to say the people speaking against Bush are right? Who should we "really" believe?

    Also you gotta consider the people's situation since we are all mainly tied together through a huge working system. Some may of just went with it because they didnt want to lose their jobs or get killed, or become outcasts.

    There again its not too difficult to sway public opinion with propaganda and back then it was rather easy for those in power to get ahold of that information and change it to help them. They inturn can use a religion in their favor to brainwash the people into doing their bidding. Kind of what I think is the whole purpose of religion anyways. Just look at how its being used today.
    I guess that in itself can make religion an evil thing.
     
  19. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Islam demands that you kill atheists. Is that more defensible?

    What's the Tom Wolfe quote? "One is a crazy man, two is a cult, three is a religion."

    Uh, facts and logic? Believe it or not, there are ways to cut through bullshit.

    I'm sure that's true, however I can for the life of me find no dissent against the crusades from the time period while I see mass volunteer armies being raised. Several times. Things that make you go "hum".

    Using blanket statements of "religion is evil inheriently" or "religion is good inheriently" can and will get you in trouble. The lead in to the crusades was actually remarkably bullshit free. The pope issued a call to help their Christian brethen in the East and retake the holy land from the infidel (the Bryzantines being under seige and the holy land being under Muslim occupation both occuring) with added incentive of indulgences. People flocked to the banner. You're forgetting it wasn't the kings who pushed for it then the pope, completely vice-versa.
     
  20. Razgriez Banned

    Messages:
    13,186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    The pope is nothing more then a king of theology. People just like to refer to him as something less tyrannical or in a smaller leadership role. The Pope is far from being the model holy man. Hes nothing more then another political figure in power using his power to control the people for either his or someone else's gain.

    Guess you got me there. I dont like islamic believers anymore. I like to live.

    Yah, but most people dont know how.
     
  21. Cardboard Tube Knight Chika is god now.

    Messages:
    74,744
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    3,258
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    What do you mean, slavery only ended like in the 1860s, where as the Crusades ended well before that, you're saying that as a race who took concious steps to put another race down, whites aren't accountable, but the Catholic Church, that actually believe it was taking back Holy lands and the like (all those years before the first slave ever came to America) should be held accountable?
     
  22. Jin-E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    23,007
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1,208
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Im pretty interested in Medieval religion so please do.

    Just out of curiosity, but how can we today know the extent of popularity these crusades had back in those days?

    I dont think its flawed because:

    - In both cases there where charismatic figures who controlled and manipulated their members(the Pope, Jim Jones and David Koresh)

    - In all 3 examples people did atrocious acts.

    - All professed Christianity

    - All claimed to act in the name of God

    Sure there are some differences(The Catholic Church enjoyed overwhelming support from secular governmens back in the days of the crusades while these two minor sects did not). However the underlining principles remains the same.

    Also your analogy fails. You cant compare a religion to a national state. The institusion that used Christianity as a cover for that war can be blamed but not the belief system itself(especially since the Bible nowhere supports such actions). There is only ONE Germany(after 1989) while there existed MANY branches of Christianity(to add to the record of Christians that lived that time we could also use the Copts and Syrian Christians).

    A well educated guy like yourself obviously knows how the feudal system of that time worked, right? Its not like those peasants had much of a choice anyway. Remember, the Kings closest allies was his Vassall's and every person who lived in his territory was obliged to render service when they were needed.

    And as i have already stated, how could the ordinary man at the time know of the "religious principles" since most people then had never even seen a Bible? Many people couldn't read and the RCC actually banned translating it to languages people could understand. So they had no other choice but to obey and trust the RCC which was seen as a God appointed institusion.
     
  23. maj1n Active Member

    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    The best criticism of a religion is its religious texts, for these are the only link to what one could consider the true Christianity.

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman
    -2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

    However, if a significant number of self-identified Christians, the recognised authority of Christianity and Christianities own text all corroborrate a course of action, it is definitely permissable to say that the religion (be it the people or the text) at the time support that action.

    Athiesm is the lack of belief in God, or denial of God.
    There is no extra beliefs attached to Athiesm that call for the subjugation or inferiority of religious people.

    In fact Atheism by your own example of Stalin, you have demonstrated that it was not Atheism that caused the atrocities, because Buddhists were persecuted, and they are Atheists.

    Definitely, Stalin was anti-religious by all evidence of his actions, but Atheism isnt anti-religious.

    The same reason why Evolution is not the cause nor supports Eugenics.

    Maybe your referring to Materialism or Marxism.

    Do remember this, Atheism does not give any moral or value on religious institutions or people, it is simply a position on God.
    Therefore, you cannot blame Atheism for any atrocity linked to a persecution and prejudicial treatment of people.

    For example, let us take people who believe the Earth is round (ok spherical).

    If people started beating up other who believed the Earth is flat, do we blame the belief that the Earth is round?

    No, because it assigns no moral worth or value to human beings

    Religions do.

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman
    -2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

    This is just one verse, but doubtless, there are many others, that definitely create a culture of superiority and right to destroy other religions (the people).

    No doubt as you say, the peasants didnt know this verse nor ever read it, but the culture itself came from those who believe these many verses, this superiority over other religions, no doubt there was other reasons for the Crusades, but it is plainfully obvious that the religious text of Christianity supports and propogates such a culture and it influences people to be more readily accepting of committing atrocities in the name of their religion.

    Therefore, we can blame Christianity.

    Let me make an example:

    Lets Hypothesis a religion that says blacks are worth as much as dogs.
    Lets say the followers of that religion treat Blacks very badly.
    No one in this world with a right mind would say it is unjustified to blame the religion, the religion is definitely at fault, perhaps not totally, but it definitely shares some of the blame.

    Therefore that religion is at fault.

    But maybe there are some followers of that religion that treat dogs well, and thus treat blacks well, no doubt their in the minority, but lets say they exist.

    Will you say that you cannot then blame the religion? because 'some' people did not follow the obvious culture of prejudism and persecution?


    Regardless, if a religion promotes and justifies a course of action, and the people of that religion do it, that religion is at the very least partially responsible for that action.

    To say they arent is equivalent to saying they do not justify and influence anyone to do anything bad.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2006
  24. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    I'm saying both should be held accountable. I was making a sarcastic jibe at the thought of the inevitable cry fro church reparations.

    Encolypedia of Heresies and Heretics, Chas S Clifton (actually a really handy field guide)

    The Western Heritage, Eigth Edition, my old Western Civ I text

    I'm still pointing to massive multi-national volunteer armies being raised time and again.

    You're still running into the problem is that they weren't even around for the first and fourth crusades, and their size is realtively benegin during their time (though the Cathers did acheive some regional prominence). Just because not evey single person supports a cause doesn't mean we can't hold them collectively responsible.

    After all, blaming Germany for WW2 isn't crazy even though we have the existance of the White Rose.

    eh? About the time of the crusades the RCC was an effective state within a state. Yes, I can.

    Hence I've noted that several times before that it can be argued to be theologically groundless. However, I have yet to see any evidence that points to Urban II being motivated by ulterior motives. He and many people earnestly thought this was a noble cause.

    One notes a united Germany was present in 1939.

    Ok, now we're really reaching, especially since the Copts were severely downscaled after the Muslims took over Egypt and the Syrian churches suffered an extreme downsizing due to similar cirucmstance.

    The uncontested heavies of the Christian world (the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox) which containted a near total grip on Christiandom backed the crusades. You're tossing up these extremely minor and often historically fleeting sects, it's only serving as a tool for rationalization.
     
  25. Cardboard Tube Knight Chika is god now.

    Messages:
    74,744
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    3,258
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    As a Church we probably do have the money to pay everyone off...free endulgences for everyone!
     
  26. MartialHorror The Convicted Cinephile!

    Messages:
    22,232
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    1) Actually it was in the name of Judaesm, lol(But I see your point) and notice that Moses decided their fates. God just said "avenge the Israelites" and Moses elaborated. This is why I don't take moses's law that seriously. Moses responce to almost anything was "kill them", and it is apparent through the first five books. As for the many wars, few things. For one, I personally believe God has a neutral scientific mind, aiming for the way of good because good is more prefurable than bad. Hence, if a bunch of people were coming to slay the Jews(who would be the foundation for spreading the word) he would slaughter them. why not teleport them away? Simple, because then they would just do it to someone else. Remember that when the population grew, there weren't many believers and the more wicked people were beyond evil(Such as the entire town wanting to rape those angels). Hence, when God does that, he is doing that to people who are so evil they make Manson look like a good person. Now, my point is also that I believe when Christ died, he knew what it was like to be a human and sympathized enough he stopped doing that. Now, my second point. This is something pointed out heavily in Judaesm. When Abraham begged God to spare Soddom and Gemorah, he actually did get God to partially change his mind. Abraham kept asking if there were so many good people there, God would spare. He eventually brought it down to 10, but the chapter suddenly stops and they are destroyed(although the good people are able to escape). Obviously there weren't 10 of them though. And we can assume Abraham stopped there. What is the point? Well, in Judaesm they believe that God wants us to be strong enough to counter his commands, if they seem unreasonable and contradict his teachings. When they don't, they are letting people die. On the other hand, strong faith is also a good thing. When God told Abraham to kill his son, Abe did so but God stopped him just in time. When Saul destroyed some kingdom, God said kill everything. Saul didn't. Perhaps if he intended to God would have them all spared as well? Finally, you are assuming all Christians consider the old testament to be the true word of God. Generally, Christians are supposed to follow Christ, which is why its called Christianity.

    2)Only to the Catholics. You are making a HUGE mistake because Catholics were not the entire body of Christianity. Catholicism at that time was the biggest, but not the entire body. Catholicism doesn't even get most of its traditions from the Bible. As for the Pope, they don't consider him infallable(it's laughable to suggest that). They consider him to be a link such as Moses or maybe Paul was.

    3) Forgot to mention that along with the Vikings there were the of the Slavs, and Magyars. [Shinsen-Subs]​_Le​_Chevalier​_D'Eon​_-​_04​_[ABE1EC27].avi

    First off, I never said the vikings were the direct cause. It was 'a' cause. Two, my point is how one war can topple and create another. Example, would World War 2 have started if WW1 never happened? Maybe, but at least Germany would be harder to pin down because Germany wouldn't have been so screwed during WW1 and so eager for help(Hitler). Italy would have then never joined and Japan wouldn't be so stupid as too fight everyone alone. The point is that one war can easily topple into other wars.

    4) Wrong, Christianity wasn't for it. The Easten Orthodox Church was against the crusades and were on the recieving end as well.

    5) Except without Atheism, there would be no communism and when spreading communism they would force Atheism down our throats. It isn't much of a difference except that Communism was using politics as their claim while the Christian imperalists were using religion as their claim. Dude, you are not listening. Imperalism is generally considered as tyrany. People will NEVER use it as the reason because it makes them look bad. It's why the Communists did not say they were imperalists either. History is done by making one side look bad, and their own side good. If they have a religion, they will claim it is in the name of their religion. And as I've pointed out the crusades were a political war and that religion was used as a drive. For imperalism to work, everyone NEEDS to be under the same religion, which is why Communism would have enforced Atheism. You go on to claim that you dont like how people deny their past, well, you are doing the same.

    6) I can give a debate on how evolution is false because my pastor says so but that doesn't mean it's true. same with the Pope and Christians. if I had a debate with them, I would crush them. But because the Pope said so, it probably wouldn't change much. The Pope is a political ancor to Christianity(Catholicism). The Bible never supports a Pope. Hence, Christianity isn't even to be blamed for a Pope. And as I said, it doesn't matter what people "think", it matters what is. As Osama claimed he did not do 9/11 because the Koran stated women and children were not to be harmed, but eventually bragged about it, the Pope wasn't much different. They ignore the Bibles/Korans teachings yet start a war in name of their own religion, which means they are not doing it in Gods interest as much as their own.

    7) If a Christian empire took over Muslim lands, there would never be peace because the Muslims will constantly fight back. Hence, everyone under a true empire needs to be on the same religion.

    8) Okay, I'm sorry. This comment ultimately ruined your entire debate. you bringing in the Russian language proves you have nothing else to go on. It's what drives the people. Without Atheism, there can be no Communism. But Russia and Communism are two different things. Atheism and Communism have little to do with Russia except that was their government. But it would be no different if the U.S was communist either. Oh yeah, quit saying "Christianity" and use "Christians" because you are ignoring that Christians were also targeted by the Pope during the crusades. And I can return your argument that "Christianity is killing" to "Atheism is killing". Your entire argument is based on double standards.

    9) Except I can easily denounce the crusades using the Bible. What the Pope says and what the Bible says are not always the same thing. I mean damn, Catholicism almost counters Christianity. Christ slammed the Jewish Government for being a business used to take peoples money. Have you ever seen the Vatican? Do you know how much money they get? It's a business. Regardless of what the Pope says, Christianity does not agree. In fact, Sedated, because you are blaming Christianity I can take this as you support the extermination of Christians. You do without a fact, because I say so. Hence, it's your fault if I go and kill Christians, according to you. Compare you with the Bible and me as the so called voice of God and the voice of you. I guess it really is your fault if I kill in your name too. And most historians disagree with you, the vikings and such definatly was a part in the origins of the crusades.

    10) Regardless if everyone believed that the Pope was the word of God and did things in his name, YOU must accept that would still be the Popes fault, not the religion. If the kingdom wasn't even dominated by the pope and the King wanted to take over, people would listen ANYWAY because he is their leader. So regardless of what you think, you ignoring the individuals sins while blacing the blame on the belief is the ultimate form of bigotry. It's where you get so many people being racist, even if you don't realize it. And you go on to say how I arrogantly delude myself. You're not any better if not worse. Fact is, Imperalism does not need Christianity while Atheism needs communism, hence, I can say Atheism is to blame for it(even if I dont agree) while saying Christianity is to blame is pure ignorance and denial. And even more so, The Pope isn't even supported by Christianity. The pope is a political structure to keep a firm hold on it.
     
  27. Jin-E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    23,007
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1,208
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Maj1n:

    First off, Its interesting that you state that we have to look at scriptures that defines "true Christianity" while the verse you quoted clearly predated the Christian era.

    The major difference back then was that God had a pact with a nation based on birth and nationality(Israel and the two later separate kingdoms-Judah and Israel). Today, God doesnt favorize any nation over others and doesnt deal with just one people. Rather, he draws believers from all nations from all corners of the world(Matthew 28:19 Acts 10:34,35). So one would think its obvious that one would use a different approach to people that voluntarily adopted to the religion rather than someone born into it. The verses that stated this seamingly harsh penalty was put into place to prevent the ancient Hebrews to practice debased worship to other Gods(which often included child sacrifice and "Temple prostitusion"). These statements was offered in a unique setting because of specific circumstances that arent relevant in our day. If that had not been the case we should reasonably have expected that the New Testament writers would have addressed the same points. Did they? No.

    To quote just a few scriptures in the Greek scriptures

    Matthew 5:9

    Matthew 5:44

    Matthew 26:52

    Romans 12:14

    1 John 3:15

    The claim that the Christian scriptures themself promotes violence after careful study is infact not true. According to Christian theology, Before Christ appared on the scene, God dealt with Israel as a nation and a people. He needed to impose harsh measures in order to stop them from engaging in the morally repulsive worship of the Gods of the neighbouring people. In contrast
    to these early days, the Christians(as illustrated by the scriptures earlier quoted) have no moral backing for any such action.
     
  28. Cardboard Tube Knight Chika is god now.

    Messages:
    74,744
    Likes Received:
    615
    Trophy Points:
    3,258
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Speaking of God...

    Guess who's about to go get some of that salvation, yeah buddy.:thumbs
     
  29. sadated_peon King of the potato people.

    Messages:
    7,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    393
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    No, it is pointing out the truth about the history of christianity, a history that is now trying to be rewritten to hide that truth.

    lol, your intellectual deficiencies are not my problem.

    Not at the time of the crusades, at the time of the crusades there were only two main sects, the Roman Catholic and the eastern orthodox.
    The protestant where not even in existence during the time of the crusades. I see nothing in your reply but a lack of understanding about the religious climate during the crusades.

    It had nothing to do with it being non-atheistic it had to do with it being a source of opposing authority not controlled by the Communist government.
    Stalin refused to have anyone or any organization that could hold authority on its own. Stalin wanted to set himself as the one an only leader of the people, he set himself up as the only salvation for the people. Anything that got his way, whether it is education, scientific, religious, etc it didn?t matter he removed all that threatened his authority.

    But there are in fact communist countries that continued to be religious. There are religious communist countries and communities.

    Considering that the people in the cursades were fighting on the direct command of the pope, I would disagree. Considering that the battle cry was that ?god wills it?, I would disagree.

    The motivation for the people was that this was a campaign given by god, and is it spoken of as so repeatedly in the records of the time.

    The difference between claiming it and being it does not matter when Christianity at the time accepted it.

    Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

    Daniel 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

    The Albigenses and the Waldenses did not exist at the time of the crusades and were both destroyed because they were considered heretics.

    I didn?t drag the bible into this, MH brought it up. But you only help my point, that the masses believed that this was the word of god.

    But now you have lost your absolute that murder in the name of god is still wrong. Moses is an example of where god praised and rewarded moses for the slaughter in gods name. You put a condition that these people were really evil, unforturanetly that doesn?t work for two reasons. First is that Moses for example killed children.. all young boys, male babies, neither of which were capable of such evil.
    Second is that your designation of the level of evilness is relative, and would be applied to any of the popes enemies.

    I would like to point out that you just said that god did not know what it was like to be human, so that means god is not omniscience, as well the fact that you contradict the bible that god changed.

    First god does not change,
    Malachi.3:6 " I the Lord do not change. ?

    Next Saul was punished and scorned because he violated gods commands.

    Next, I consider that Christians consider the Old Testament true because Jesus considered it true, and jesus reference moses quite a bit.

    No, the Catholics were Christianity at the time. Almost the entire population was catholic, and those that were different enough to disagree with the pope were considered heretics and killed.

    You pointed out the Vikings as ?good part? of the reason, when there were random solider going around killing the civilian population for a long time before the crusades. The civilization at the time was a feudal system, which means that they?re when not at war there is always soldiers attacking the populace.

    Your point is flawed, the point of war in the crusades was not revenge for a previous war, and it was to once again recapture a religious city. It was the religious principle of the crusades that continued to spawn more wars, not the fact that the first war happened. Though I will not say it had nothing to do with it, it was not the causes, and not the reason for continued action. Neither for that fact was WW1 responsible for WW2 but instead the results and aftermath of the war that was partly responsible.
     
  30. sadated_peon King of the potato people.

    Messages:
    7,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    393
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    The Eastern Orthodox Church was for the crusades and supported the Roman Catholic church, it wasn?t until late into the first crusade that the eastern orthodox church and the roman catholic church began to fight amounts themselves. But this was not a result of the Eastern orthodox church being against the crusades, but instead a argument on the way the crusade was being conducted.

    There IS communism without Atheism, the connection between atheism and Communism is based on restriction of authority and hierarchy not based on faith, a communist idea no inclusive to atheism.

    And the expansion of Russian communism, would result in Russian being forced down or throats, but the Russian language has nothing to do with the communist expansion, and neither does atheism.

    Communism was using COMMUNISM as their claim, while Christian imperialism was using CHRISTIANITY as its claim.

    As I pointed out during the crusades Christianity WAS the imperialism, you object to this because object to the idea that Christianity can be imperialist, but at the time is was. It was centered on making a Christian nation. A unifier of imperialism under the arc of Christianity.

    NO, imperialism doesn?t need the same religion to work, it need to have a single identity to work. It doesn?t have to be religion it can be anything that unifies a group of people. In the case of the crusades it was Christianity, and in the case of the Soviet Union it was communism. In fact in some countries in the soviet union religion was supported.

    You would crush them? I find it funny that you consider yourself so adept at debate that you could successfully argue with the 12th century papacy. Your interpretation of the bible is highly motivated by the current social structure that you live in, put in the context of the 12 century you would be drafted, and eventually killed. So have fun with that.

    The papacy is the successor of peter who was set up by Jesus to lead his church, his infallibility was passed with each pope. This is in the bible.

    Corrections it solely matters what people think, because it is the people at the time that make up the current religion.

    You claim that they ignore the bible, but to them they are following it. This is once again interpretation.

    There is not such thing as Christian or Muslim lands, there is only land. Who holds that land at any given time is irrelevant to the nature of the land. Nor does it stand that if it was once someone?s land it will always be someone?s land.
    At one point, all land was pagan land, but pagan are not still fighting over it.

    A empire does not need to have the same religion, it only needs to identify itself singularly. There is nothing about an empire or imperialism that requires a single religion.

    No, the Russain language is exactly the same as atheism, in the context.

    Communism does exist without atheism. There are communist communities that are religious. It is merely declaring that your religion does not create a system of hierarchy to enslave the masses, and you fit with Marx?s ideals.

    I use the Russian language as an example because it fits with the involvement of atheism in communism. Atheism is not the cause of communism, nor is it the motivation for communism. The imperialism of Communism has nothing to do with atheist, no matter HOW MUCH YOU TRY AND LINK THEM.

    I will continue to say Christianity because it was Christianity, those killed by the pope where heretics and therefore not Christians.
    You can as easily denounce the crusades using the bible as the crusaders can support the crusades using the bible. You objections to, or your explanation of your position against the crusades are meaningless, as nothing can be a denial of the fact that during the crusades the bible was used to support the crusades.

    Your argument about me being the cause of you going out and killing Christians makes no sense. If you want to make a religion based on me and go about killing people based on that religion, then YES. The religion that you created from me is the causes of crimes (along with you of course for leading the religion). It is the people that make up a faith that define what that faith is at any given time.

    I have not seen nor have you quoted once history who considers there being Vikings as a ?good part? of the cause of the crusades.
     
Loading...