My apologies if I misconstrued your earlier statement. I thought that you were arguing that an act should be classified differently depending on whether the religious motivation was Islam or Christianity, due to the way in which each is interpreted across the globe.
The Crusades were essentially counter-offenses to Muslim insurgences into Europe.
Please point out where in the NT it says to go and conquer the Holy land or any such nonsense.
Your argument thus far is not only weak, but just plane uninformed and ridicules.
The Papal Archives part was a joke, but you said Christian texts. This would include Christian writings, books, Letters from the Papacy, and other religious-based documentation. I even italicized it in my qoute.
And let's see. Who called for each Crusade? You do realize there were Convert-or-Kill clauses attached to, not only the purpose of the Crusades, but many of the "Mission Statements" of Knightly Orders as well?
Well, you are talking about the Bible, which is more than just the NT.
You're the one picking at percieved weak points in my argument without bringing anything new to the table.
Those are not considered cannon, sorry that does not float. Hell, anyone can right a letter from a position of authority, does not make it religious text.
And this has something to do with the teachings of Christ how? I mean that is what you follow or you are not a Christan.
As I said much evil has been done in the name of God, for mans own purpose.
The OT does not apply to Christians in any way. It is the old covenant with Gods chosen people, not gentiles. Any biblical scholar or practicing Jew can tell you that.
You made a sweeping generalization about the Christian religion which is in fact not true. I don't need to bring anything new.
The Bible pretty much spells out to forgive and not kill for conversion, pretty simple.
You are bat**** insane, sir or madame.
Yeah, I said Christians used to be more violent and now they aren't. How dare I.
I think insulting people is a no-no here, if I'm not mistaken. They encourage attacks of ideas, but not other posters.
I think it is an observation that you are supposed to keep to yourself at this particular website.It was merely an observation. I did add 'sir or madame' so it was a little more respectful.
I think it is an observation that you are supposed to keep to yourself at this particular website.
Yeah I see what you're saying.
Hey, I just looked on your profile. 120 posts a day! That is epic, Dude! :2razz:
Moderator's Warning: |
Stop the personal attacks. |
It's Canon, and yes many of them are considered canon, otherwise they'd have been thrown out. Papal infallibility is a lovely thing. Secondly, While we do admit we've had bad Popes (I'm Roman Catholic btw) unless the Vatican says otherwise, it stays canon, even if it is outdated or not accepted by the rest of Society.
It has everything to do with how they were interpreted.
And as you might have noticed, mankind is pretty crappy at interpretation sometimes. Now, back to my original point: Christianity and Islam both have promoted violence in their texts, Obviously Islam more so in their Holy Book than Christianity, but each side have had their moments with violence.
Christianity has come out of that with the exception of a few radical groups. Islam is the other way around: There are a few 'radical' Muslims who don't take the Koran literally and they're the ones that are your friends, own businesses, and in general don't Jihad on your ass.
I would like to extend my apologies to Blackdog and the Forum as a whole for directing my insult at the personage, rather than the opinion.
Neither did Washington. Which is why they got away with it since Beirut.
Well that is the problem then. I don't consider Catholics Christians, they are Catholics. They follow the commands of a man over God. This does not mean they are hell bound or anything. It just means they are wrong on allot of things biblical.
This is not an insult in any way, just a perfect example of how they consider there traditions more important than the words of Christ. Hence the Crusades and support of Nazi's etc.
The violence by Islam is justified in there holy book, it is not in the Bible. HUGE difference. You are basically making the "look Christan's did it" argument. That argument has been debunked around here more times than I care to remember.
But it parallels. Hence my juxtaposition of the two. (YAY! Word of the Day!)
This is not about Islam, I have no problem with freedom of religion. My problem is blanket statements that are not true.
Who did I blanket because I hate blanket terms too, and I certainly would hate it if I did or said anything hypocritical.
I thought Christians were those who believed in the divinity and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I thought Christians were those who believed in the divinity and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I always thought that was kind of a pompous opinion to have of Catholics. How the heck are you going to call the Second branch of Christians (behind the original Christian Jews), NOT Christians? Have you BEEN to mass lately? It's JESUS this, and JESUS that. Oi. Longest hour of the week, some might say. Catholics follow the 10 commandments, with guidance from the Bible. I suppose you think we worship Mary and all the Icons in our churches, too?
Christianity n. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament
Now tell me, by definition, that Catholics aren't Christian.
Now, I'm assuming (very risky maneuver here) you're of a Protestant or Evangelical branch of Christianity, which ironically, Catholics don't recognize as actual churches. Catholicism sees them as Christians, just not an actual Church (Guess it has something to do with that One True Church doctrine or some jazz like that. Odd that we still recognize the Eastern Orthodox fellas...but that's a whooole 'nother story)
Protestantism is the reason Christianity is in such tatters today. It essentially opened the door from having 2 major sects of Christianity to HEY ANYONE CAN CREATE THEIR OWN BRANCH! and now we have even MORE abuse and 'tradition of Man' put into the churches. i.e. I don't see any Priests rollin' around in Escalades or collecting a mandatory 10% tithe from the congregation...
And while I respect what Martin Luther did, I think he did more harm than good by underestimating what man would do. He thought that if he were to bring to light the flaws of the Church, the people would fix them, instead, it opened the floodgates for people to interpret the Bible ANY way they pleased. Which is essentially doing more harm than good these days, for example the Westboro Baptist Church. While I know they aren't a real Baptist congregation, they are an example of the further abuses of Christianity.
The Crusades were driven by both men who honestly believed they were doing the will of God and...well...I'll just say it...Italians who were trying to make some moolah, and if they praised God along the way then BENE!
The Catholic Church also helped Jews and other persecuted groups escape Germany. But no one seems to remember that. Nor do they remember the Priests who were imprisoned for resisting the Nazi regimes.
But it parallels. Hence my juxtaposition of the two. (YAY! Word of the Day!)
Who did I blanket because I hate blanket terms too, and I certainly would hate it if I did or said anything hypocritical.
Oh good Christ; not another "Catholics aren't real Christians" proponent.
Who do you think the original Christians were? :roll:
You Protestants are Johnny-come-lately's.