• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do Christians and Muslims Want World Dominion?

Fledermaus said:
What do you call traveling thousands of miles while sacking Constantinople, slaughtering Jews in Europe along the way, slaughtering Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem, etc.

Defending Europe by avoiding the areas the Muslims were attacking/raiding and instead going to the Levant?

A witness in Jerusalem - "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude"
Click to expand...

what? I told you reasons that started the crusades... it was a reaction to Islamic raids all over Europe. Did I evict all blame? Did I endorse the crusades??? NO... It was a war about politics and territory more than anything... if you want to know the real meaning behind the crusades
 
Tigerace117 said:
How exactly did sacking Constanople strengthen the defense of Western Europe again?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?
Western Europe wasn't a collective mind defending anything.... it was the sentiments of the people finding an enemy in islam, and some of those sentiments... were warranted. Is war and slaughter justified? No....but to use these wars as an example as a Christian only sin, is dishonest. It was politics, territory, and history. Islam was in the height of it's strength with one of the largest empires in the history of the world... and how did it become that? Conquering... just like how the Romans did it, or the greeks... except the excuse they used was their religion... as opposed to any other made up excuse humans use to wage war on another.
 
Vox said:
Jesus DID tell his followers to sell their coats and buy a sword.

Remember?
Click to expand...

True. But there is no reference to using it to spread Christianity that I recall. Remember that when the bible was being compiled, the Romans were overseeing the affair. Nothing negative about Rome could be put in naturally. The Roman's could have wanted the sword put in since it was so pivotal in the spread of the Roman Empire. Maybe it was for self defense against animals and thieves. Jesus spread his word without violence so the sword would seem more Roman than Christian. We will never really know since the majority of the teachings of Christianity were edited out when they compiled the current version of the bible. We lost more than half the apostle's because something they preached did not sit well with the Romans or the religious leaders they gathered to make the bible. Hopefully one day as more teachings are found we will get a better understanding of what Jesus really tried to get across to us.
 
celticwar17 said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Western Europe wasn't a collective mind defending anything.... it was the sentiments of the people finding an enemy in islam, and some of those sentiments... were warranted. Is war and slaughter justified? No....but to use these wars as an example as a Christian only sin, is dishonest. It was politics, territory, and history. Islam was in the height of it's strength with one of the largest empires in the history of the world... and how did it become that? Conquering... just like how the Romans did it, or the greeks... except the excuse they used was their religion... as opposed to any other made up excuse humans use to wage war on another.
Click to expand...

Didn't Pope Urban tell the Crusaders that killing Muslims in the Holy Land would atone for the sins they had committed by killing in Europe?
 
Vox said:
Doesn't. Didn't say it did.

Why do you want to hurt Muslims? Are you a Christian?
Click to expand...

The usual rationale that apologists for the crusades use is that they were a preemptive defense of Europe. How exactly does attacking Constantinople defend Europe from Muslims?
 
faithful_servant said:
They were all about the pursuit of worldly gains. Europe was facing a huge problem with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. born males who were demanding an inheritance. The Crusades were primarily designed to first of all, thin out the numbers of these young men and if they survived to have a place where they could be granted lands far away from where the elder sons were.
Click to expand...

That's synomous with what I said.
 
celticwar17 said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Western Europe wasn't a collective mind defending anything.... it was the sentiments of the people finding an enemy in islam, and some of those sentiments... were warranted. Is war and slaughter justified? No....but to use these wars as an example as a Christian only sin, is dishonest. It was politics, territory, and history. Islam was in the height of it's strength with one of the largest empires in the history of the world... and how did it become that? Conquering... just like how the Romans did it, or the greeks... except the excuse they used was their religion... as opposed to any other made up excuse humans use to wage war on another.
Click to expand...

It has a lot to do with the subject of the Crusades, actually. If the Crusades were fought to "defend Europe", how exactly does attacking the Byzantines accomplish that? It doesn't.

The rest of your post is full of rambling which doesn't even come close to explaining how, exactly, attacking the Byzantines is supposed to have stopped any of that.
 
joG said:
I don't know any Christians that do.
Click to expand...

Then clearly you don't know anything about the Dominionist movement, or the people who think this is a Christian country and want the planet to be converted as well. That's really what apologetics is all about, getting people to believe what you believe. It doesn't have to be military, but most religions want to spread like a virus.
 
faithful_servant said:
But not as a reflection of His will. He never once commanded us to spread the Gospel by the sword and in fact made it clear that a true free will choice is the only acceptable choice.
Click to expand...

We agree on Jesus's intent. But Christianity like Islam has at time been taken over by those who would kill rather than co-exist.
 
celticwar17 said:
what? I told you reasons that started the crusades... it was a reaction to Islamic raids all over Europe. Did I evict all blame? Did I endorse the crusades??? NO... It was a war about politics and territory more than anything... if you want to know the real meaning behind the crusades
Click to expand...

Ummm.

No. It was for people by commission of the Catholic Pope to invade and occupy the lands that were never under control of the Catholic Church or countries of that faith.

The 'defense of Europe' thing doesn't wash. That is like defending your front door by going out the backdoor and breaking it to your neighbor's house.
 
Fledermaus said:
Don't forget the Jews killed both in Europe and the Levant.
Click to expand...

The problem for knights at the time of the First Crusade was the thou shalt not kill commandment. The knights favourite activity was killing each other. Some of the nobles had founded monasteries with monks praying night and day for them to atone for their sins. It was reckoned that in some cases the monks would have to pray for twenty years. Hence Pope Urban's brilliant PR campaign. Go on a Crusade, kill Arabs and God will forgive you. Religion, go figure.
 
faithful_servant said:
Taken out of context.


See that phrase "It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ", it's a reference to Isaiah 53, which spoke of the oppression of The Messiah. Now you couple this with what happened shortly thereafter when Peter actually used one of those swords and was rebuked for it. So we put all of this into context and it's pretty clear that He was referring to having swords to defend themselves against illegal oppression once Christ was gone. Let's add in the plethora of verses (https://www.openbible.info/topics/oppression) which speak against those would oppress others. It's not hard to figure out that the use of force, intimidation, etc is something which God abhors.
Click to expand...

What absolute twaddle.

Peter was rebuked because he was fighting against God's plan......and for nothing else.

The use of force is implicit in the instruction to "buy a sword." Why the hell else would you have a sword? You can't cut your steak with it. You chop trees with an axe. A sword is for fighting.

God does not "abhor" the use of force for GOOD. The Bible clearly states that God approves of it.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
True. But there is no reference to using it to spread Christianity that I recall. Remember that when the bible was being compiled, the Romans were overseeing the affair. Nothing negative about Rome could be put in naturally. The Roman's could have wanted the sword put in since it was so pivotal in the spread of the Roman Empire. Maybe it was for self defense against animals and thieves. Jesus spread his word without violence so the sword would seem more Roman than Christian. We will never really know since the majority of the teachings of Christianity were edited out when they compiled the current version of the bible. We lost more than half the apostle's because something they preached did not sit well with the Romans or the religious leaders they gathered to make the bible. Hopefully one day as more teachings are found we will get a better understanding of what Jesus really tried to get across to us.
Click to expand...

It was for self-defense if you read the section in context. He was telling them that things would be different when he left them.

It also validates the use of force by the military. Paul's letters speak of the use of the sword by the Roman soldiers as being approved by God.

"The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong."

Crusaders were under the authority of the King and thus were servants of God, just as the soldiers and police of today are servants of God.

"We will never know?"

Yes, we know a lot. It just takes some study to figure it out.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The usual rationale that apologists for the crusades use is that they were a preemptive defense of Europe. How exactly does attacking Constantinople defend Europe from Muslims?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. All it shows is that just as Muslims fight among themselves, Christians fight among themselves.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I certainly do not think the majority of western christians are at all interested in bringing the good news and holy salvation to the poor heathens abroad anymore.
Click to expand...

That, in itself, is good news.

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
Vox said:
It does seem that religion intensifies the efforts, establishes a far stronger coalition and sense of purpose and can even give warriors the illusion of immortality and rewards in heaven (especially the Muslims and in a different sense, Shinto Kamikaze pilots, although their immortality was more like a sense of family honor).

It also appears that there is NO WAY to get rid of religion. If you could wave a magic wand and make it vanish........mankind would invent it again the next day.
Click to expand...
or replace it with some "-ism" (prefaced by "commun..", "fasc......." etc.).

A good rallying point to instrumentalize in the effort of lording it over the others is the "better than thou" attitude.
 
zyzygy said:
So the Crusaders were only pretending?
Click to expand...

You're timeline is off by only about 600 years. But was over half a millennium when you're trying to make a point?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
While it is true the Muslims did spread their religion by the use of a sword Jesus did not advocate retaliation to such barbarism. Jesus did not take the Roman empire with a sword but by the spreading of his word.
Click to expand...
Actually, Paul took the Roman Empire with his "Christ" stories........not Jesus.

PIPEWRENCH:
Remember the Christians put a lot of people to death who did not adopt Christianity as well. Of course they were not following the teachings of Jesus but doing the opposite. I therefore do not acknowledge them as Christians but barbaric impostors.

I personally could not stand by and let my loved ones or myself be killed by idiots in the name of religion or government.
Click to expand...
So you'd pick up the sword to kill the barbarians (which is good, because somebody's got to do it).
Click to expand...

I like your style.
 
zyzygy said:
Faults on both sides.
Click to expand...

So now self-defense is a fault? Using your logic, American and Japan were both at fault for WW2.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
The crusaders were not following the teachings of Jesus so they were not Christians. Jesus never picked up a sword to make a point or spread his word.
Click to expand...
True enough, they were following the call of the head of the Christian church (at least its Western branch).
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Crusaders were in it for loot. The First Crusade was the only one that was truly about religion.
Click to expand...
Actually not even that one. But its participants were led to believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom