1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Who were responsible for the crusades.?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Jeremiah Ames, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    metis, your response here demonstrates what I have been trying to get across all along.....

    There is no command from Christ to take up arms at all. If there was a need to "protect" his disciples, don't you think he would have prevented the suffering and death of his own apostles? There is little mention of how they died in the Bible, but in John 21:18-19 Jesus says to the apostle Peter..."Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.”

    Paul was probably executed too but not before he suffered much as a disciple of Christ.
    "For all things,” he said, “I have the strength by virtue of him who imparts power to me.” (Phillipians 4:13) He endured much but did not complain. When comparing his experiences with those of others, he wrote (about 55 C.E.): “In labors more plentifully, in prisons more plentifully, in blows to an excess, in near-deaths often. By Jews I five times received forty strokes less one, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I experienced shipwreck, a night and a day I have spent in the deep; in journeys often, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from highwaymen, in dangers from my own race, in dangers from the nations, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers among false brothers, in labor and toil, in sleepless nights often, in hunger and thirst, in abstinence from food many times, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day, the anxiety for all the congregations.” (2 Corinthians 11:23-28;6:4-10; 7:5) Who protected Paul?

    Consider also other Christian martyrs whose lives were taken in horrific fashion for the entertainment of the Romans. Many of them were whole families with children, torn apart by wild beasts. Who protected them? Didn't Jesus say that his disciples had to endure to the death? So many of them did....and with incredible courage.

    It is one thing to "protect" one's family members in a non-violent way, but quite another to "live by the sword" as is done in gun-obsessed countries like America. If you have no weapons, you cannot be tempted to used them, incurring bloodguilt before God. (Isaiah 1:15)

    This is theory of the church to justify their involvement in the conflicts of their nation. But tell me please whose position was "just" in a war that had nothing to do with God? Did he not tell his disciples to be NO part of this world because, as James wrote, "Friendship with the world is enmity with God". (James 4:4) He likened it to "adultery".

    When Catholics and Protestants on one side, were killing fellow Catholics and Protestants on the other...whose side was God on? The answer is neither. Both were going against a direct command of the Christ.

    Matthew 5:43-45...."You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous."

    How is killing your "brother" a Christian act? (1 John 4:20-21) The churches do not have a scriptural leg to stand on because the war is not "just" to God.....only to men. (Romans 12:17-21)

     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,253
    Ratings:
    +19,743
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    That really doesn't negate what I posted.
     
  3. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,253
    Ratings:
    +19,743
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    What you essentially say above is that Jesus opposed that section of the Law that allows for defense of the innocent, whereas it says in the Tanakh that anyone who does so as a supposed prophet is in reality a "false prophet". You can't have it both ways in that either the Law is to be followed or that it's unnecessary to follow any of the Law. Picking & choosing which Laws to follow ain't allowed.
     
  4. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
    No. You can defend another because of the words found at John 15:13 that is Not taking up weapons as for killing.
     
  5. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
    Jesus allowed for a NEW Law, or a NEW commandment, found at John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he had. One can be sure if one's son was killed in battle is was Not by Jesus nor any of his first-century followers.

    I find Jesus fulfilled the temporary Constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel as per Romans 10:4 that Christ is the end of that Law.

    At John 15:13 Jesus is Not ignoring 'defence of the innocent' because Jesus teaches that the one who has the greatest love would lay down one's life for another.
     
  6. Maponos

    Maponos Kill V. Maim

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2015
    Messages:
    590
    Ratings:
    +321
    Religion:
    Polytheism
    It kind of boiled down to: do we allow the Muslims to conquer and enslave us or do we take the fight back to them.
     
  7. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    No - your statement was an out of context interpretation of an obviously figurative passage of scripture which has been twisted with the intention of supporting the engagement of Christians in armed conflict. Christ told his disciples on the night of his arrest that they should not take up the sword in the fight against his enemies - and that is a consistent message throughout the Christian scriptures (Matthew 5:9, 39, 44; Luke 22:49-51; Colossians 3:15; Romans 12:21...etc.) My "rant" was not a rant at all - I was merely illustrating that the passages in Revelation that you appeal to for support of your contention that "Jesus is not a pacifist" were not meant to be taken literally - unless you are recommending that Christians purposefully engage in some of the most heinous war crimes ever perpetrated. Fighting to free others from oppression is possibly a commendable (perhaps even noble) human choice - but it certainly is not a Christian one and it certainly has no general support in NT scripture on an unbiased reading. So you are free to fight if you want to - but you can't use either Christ or scripture as an excuse - and neither should "Christianity" want to claim credit for warfare "for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" (James 1:20).

    Here endeth today's sermon! Peace be with you! ;)
     
    #87 siti, Sep 24, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  8. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,253
    Ratings:
    +19,743
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    If one takes that position, then they are essentially declaring Jesus to be a "false prophet" since any supposed prophet who says the Law can be ignored is as such according to the Tanakh. Also, see post #83.

    Now, there's another way of looking at this whereas he might not need to be declared as such. Interested? Got an open mind?
     
  9. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
    I have found some peoples minds are so open minded to the point that their brains can fall out.

    Since I find the Law was only for one nation the nation of ancient Israel then every other nation ignored the Law.
    Gentiles had No reason to keep the Law since it was Not for the gentiles or the peoples of the nations.
    Any thoughts about Titus 1:15 and what gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts of the Apostles 10:13-15.
    Gentile Cornelius was Not converted to become Jewish but to become Christian.
    Only the ancient Israelites were the only ones who were Not to ignore that Law.
    Who today does the animal sacrifices as perscribed by that Law.
    Who do you know that sacrifice bulls, etc. in worship.
    The reason that is Not done today is because Jesus fulfilled the Law as per Romans 10:4.
     
  10. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,253
    Ratings:
    +19,743
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Thus endeth any chance for us to have any kind of conversation.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
    This country was never a Christian theocracy (God Rule) so the government allows non-Christian Muslims to come.
    Come and conquer, etc. if possible because this country operates as a free-religious marketplace or cafeteria.
    With values or standards up for grabs that has created a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world.
    Genuine ' wheat ' Christians would never compromise with religious or non-religious ' Storm Troopers '.
     
  12. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
  13. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,253
    Ratings:
    +19,743
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
  14. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,186
    Ratings:
    +2,774
    I am sorry, I did Not realize I was using sarcasm. Please point out to me the sarcasm so that won't happen again.
    I sincerely do apologize to you, and I sincerely do want to know your thoughts about Acts, Titus and Romans.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
  15. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    And, it also says concerning governments, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:1-4)

    The passage then goes on to explain our obligations toward these powers. In no case in the Bible is the individual ever given the right to vengeance. That authority rests solely with governments. (Even Trump administrations....) However, self defense, and the defense of the innocent is not vengeance. It's a command.

    Look: I "get" where the peaceniks are coming from. I hate violence, and I hate war too. But given the options, it's a damned site better than allowing evil people to just run roughshod over everything.

    Now, whereas your theology takes one virtue and extols it above all others, mine features a balance between the various opposing ideas. Romans 12:18 says, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." No. We do not go out looking to pick fights, or to provoke people. Unfortunately however, there are some people who simply will neither live peacefully with you, nor allow you to live alone in peace. These people must be dealt with in a swift, concise fashion; however ugly the job.

    Now, getting back to what I was saying. Christ is not a pacifist. Neither was the God of the Old Testament. Being that the bulk of Christianity is trinitarian in nature, (That's entirely another debate...) I'm logically assuming that the two are therefore, one and the same. Whether you "spiritualize" passages in Revelation, or not; you still need to deal with the fact that God (Christ) commanded the Israelites as a governing force to execute judgement in the land of Cannan.

    Furthermore, you also have to ultimately reconcile your theology to deal with the fact that Christ (God) , in Revelation, will ultimately destroy evil, and along with that concept: evil people. God has a very long suffering patience. It is not His will that anybody would perish. (2 Peter 3:9) But eventually, even He runs out of giving second chances.
     
  16. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,081
    Ratings:
    +14,885
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Just know that some of us will never surrender especially if women, children and people of undefined gender are being hurt. Good thing I'm not bound by any books. That begs the question though, if Jesus is the real deal what makes people think that he is bound to their books?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    And how exactly do you propose that is to be done?

    So, a guy comes to attack my wife, and I walk up to him and say, "Attack me instead." So then, he takes out a gun, shoots me dead, and then proceeds, now unhindered by anything, to attack my spouse. A fat lot of good THAT did!!!

    It should probably be noted that the repelling of a force requires, at very least, an equal response.
     
  18. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    And which "powers" do you suppose Paul was admonishing Christians to be subject to? Clue - 1st century, Letter to the Romans - correct - he was admonishing Christians to be subject to and (as far as it depended on them) at peace with their oppressors. How many of the early Christian martyrs died "bearing the sword" against Roman oppression? They died subject to the "bearer of the sword" - just as Christ had done earlier, setting the model for them to follow. Was their sacrifice in vain? Or was it to be avenged by "Christian" armies? Was Christ's death to be avenged? What value does the sacrifice have if it is avenged? Your position is not logical at all - if anything, it makes a mockery of the central dogma of the Christian faith - the redeeming sacrifice of the Prince of Peace.

    (PS - I am not a Christian, but I think I have a reasonable grasp of the tenets).
     
  19. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    So the Christian thing to do is to carry a gun just in case and shoot anybody you suspect might be armed or have malicious intent. Which verse is that based on?
     
  20. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    Bingo! That's exactly what the Europeans of the 11th century were facing. And their decision to "fight back" has brought us to the point in history where we are today.

    In the previous 400 years the Muslims had conquered 75% of the former Christian territory. The whole middle East, Northern Africa and all Europe were at one time ALL Christian lands. Europe was all the ground they had left. It was do, or die!

    The "dark ages" were mainly caused mainly by a lack of trade and economic restraint placed on the Europeans by the Muslim world. Why did the Europeans need to have their trade routes go around the "Horn of Africa?" Answer: Because if they went through the Middle East, they would be captured and enslaved by Muslims who has closed off the lands to them. The Mediterranean Sea was a very dangerous place. Ships were constantly being attacked by Muslim raiders. Europe was cut off from trade, exchange of knowledge and ideas, travel. After 400 years of Muslim aggression, they were basically isolated. And the Muslims were still pushing in. They had made it well into Spain and Portugal, and were working their way toward Paris. The crusades eventually shifted the balance of power and worked to keep the invaders at bay.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...