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. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    Being armed is certainly not prohibited. But it's your free choice if you want to do so. (following local laws, mind you....)
     
  2. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    Unless you slice and dice the passage, it's pretty obvious the context refers to rulers (and governments) in general.
     
  3. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    Well OK - so I presume that would at least include oppressive pagan Rome if (as in the case of the first recipients of Paul's counsel) that's where you happened to be practicing your Christian submissiveness, and of course, the Fatimid Caliphate if you happened to live in that government's territory. It would, by extension also include (I presume) communist China, Nazi Germany and Kim Jong Un's current dictatorial rulership in North Korea. You can't have your cake and ha'penny I'm afraid.
     
    #103 siti, Sep 25, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  4. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    Based on which scriptural principle?
     
  5. Lester Tryon

    Lester Tryon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    190
    Ratings:
    +63
    Religion:
    agnostic
    The powers that be, are called that because they control things. In past times, there wasn't a clear separation of church and state (Church of England etc.). If you read the very beginning of KJV Bible, there is a note from the scribe, translator, what have you, that apologizes repeatedly for some of the translations, as at that time the King was considered to be a direct descendant of God and he was afraid that king could have him executed.
    When the early church decided to put the bible together, they cherry picked the information that would be included. They completely left out the "Gnostic Gospels". Biblical Scholars have stated that (with the KJV being recognized as the closest) there are more than 20,000 changes in the text, just from the oldest Hebrew writings.
    As far as the church (Catholic), following the teachings of Jesus, is secondary to the belief in the resurrection. When the ossuary of James, was found there was a major uproar and I heard a Cardinal state unequivocally that if the bones were to be proven to be those of Jesus, that the entire church would crumble. The idea of life everlasting, in a paradise was irresistible bait to the downtrodden masses of the time.
    Organized religion (organized.) is all about control. So, in a situation where the State (read King) and the Church (read Pope) are of the same authority, (secular and spiritual) then the interests of those powers becomes law.
    I would say overall, that while the Crusades were attributed to the Christian's, what it really meant was that the powers behind the church were to blame, not the individuals following the faith. Certainly not anyone who was following the teaching of Jesus.
     
  6. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    It was your first sentence in your post #89, which I assumed was aimed at me.

    As far as Acts, Titus, and Romans are concerned, I didn't refer to those as my reference was to why it appears through variable verses that Jesus' statements appear to be contradictory with each other, and then I offered what could be a possible solution but you don't seem to be much interested. Plus, right now, I'm a bit strapped for time.
     
  7. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I think it's because they want certainty that they're right, so the minute one questions the accuracy of the Bible or provides alternative interpretations, this feeds into an uncertainty that really bothers some people. Since my main area is in science, we get very used to being uncertain.

    How about you?
     
  8. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,081
    Ratings:
    +14,885
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    I embraced my uncertainty many years ago.

    For example, ultimately the answer to who was responsible for the Crusades is Muslims are responsible due to the Islamic conquests that seized formally "Christian" lands over several hundred years. That the Crusades were less than noble attempts to take these area back is another discussion entirely but due the rationale at the time they certainly felt they were within their rights to do so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Yes, but then one could come back and bring in the element of Christian conquests during and after Constantine that were centuries prior to the emergence of Islam.
     
  10. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,081
    Ratings:
    +14,885
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Indeed. We could play that game all day, LOL. The point is that the "land" belongs to whoever can hold it against any who oppose such occupation. This is pretty well the rule until the modern era where we created neat little boundaries and all agreed, more or less, to stay on their side of a given line.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,077
    Ratings:
    +2,753
    I hope you are Not serious about anyone going up to an attacker and saying attack me instead.
    I would imagine in the above scenairo if the attacker's sole purpose was to single out your wife with you being there he would Not hesitate to neutralize you first, attack you first. So, how would possessing a gun guarantee you would Not be a victim. I would imagine an intruder would enter by surprise. If your wife was threatened by a gun-possessing assailant he might not hesitate to use it first on you before you could use a gun to shoot him. When No escape is possible there is No biblical teaching against reasonably defending oneself or another. In other words, to stop the attack by taking defensive action but without killing the person if at all possible. Any thoughts about Exodus 22:2-3.

    There are No guarantees that we would never face violent attacks. Throughout history God's people have faced violent crime as found at Genesis 4:8; Job 1:14-15,17 but Scripture wants us to think ahead and do the best we can do to avoid potential situations that could lead to, or put us in a bad position needing the use of violent acts as per Proverbs 16:32; 1 Peter 3:11.
     
  12. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,077
    Ratings:
    +2,753
    Christian or so-called Christian. Gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that after the apostles would be off the scene that false shepherds would be fleecing the flock of God.
    That ties in with Jesus' illustration about how genuine ' wheat ' Christians would grow together over the centuries with the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians until the Harvest Time, or the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as found at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
     
  13. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Then maybe throw your Bible away because it was under Constantine's directive that led to the canon you use, compiled by Catholic bishops that took over 1/2 century to complete.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. syo

    syo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    4,703
    Ratings:
    +1,502
    Religion:
    pagan, omni, anarchy, nihil, and born again christian orthodox
    no. but for money, they would participate.
     
  15. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,077
    Ratings:
    +2,753
    Not quite sure I understand ' throw your Bible away ' because Church customs, or Church traditions, are taught as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture, so I can understand ' throw your customs outside of your Bible away '.
    In other words, having the Bible and following the Bible can be do different things.
    Gospel writer Luke forewarned at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that there would be false shepherds.
    At 2 Timothy 4:3 informs that people would have teachers to have their ' ears tickled ' so that their clergy would say what they want to hear over what Scripture says.
     
  16. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I'm talking about the actual selection of the canon, not anything that was done with variable interpretations nor the subsequent traditions.
     
  17. Jeremiah Ames

    Jeremiah Ames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,946
    Ratings:
    +1,614
    Religion:
    Areligious Christian
    Very nicely said.
    Thank you, brother.
     
  18. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It is God's word metis.....it is not a product of the Catholic Church. The apocryphal books were included by them, but are not accepted as scripture by many of the world's Christians.....so it isn't a Catholic Bible because not a single Catholic wrote a word in it.

    God can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will....even his enemies. He used Babylon to conquer his own people as a punishment for their unfaithfulness, yet he later destroyed Babylon for their own iniquities. It was all foretold by Daniel.
     
  19. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    38,700
    Ratings:
    +19,342
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I've linked you to sites that show the history of the selection of the canon but, as usual, you just ignore what they say and produce no objective sources to support your contention. This is why having any discussion with you is fruitless, largely because your hate-filled bigotry prevents you from accepting real historical information that goes against what you continuously spew forth.

    However, as fruitless as it is, let me again recommend you link up to historical sources, and you can even start with these:

    Biblical canon - Wikipedia

    Catholic Church - Wikipedia

    Also, it seems you're totally unaware or are in a state of denial of the simple fact that "the Way" eventually adopted a new name in the 2nd century, and guess which name that was?

    But you're just going to ignore this and continue wallowing in your prejudices, so I'm going to move on.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. e.r.m.

    e.r.m. Church of Christ

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,719
    Ratings:
    +218
    Religion:
    Church of Christ
    I think it would depend what role they played. Many joined to get out of jail and many joined for other Catholic benefits, if I remember correctly. Not all were there because of duty to country. Not all engaged in mass slaughters, but for those who did, it definitely wasn't Christian. It was macabre. But to be fair, those whom they were fighting against we're equally in the wrong. Both sides should share the guilt of the bloodshed that occurred doing those years.
     
Loading...