posted
However if the Crusades were wrong does that mean that Islam now gets a turn? By that logic we should let the Shia have at the Sunnis in Iraq because it is their turn to wield the whip, fair is fair huh?
No, wrong is wrong.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay you definetely got me on the Fourth Crusade, that pisses me off more than most things in history.
But it also helps frame why it's really important to talk about the Crusades using specifics, and not generalities. The Crusades are comprised of separate efforts spanning hundreds of years, not all of them were bad, and grouping them together as an example of ultimate Christian evils is silly and isn't truthful.
The aim of the Crusades weren't wrong, and the prosecution wasn't always wrong. Don't blame all of Christianity when some men during those wars were true heroes, and some were wicked despots. It can't be clearly brushed with one title. Specifics, for a complex historical series of events, are necessary. And I'm going to snipe at anyone who fails to do so, from now until the day I stop posting at Hatrack.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
By that standard, 'e should swear on a copy of the Constitution.
Perhaps with an index finger around yea subject hereabouts:
quote:THE CONSTITUTION SAYETH:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
quote:Originally posted by Rotar Mode: Good post, Lyrhawn, but I fail to see to whom it was directed. Clarification, please?
Loosely to kmbboots, and to General Sax, but more so just an in general post. In this thread, and others involving Christianity I've seen far to often people merely toss out "the Crusades" as an example of Christian atrocity and aggression, and it needs fixing.
Blaming the Crusades as a whole for some of the atrocities that yes, did occur, is like saying World War II is evil as well, because of the holocaust, but totally ignoring the good that took place in that war. Actually a better comparison would probably be to villify the entire war because of the bombing of Dresden or the nukes, ignoring everything that lead up to it.
I guess that post was less directed at any one person, and more a general catharsis of my frustration with a long line of general comments made about the Crusades, with seemingly little understanding of the their complexity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so, and so long as efforts are made to enforce PC dogma in discussions then the result is a hopelessly thin gruel unfit for anyone.
quote: That one's God doesn't possess all the same attributes as the other's God is obvious. But there's enough overlap that I think we can generously grant "sameness," unless the conversation is going to deal with the specifics of doctrine.
Back to this logical gem, my point is well made at the heart of this statement in another word, 'doctrine', in general the doctrine of a faith is the Provence of clerics, the spiritual leaders of the religion.
So the fact that the God in question is different is obvious to the leadership in authority and the 'feeling' that He is different is the Provence of the congregation.
So who is it that is telling the congregation that we all have the same God? Not those that know (Priests Rabbis, Imans), except when they are willing to fudge the doctrine to achieve political goals. That is to say, it is the goal to take away a feeling based on correct assumptions and manipulate the faithful with a lie. The underlying assumption by the PC crowd is that the ignorant congregation member can be manipulated with lies for his own good because 'we' know what is best. It is simple elitism, it shows contempt for religious beliefs. The contempt goes a long way toward explaining the ignorance of true doctrine since it is clear that to them the subject merits little attention.
[ December 08, 2006, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: How can we be your cousins, Sax, if you're our illegitimate children?
By your rules that would make us Jews, of course that was how you ended up creating the Muslims so you might want to be careful with that.
First of all, your ignorance is stunning. No, it would not make you Jews. But certainly, your heresy (and I'm using the word "you" to apply to you and those who think like you) did start off as a Jewish one, before you paganized it.
And... we created the Muslims? That's a joke.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I had to try and come up with a victim of religious fervor during the Crusades, the only group that really comes to mind are the Jews, and those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
It's one of the problems I have with the Robin Hood stories, and their painting the butcher Richard as some sort of wonderful hero. Granted, compared to John, he may have been, but it wasn't John who was practicing his butchery skills on Jewish villages on the way to the holy land.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that General Sax is an anti-Christian provocateur, actually. For all my objections to Christianity as a religion, I kind of doubt that most Christians are anything like the hateful and bigoted caricature General Sax is portraying here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you are right. I should have been more specific. Using the Crusades without giving more detail as an example was lazy. Still, my point that no one religion has a monopoly on using religion to justify atrocities stands, I think.
General Sax, I don't know what particular branch of Christianity you practice, but your concept of the Trinity is different from mine. It is not a case of God splitting in parts. And you would need to include Catholics in those groups you don't consider as "worshipping the same God" as you do as our doctrine clearly states that we worship the same God as the Muslims:
quote: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
From Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions - Nostra Aetate Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And... we created the Muslims? That's a joke.
Ishmael came from the loins of your Patriarch not mine.
As for anti-Christian provocatour... that ranks with the Muslim league claiming Americans threw shoes at Muslim children, we do not care to do that kind of thing here, you need to get out of the Middle East more.
Hate? I do not hate anyone here, I do not hate Muslims or Jews or anybody else, I do not approve of those who believe that Christ has no part in God claiming they share my God or the God of my faith. It is a false claim.
I point out error out of love not hate.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never implied that the Trinity is three seperate parts, These three are one... However if you think the Pope does not take exception to the lack of Christ in the Muslim and Jewish faiths then your CCD classes need to be improved.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
GS, you read the official statement. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ is God - one in being with the Father. Your claim that not believing in Christ means not believing in God, though, is quite clearly not shared by Catholics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Hate? I do not hate anyone here, I do not hate Muslims or Jews or anybody else, I do not approve of those who believe that Christ has no part in God claiming they share my God or the God of my faith. It is a false claim.
You are a hate-filled demogogue, Sax, or at least you're trying your best to portray one. But it's not for saying that Jews don't worship the god you do. That's absolutely true. We worship the One God, while you're a pagan.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So who is it that is telling the congregation that we all have the same God? Not those that know (Priests Rabbis, Imans), except when they are willing to fudge the doctrine to achieve political goals.
Ironically, I've heard the "one God" bit more often from clerics than from laity. But, then, I actually LISTEN when people talk, so I have substantially different experiences with them than you do, I suspect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I wasn't listening when you talk Tom I would not be so able to point out when you pull a fast one.
(Oh yes a smiley face to make it all better I almost forgot)
quote: You are a hate-filled demogogue, Sax, or at least you're trying your best to portray one. But it's not for saying that Jews don't worship the god you do. That's absolutely true. We worship the One God, while you're a pagan.
I'm not a real Hate Filled Demagogue but I do play one on TV, and I am here to talk to you about Jesus...
I promise you that I am not operating from a position of hate, but I have a secret to tell you that will change your life. The Gas Chambers were not kept running on hatred. Hatred and passion and hand waving is a Middle East kind of thing, (and a French thing) it makes for good news bites but it really never gets the job done and it leaves the person who gets so worked up in a state of emotional exhaustion.
What allowed the Holocaust to happen was the attitude that "It is just a dirty job that needs doing, I do not like it but at least my Grandkids will not have to do it, I can protect them from that..."
This is why the way I make my point make you so upset, my point of view is without self pity or pity for the opposition, without hate or rancor or loathing. I told you once that animal sacrifice is Icky, and for that mild distaste I will stand against any Jewish military attempt to impose Judaism on America(as your hoped for Messiah must) and I will stack enemy bodies like cord wood a whistle Disney songs and crack jokes as I do it.
The Muslims are the tragic progeny of a lie that (unlike the book of Mormon) was not even made out of a desire for a better life for others, it is merely a lie meant to entitle the elite who financed a war for political power and wealth, and perpetuate that lifestyle even into Heaven itself.
Like the Roman's before us the American soldiers see war as dirty difficult job and we take grim satisfaction in doing it well, better then anybody else, better then anybody ever. So when the fanatics come at us armored in faith we kill them and stack the dead, then we go play the PS 2 and joke about the way the guy's head came apart when the 50 cal round drilled him. We complain about chow or the marines dirtying the shower but we do not jump up and down and chant and rant and rave.
So when you are spent and exhausted from name calling and emotional upheaval, I am steady looking out and waiting to keep the line. Forget hate, my feelings do not even get up to irritation on this subject. I am mildly interested. I don't even hate the men I have shot let alone you.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's what I hear from my priests. And every minister I know - and I know a lot of them.
Yet my Priest and our resident Jesuit have both said that the policy is to show compassion and understanding until the Jews and Muslims come to Christ, in other words we are waiting for them to catch up. By no means does that mean we need to slow down and run alongside and pretend they are keeping pace.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Wishful thinking, I think. It's totally untrue.
Depends on your definition of punished. Hundreds were excommunicated for pillaging Jews along the route to the Levant. But it depends on which Crusade, which nation, which Jews were pillaged, and who was Pope at the time, considering Pope Innocent III decided to enact anti-Jewish legislation.
I shouldn't have said that they were ALL punished, that was a mistake on my part, but punishments were issued, though not to the majority by any means. The fact that Lisa doesn't include excommunication as a valuable punishment doesn't make untrue the fact that they (many) were in fact punished, and that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Could've and should've been better. But there you go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still different from saying we don't worship the same God.
And really, what do they say about the lives (you claim) you take while whistling Disney songs? And about how you define "enemy". I would be hard pressed to find a priest who approved of joking about how a man's head "came apart". I am certain that would not fall under any description of loving your enemies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Wishful thinking, I think. It's totally untrue.
Depends on your definition of punished. Hundreds were excommunicated for pillaging Jews along the route to the Levant. But it depends on which Crusade, which nation, which Jews were pillaged, and who was Pope at the time, considering Pope Innocent III decided to enact anti-Jewish legislation.
I shouldn't have said that they were ALL punished, that was a mistake on my part, but punishments were issued, though not to the majority by any means. The fact that Lisa doesn't include excommunication as a valuable punishment doesn't make untrue the fact that they (many) were in fact punished, and that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Could've and should've been better. But there you go.
If you cite actually evidence that such excommunication happened, I'll accept it as punishment. But I don't believe there is any such evidence. Show me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll grab my books on the subject later and quote them. Don't have the time at the moment, but maybe by tomorrow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Where are you getting that from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, too. I haven't heard anything like that - quite the opposite it fact. Massacres at York, Worms, Cologne...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in most cases, directly preceded by an inflammatory Sunday morning speech from the local pulpit.
Now, there certainly were some clergy (and laypeople as well, of course) who protected Jews during the Crusades. But to claim that the massacres were "considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general" is in direct contradiction to all research I have read on the time period. Historical revisionism, I suspect.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not very successful revision - as indicated by not precisely accurate - use of the Crusades as shorthand for "Christians committing atrocities". My understanding (and I think this is a common understanding) is that, in general, it was hardly our finest hour.
I also used the Inquisition as an example. The same arguments Lryhawn made against my use of Crusades could be against using the Inquisition as "shorthand". The Inquisition started (by some accounts) as an attempt by the clergy to control/stop mob violence against Jews by insisting on trials with evidence etc. Not terribly successful in that goal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Where are you getting that from?
Well, if you want a source NOW, go to Wikipedia, if you want book sources, you have to wait until I have time, which isn't until after finals probably.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I promise you that I am not operating from a position of hate, but I have a secret to tell you that will change your life. The Gas Chambers were not kept running on hatred. Hatred and passion and hand waving is a Middle East kind of thing...it makes for good news bites but it really never gets the job done.... Like the Roman's before us the American soldiers see war as dirty difficult job and we take grim satisfaction in doing it well, better then anybody else, better then anybody ever. So when the fanatics come at us armored in faith we kill them and stack the dead, then we go play the PS 2 and joke about the way the guy's head came apart when the 50 cal round drilled him.... So when you are spent and exhausted from name calling and emotional upheaval, I am steady looking out and waiting to keep the line. Forget hate, my feelings do not even get up to irritation on this subject.
Dude, if you aren't a troll, you're the most incompetent debater ev-ar. You just unapologetically compared yourself to the Nazis. You're welcome to that comparison. *grin*
quote:Nobody makes you better then a good enemy...
Ah. So you picked Bob out of a desire for self-improvement, then. I was wondering. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps Lisa know that hate is not as much to be feared as ruthless competence then it is a lesson taught well.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think she said she feared you. The implication is that she finds your hatefulness distasteful, and your "competence" irrelevant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not own any hatefullness and my competence was not the point, but it was a nice try Tom, you'll get there...
Lisa certainly does not need to fear me, I am certainly more likely to be called to protect her then to be called to defend America against her Religion/Nation, I do not see any candidates for Jewish Messiah on the world stage to lead the charge.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow. making light of someone's head exploding isn't exactly up jesus's alley. regardless of their status as an enemy. in fact he taught to pray for such people - and not after mocking g-d's creation. (which a body invariably is, to most faiths.) something tells me he wouldn't exactly be happy to stack up bodies of those who have "gone astray."
you're a muffed up dude. i'm leaving this thread for good, for the same reasons i would stay inside during a kkk parade. y'all don't need any more attention.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'll bite, if for nothing more than to see what the response is: General Sax, if the gas chambers at Auschwitz weren't run on hate, what were they run on?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good Maintenance men, solid construction, well maintained gas lines, meticulous record keepers, diligent guards, disgusted grave diggers...
The hatred was in the hearts of a handful of leaders, and in the common people who turned on neighbors. Hatred never got a complex job done. The haters just pointed the way, it was the doers that got it done.
Soldiers are used to doing hard and dirty jobs, including shooting people, if you do not think we joke around about it then you are the bent one, I am sure doctors crack jokes about things that happen in operating rooms just like sailors once bet on the number of maggots in a biscuit, people that do not understand this have just never been there.
Good contractors leveled and built, well constructed rail systems transported the people, it goes on and on. It took powerful emotion to rush into a walled city and butcher the people by hand, but execution is just a matter of systematic efficiency.
Recall the Book of Numbers when the captives were slaughtered, line em up, check for intact hymen, slaughter those too old or used, split them up into lots and divide them up and use the same swords to slaughter the unlucky, bury the swords...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think she said she feared you. The implication is that she finds your hatefulness distasteful, and your "competence" irrelevant.
Contemptible, actually. Distasteful means I wrinkle my nose and walk away. In the case of hatemongers like General Sax... well, I don't recommend that he ever try and meet me in person, or if he does, I highly suggest that it'd be to his benefit to conceal who he is until it's too late for me to do anything about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
General Sax, I've come to the conclusion that the most eloquent and persuasive argument you could possibly make would be to stop talking.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, if you want a source NOW, go to Wikipedia, if you want book sources, you have to wait until I have time, which isn't until after finals probably.
Actually interested by this (even though I'm a little puzzled why we're focusing on Jews when there are so many people of other religions that were attacked), tried checking in Wikipedia as suggested.
The closest I've got is the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds'_Crusade]Shepard's Crusade[/url] in which:
quote: In any case, the crowd of shepherds split up after leaving the city. Some of them went to Rouen, where they expelled the archbishop and threw some priests into the Seine river. In Tours they attacked monasteries. The others under the Master arrived in Orléans on June 11. Here they were denounced by the bishop, whom they also attacked, along with other clerics, including Franciscans and Dominicans. They fought with the university students in the city as well, as Blanche might have feared would happen in Paris. Moving on to Amiens, and then Bourges, they also began to attack Jews.
Blanche responded by ordering the crowds to be rounded up and excommunicated. This was done rather easily as they were simply wandering, directionless, around northern France, but the group led by the Master resisted outside Bourges, and the Master himself was killed in the ensuing skirmish.
So yeah, maybe some Christian's were excommunicated (albeit by the French regent and not the pope?) for killing Jews, although it is not clear whether expelling the archbishop and tossing priests into a river may have been a strong contributing factor.
However, I would assert that this is far from a majority and hardly representative considering that the Shepard's Crusade is hardly a "big" crusade and largely unrecognized.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
