Question to Christians (esp) Catholics.

[Barinthus]

BK?!? Where is BK when you need him?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


If I recall correctly, EVC, didn't you once advocate the mass murder of homosexuals by means of hanging them by their genitals?

That's not fair bringing up something I said six years ago... under completely different circumstances (a self-hating closet gay nazi) I'm now gay and Nazi-free.

[Shi Huangdi]

You weren't a Nazi. You were a fascist, but as I seem to recall you didn't like the nazis because they gave fascism a bad name.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Wouldn't I be going to hell then, so why would they want to help out a damned soul like mine, ain't I be the other side at that point?"

You can't be damned while you are on Earth, while on Earth you always have time to repent.

But you know, EvC, I am offended, not that you aren't Christian but that you act in a deliberatly insulting way to your friends. I was a friend of yours earlier. When people here mocked you for fun, I didn't go along and would occasionaly try to defend you. I spent a whole lot of time talking to you on ICQ and AIM, listening to you and trying to help you through your problems. And yet you know I post here and that I am a Catholic, and you post this stuff that doesn't have any argumentative value and is deliberatly insulting.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Gamecube64
Namely the one to take Jerusalem since the christians didn't hold it in the first place.

They did before Arabs took it from them.

Originally posted by Sava
bull****... the Crusaders sacked Orthodox churches...

For the first time because they thoughts that if they enter Saracen-held ground, all are deadly Saracens
And in the IV crusade, because it turned into a loot party.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Thorn
I've asked god about it, he sends a few tornadoes in the South for that very reason, but he doesn't want to send too much cause he doesn't want to upset the rest of his creation Nature....

He was particularly dimayed by the re-election of President Bush, that's why there were so many hurricanes right before the election to try to wipe out republican held territory... last ditch effort by god to influence the election......

Nurse! Get the big needle!

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Gamecube64
Namely the one to take Jerusalem since the christians didn't hold it in the first place.

Originally posted by Sava
bull****... the Crusaders sacked Orthodox churches...

Yeah - and no communist should be believed because of the purges under Stalin and Mao.
And no German, Japanese, or Italian government should be allowed to exist because of WW2.
And no American form of government because of the war with Mexico.
And no Mexican form of Government should be tolerated or allowed to have self - determination because of the war with Texas and the United States.
And Texans are evil because of there war with Mexico.
Oh - and the French, they are deceived because of Napoleon.
Etc. etc. etc.



If you read the whole passage in John, the people that were listening to Jesus thought he was crazy because he said to "eat his flesh and drink his blood".
It is very simple - we take on his nature.

The cross is so unlike any other demonstration of any previous religion it did take mankind as a whole by surprise.
God`s were generally thought to be petty , cruel and self serving. Jesus was the antithesis to these concepts in that he was selflessly devoted. He displayed this in that he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
God sending his son, to sacrifice himself to us - rather than requiring a sacrifice from us.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Also, stop demonising crusades. They were in general a defensive movement.

Just some thoughts on this remark :

You can argue that crusades were defensive only for those after the first one, namely, to support the newly occupied stretch of Holy Land. But the first Crusade which created the need for all the rest was a blatantly agressive enterprise, sanctified by the established Church.

The reasoning that "Christians had Jerusalem before the Muslims, so European Christians had a right to claim it back" is not a very plausible one, because once you start picking a timeline favourable to provide justification for certain events (eg: Byzantines were there before the Arabs), there's no way you can stop historical selectiveness: For example, before Byzantines and Romans, Persians controlled the Holy Land, so they are more entitled to have it than Byzantines,, before them Egyptians, before them Jews, Kanaanites, Babylonians, Hittites (?) etc etc.

Secondly, defensive or not, Crusades sowed the seeds of centuries of conflict with much loss to Christianity itself in the process. Actually, by the time of the Crusades, Islam had ran out of steam in its expansion and Islamic societies more or less settled in a status quo with Christianity. They had no pressingly negative view of Christianity for Christians local or abroad.

However, after the Crusaders arrived through what was nothing less than a violent and hostile act, committing atrocities and expressing undiluted hatred and despise towards Muslims and Islam all the while being clad in big Crosses all over themselves, Islamic zealotry grew dramatically in angry reaction to Christian zealotry.

The mentality of Jihad was thus irreversibly rekindled. In the following 3 centuries during which the Crusader principalities were gradualy reduced and eventually destroyed, the need to fight Christianity established itself strongly in the Muslim world perspective. Christianity thereafter was seen as a threat to be overcome, with no room for compromise (mirroring the Christian regard of Islam).

Byzantium, the ancient and foremost defender of Christianity in the East, was in fact the most dramatic victim of the Crusades, first being weakened by the Crusades, and then by being the target of all the renewed expansionist energy of the Turks, the new Muslim masters of the region.

Furthermore, during/after the Crusades, local Christians, who got along pretty well up to then in the Middle East, started to be viewed with suspicion, and their lives got much more uncomfortable as a result, to say the least.

Through Crusades, Christianity forever etched its image in Muslim societies as a hostile and despiseful force, one out of which nothing good can come. Almost simultaneously, a mirror image about Islam in the Christian world established itself.

When the time of industrialisation arrived, concepts and technological developments which were results of mostly a secular process in the West were still viewed with genuine suspicion in the East as products of Christianity. The process of colonisation only confirmed these general perceptions.

[Thorn]

But you know, EvC, I am offended, not that you aren't Christian but that you act in a deliberatly insulting way to your friends. I was a friend of yours earlier. When people here mocked you for fun, I didn't go along and would occasionaly try to defend you. I spent a whole lot of time talking to you on ICQ and AIM, listening to you and trying to help you through your problems. And yet you know I post here and that I am a Catholic, and you post this stuff that doesn't have any argumentative value and is deliberatly insulting.

I never insulted you, you are the one who decided to bring up old wounds to attack me with. As Ming would say discuss the arguement not the posters. I ask simple questions cause I don't understand and would like a logical explanation so that perhaps I would understand even if I didn't agree.

As a matter of fact my Brother, his wife and daughter, are Catholic, so I don't appreciate you assuming that I'm here to attack Catholics. I said esp, catholics, in the title cause I don't understand some of your customs.

There are plenty of other customs in different so called Christian sects that I don't understand, like with Mormonism, the remarrying of all dead people (non mormon) to mormon people, the fact that men get to have their own planet when they die...etc....

Or snake handling... in the Pentecostal Church that kind of stuff......

I just don't understand Catholic Communion why you would eat your own god (and drink its blood) while he was still alive* (* thanks for correcting me, but it seems even more eire now). I'm actually trying to figure this stuff out, and all you can do is insult me. I don't appreciate it, if you were my friend you would try to help me understand it, instead of insulting me.



And I think it is morbid to show a crucified god with thorns bleeding his head. Same as I find whatever that old Pagan ritual of bleeding cow blood unto yourself to celbrate the bull god, whatever it was called I forget......

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

You can argue that crusades were defensive only for those after the first one, namely, to support the newly occupied stretch of Holy Land. But the first Crusade which created the need for all the rest was a blatantly agressive enterprise, sanctified by the established Church.

It depends; the 1st crusade was a reply to pleas of Micheal Dukas (Parakopines) and Alexios Komnenos for help. Eventually, their goal changed, true, but even then, as I've mentioned, Christians held it before Muslims did (and we're returning to the earlier point here).

The reasoning that "Christians had Jerusalem before the Muslims, so European Christians had a right to claim it back" is not a very plausible one, because once you start picking a timeline favourable to provide justification for certain events (eg: Byzantines were there before the Arabs), there's no way you can stop historical selectiveness: For example, before Byzantines and Romans, Persians controlled the Holy Land, so they are more entitled to have it than Byzantines,, before them Egyptians, before them Jews, Kanaanites, Babylonians, Hittites (?) etc etc.

Oh, I know. The difference is that Persians never inhabited the lands, and the others inhabited the land no more, and except for Jews, it was not their holy land. Christians still lived in the land at that time,
and it was holy land for them. If it was up to me, I wouldn't give it to crusaders nor to Fatimids or Seldjuks,
but to local population. But it was not possible at that time
Why would Christians let their holy land be held by infidels who were attacking them anyway? From a rational point of view, the route of Ist crusade was nonsence. If they wanted to fight Muslims, they should've done it in Spain or inner Anatolia. But it was not about fighting infidel Muslims. First it was about helping Byzantium, and later about "liberating" Holy Land. If in the meantime the pagan Chineese took it, they'd be fighting them as well.
Not that it was something really good, but it was still better (except for the massacres) than Muslims taking it in the first time.
Oh and yes, with time, crusades became a general fight against non-Christians or even any action supported by the church (which was the folk interpretion of it from the start, vide massacres of German Jews on the way). Not that Muslims didn't have it before Christianity.

Secondly, defensive or not, Crusades sowed the seeds of centuries of conflict with much loss to Christianity itself in the process. Actually, by the time of the Crusades, Islam had ran out of steam in its expansion and Islamic societies more or less settled in a status quo with Christianity. They had no pressingly negative view of Christianity for Christians local or abroad.
However, after the Crusaders arrived through what was nothing less than a violent and hostile act, committing atrocities and expressing undiluted hatred and despise towards Muslims and Islam all the while being clad in big Crosses all over themselves, Islamic zealotry grew dramatically in angry reaction to Christian zealotry.
The mentality of Jihad was thus irreversibly rekindled. In the following 3 centuries during which the Crusader principalities were gradualy reduced and eventually destroyed, the need to fight Christianity established itself strongly in the Muslim world perspective. Christianity thereafter was seen as a threat to be overcome, with no room for compromise (mirroring the Christian regard of Islam).

I disagree. The conflict was around, and while Muslims were losing ground in Iberian Penisula and in Sicily at the time, they recaptured Armenia, part of Georgia and nearly entire Anatolia at this time.
Also, it should be emphasised that while the first crusade was undoubtly the bloodiest and most agressive one (but fourth), it had little impact on perceivement of Christians but Muslims. I recall one complaint of a Muslim at that time about the crusades, but the author sees in it nothing else than what was happening in Sicily or Spain. Up till the Mamluk times, there were always Muslim rulers willing to ally with Christians, and crusaders willing to ally with Muslims.
Muslim zealotry came into existance somewhat earlier, and reborned later on, it was hardly a simple reaction to crusades. Even late Ayyubids, descendants of Salah ad-Din, found themselves allied with crusader states when one of them grew in power too much,
and in the times of Salah ad-Din it was on the Christian side that a project of interreligious dinasty marriage and of common rule over Palestine borned (which is balanced on the other side by earlier excesses of Renaud de Chatillon).
It was only emergance of neophite soldiers whose rule in Egypt and Great Syria owned to victories over Christians and pagans that Muslims found a sudden need to get rid of Outremer. And even these Muslims were allied with Aragon and Byzantium.
At this time, Outremer was practically defenceless. And even earlier, when Mongols lead by Christian Kitboga under rule of leaning towards Christianity Hulagu, Antioch-Tripoly and Armenia stood on their side, but Acco offered Mamluks an alliance against them.
The last decades of Outremer, a real outlet of Muslim fury with massacres in comparison to which excesses of first crusaders pale, was hardly balanced by anything on Christian side at this time (perhaps it was because Mamluks were Turkish ).
Anyway, what do You expect? It's not like Muslim behaviour mirrored Christian one. Rather the other way round. Christians haven't captured Mecca or threatened Baghdad several times (well, once Byzantium did).
But again, it's not like it was a simple reply to Muslim agression as well.

Byzantium, the ancient and foremost defender of Christianity in the East, was in fact the most dramatic victim of the Crusades, first being weakened by the Crusades, and then by being the target of all the renewed expansionist energy of the Turks, the new Muslim masters of the region.

True, but hadn't the Turks invaded Anatolia, the crusades wouldn't have started at all.
Also, IVth crusade was in fact a result of good relations between Venice and sultan of Egypt...

Furthermore, during/after the Crusades, local Christians, who got along pretty well up to then in the Middle East, started to be viewed with suspicion, and their lives got much more uncomfortable as a result, to say the least.

I don't think it's so simple. Christians were treaten with suspicion even earlier - then, Muslims were fighting against Christians as well, just Byzantines, not Latins.
Also, as or more suspicion could cause Christian cooperation with Mongols.

Through Crusades, Christianity forever etched its image in Muslim societies as a hostile and despiseful force, one out of which nothing good can come. Almost simultaneously, a mirror image about Islam in the Christian world established itself.

I'm afraid such image existed before, and crusades themselves haven't changed much.

When the time of industrialisation arrived, concepts and technological developments which were results of mostly a secular process in the West were still viewed with genuine suspicion in the East as products of Christianity. The process of colonisation only confirmed these general perceptions.

Are You sure it was because they came out of of Christian world, or just that they came out of non-Muslim world in general?
And if a society lives with a grief over temporary invasion from several hungred years ago, it's more a fault of this society than of the events themselves, especially if this society was not better

Same as I find whatever that old Pagan ritual of bleeding cow blood unto yourself to celbrate the bull god, whatever it was called I forget......

taurobolium I think. And I think it was not a cow, but bull.
And it is somewhat different. Strange that You do not see it.

[Whaleboy]

Haven't read your argument... the Jews were there before the Christians who were there before the Muslims. So because of events 800, and 1700 years ago, Jews have a greater claim than Christians who have a greater claim that Muslims? How exactly does this play on numbers have any relevance to who has the greater claim?

The "we were here first" argument could be used to justify Norway and Germany taking over the UK, then Italy ousting them, then Germany (or wherever the hell the Celts came from) taking the UK over, and we go back and back and back until, using your logic, the known world becomes a colony of Rwanda.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Haven't read your argument... the Jews were there before the Christians who were there before the Muslims. So because of events 800, and 1700 years ago, Jews have a greater claim than Christians who have a greater claim that Muslims? How exactly does this play on numbers have any relevance to who has the greater claim?

The "we were here first" argument could be used to justify Norway and Germany taking over the UK, then Italy ousting them, then Germany (or wherever the hell the Celts came from) taking the UK over, and we go back and back and back until, using your logic, the known world becomes a colony of Rwanda.

I know it's of topic but please reread you history books. Germany has never had a foot in england, it was Denmark !!! Big parts of current germany actually was danish for a long period !!!!

[alva]

Such a weird belief. Lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he's gonna want to see a ****ing cross, man?
"Oaww" May be why he hasn't shown up yet. "Man, they're still wearing crosses. **** it, I'm not goin, dad. No, they totally missed the point.
When they start wearing fishes I might show up again, but... Let me bury fossil heads with you Dad, **** em - Let's **** with them! They're ****in with me now, lets get em. Give me that brontosaurus head, Dad."

You know, kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know.
"Thinkin' of John, Jackie. We love him. Just tryin to keep that memory alive, baby." [mimes sniper, mimes being shot in the head] Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left.

B.H.

[Traianvs]

Those names in northern England do sound a bit Scandinavian rather than German... York, Jarrow, Jorvik,...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by beingofone
The cross is so unlike any other demonstration of any previous religion it did take mankind as a whole by surprise.
God`s were generally thought to be petty , cruel and self serving. Jesus was the antithesis to these concepts in that he was selflessly devoted. He displayed this in that he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
God sending his son, to sacrifice himself to us - rather than requiring a sacrifice from us.

Pearls before swine, but I suppose some attempt to fight the general ignorance is good.