The Holy? Crusades

[Faithfreedom]

i agree, but didn't god create borders by taking sides?

God do not create borders nor does he take sides.
He allows us freedom of choice and all the consequences that this entails.

Why does he do that? Because when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit, they are demonstrating that they do not trust that God has their best interest at heart. They believed Satan when he intimated that God do not want them to eat the fruit and gain equal footing with God. By saying "No" to God's governance, they are saying that they can govern themselves better. This is a challenge that cannot be left unanswered. "Do we need God's Control?" Pink Floyd sang a resounding "No!"

So, since then, God has allowed us to try all sorts of systems for governing ourselves. Tribalism, despotism, feudalism, communism, democracy, socialism.....

(btw, God cannot rub out Adam & Eve and start all over because all the angels were probably watching raptly to see how God would solve this matter. If he had rub the first couple out, then the angels would think that maybe Adam & Eve were right ie they can govern themselves better?

(WARNING: the above is from JW's spiel - which i happen to ascribe to. These guys spend more time studying and pondering on the bible words than anyone i know. The stories and conclusions they weave from it are most convincing)

Had the crusades been fully successful, it would mean that might is right.
And the world can be ruled by Might. As Mao said, "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun". Or as Stalin said, " Love is good, but force is better!".

 

[Man of Faith]

If i aim the gun at him and he surrenders, then fine.
If i had no choice, i'll wound him in the leg.
And if there was really no other way, then I will shoot to kill.
My survival and fatherly instincts will kick in. I will reflect on it afterwards.

But I think I see what you are getting at.
I know patriotism is deeply rooted in us but is that what God wants?
I prefer to consider myself a citizen of the world. Borders are man-made.
The powers-that-be, make use of our patriotism, to further their own agendas.

Don't worry, there will always be lots of misled people who will fall for this trap.
Besides prophecies have to be fulfilled. Jesus said, "There will always be wars and rumours of wars". But why be amongst the misled? Why soil your hands with the blood of your brother.
Let the dead kill their dead.

What you have shown is that self-protection and the protection of others is okay with you, and it is allowed for in your faith. That is the same attitude that those in the crusades had.

 

[Midnight Pete]

What you have shown is that self-protection and the protection of others is okay with you, and it is allowed for in your faith. That is the same attitude that those in the crusades had.

The Crusades were not about self-protection. They were campaigns of psychopathic slaughter, pure aggression, bloodlust.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Crusades were not about self-protection. They were campaigns of psychopathic slaughter, pure aggression, bloodlust.

They also weren't successful.

If anything, they all collossally backfired and caused more land to be controlled by Islam, bringing it to the heighth of its power (ever).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no Jihad in Christianity.

"Jihad" simply means "struggle". There's no struggle in Christianity?

Matthew 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Jesus commands us to flee. (personally, i will only fight when i run out of places to flee)

And in the Epistles, Paul proclaims that all Earthly authorities are God-appointed and should be obeyed as God is obeyed.

The Bible sure does seem to be the Big Book of Multiple Choice, doesn't it?

The Vatican City is amongst one of the smallest countries of the world.
They have their own stamp, army, etc.

But the influence the Pope wields on the Catholics worldwide is ernormous.
The Pope is considered infallible by the Catholics.

We on the other hand are well aware of the sins comitted by Catholism.
The crusades, the Spanish inquisition, burning Joan of Arc, siding with Hitler, persecuting JWs, selling "indulgences"...

No, the Vatican City is like any other country where people jockey for power, influence and wealth. With lots of members, they wield lots of influence. They are very political indeed in their influence in many countries.

I apologize to Catholics for stepping on their toes. But this is what i think of Catholism. Everybody's religion is personal and precious to them and i realize that they would disagree with me. But its ok to disagree.

Interesting you bring up the JWs.

From what I know of the Jehova's Witnesses, I think they'd be much more dangerous than the Catholic Church if given the same amount of power and influence. I think it's only their status as a small, fringe denomination that stops them from committing more evil (which isn't to say that there isn't quite a bit of evil committed in the name of the JWs as it is), not some better nature of the Jehova's Witnesses vs. the Catholics.

I have a question for you through a hypothetical scenario. If someone broke into your home with a knife and you had a gun, would you use the gun to protect yourself and your family?

I have a question for you through a hypothetical scenario: if you found out that the City Hall in your grandfather's home town had been sold to someone you didn't like, would you drive down there and shoot up the place?

I think that scenario's a better match for the Crusades than one that assumes some sort of defense of the innocent.

 

[waitasec]

When Jesus died, his followers were demoralised, sad, scared and without a leader.

why?
is it because their messiah wasn't supposed to die but to bring heaven on earth for the jews?

The "turning point" for Jesus' disciples was on the Day of Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit descended on them and embolden them to preach the good news; filling them with power and zeal. The "jesus movement" began there.

The jewish revolt against Roman rule by the Macabeans(?) brought the wrath of Rome on Isreal's head. The Roman general surrounded and besieged Jerusalem city and finally destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. to crush the center of the rebellion.

When the early christians were persecuted in Jerusalem, they flee to other cities, spreading the gospel.

mark was written after the 1st revolt in 70 AD. that is why you see jesus "prophesying" the destruction of the temple because of it's deviation from its original purposed...13:2
jesus is also seen as an apocalyptic figure and the messianic secret was revealed at the end of the story..his suffering and death
and it ends with an empty tomb and the disciples waiting for his return...leaving a sense of hope that would appeal to these people.
jesus died being mocked, abandoned and persecuted like marks readers
jesus can understand what these people are going through
so mark was a very dark gospel...15:33-34 (the 3 hr eclipse, that no other astronomer of the day recorded, btw)
it was also a time where the jews in the small community that were exposed to jesus had to reconcile the destruction of the temple and the death of jesus.

the same author that wrote luke wrote acts as 2 volumes of the gospel around 80-90 yrs after jesus.
and was focused on the gentiles...and the greco-roman world because luke was most likely a gentile himself. luke/acts are compared to the novelistic nature of the romance literature of the time and it was also written with a higher literary quality than the other gospels. in luke jesus is portrayed to be literate and scholarly because that is what luke was...
luke is said to have known paul and traveled with him
luke was antagonistic towards the jews because by this time the jesus movement graduated into becoming christians (only mentioned in luke/acts and not the other gospels)

so the turning point is really found within marks gospel, the 1st one written and later used as a base for the synoptic gospels...and every gospel was written for a different audience for a specific purpose. obviously these authors were not at all concerned about how different these gospels were not in harmony but it was this jesus who became the spokesperson for their different agendas for their time.

this is my source..from jesus to christ

FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians: watch the full program online | PBS

 

[waitasec]

God do not create borders nor does he take sides.
He allows us freedom of choice and all the consequences that this entails.

Why does he do that? Because when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit, they are demonstrating that they do not trust that God has their best interest at heart. They believed Satan when he intimated that God do not want them to eat the fruit and gain equal footing with God. By saying "No" to God's governance, they are saying that they can govern themselves better. This is a challenge that cannot be left unanswered. "Do we need God's Control?" Pink Floyd sang a resounding "No!"

So, since then, God has allowed us to try all sorts of systems for governing ourselves. Tribalism, despotism, feudalism, communism, democracy, socialism.....

(btw, God cannot rub out Adam & Eve and start all over because all the angels were probably watching raptly to see how God would solve this matter. If he had rub the first couple out, then the angels would think that maybe Adam & Eve were right ie they can govern themselves better?

(WARNING: the above is from JW's spiel - which i happen to ascribe to. These guys spend more time studying and pondering on the bible words than anyone i know. The stories and conclusions they weave from it are most convincing)

Had the crusades been fully successful, it would mean that might is right.
And the world can be ruled by Might. As Mao said, "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun". Or as Stalin said, " Love is good, but force is better!".

have you read the OT and why there were wars?
yes god promised his people the promised land...isn't that creating a border?

 

[Faithfreedom]

What you have shown is that self-protection and the protection of others is okay with you, and it is allowed for in your faith. That is the same attitude that those in the crusades had.

No, I'm saying that's what i think that i will do in a situation like that.
If that situation really arise, there can be no guarantee what anyone will do.
for example, you would expect in the Great American Civil War, that soldiers on both sides would had shot and killed. But you would have been surprised. I saw a Nat Geo (or was it on the Discovery channel?) documentary of a researcher who investigated the guns used during that war. He found that a really great number of them had multiple shots loaded into the barrel. He concluded that what happened was the soldier had pretended to look busy while not actually firing. He concluded that when push come to shove, many people couldn't kill even if their lives depended on it!

What I have shown, is that I am just an ordinary guy. I'm telling you, what i think i will do in such a situation. Taking the life of another human being is never okay by me. I will bitterly regret it. (least i think i will - but i won't know until it actually happens). I saying that i think self-protection and the protection of others will be instinctive with me - at least i think it will - but i won't know until it actually happens. The question of whether it is allowed for in my faith under certain circumstances, I will have to ponder on that one. But when immediate danger threatens, i won't be taking the time to refer to the bible as to what i should, that's for sure.

In the first place, i will be making my house unattractive to burglars (prominent devices, brightly lit, etc). I will do all to avoid conflict.
The crusaders were looking for a fight. They were not defending their own backyard.
By all means, go and fight the muslim invaders cos they may show up at our backyard, right? But don't do it under God's name.
To say that its right for christians to take up arms and kill in a war is far, far, far away from what Jesus taught. Its a totally different situation from defending your home from burglars. In one parable, Jesus said that the owner of the house would have to be overpowered before... (i forgot the rest and its hard to find the passage when i really want it). My point is that it shows that the house owner had put up a struggle.

Jesus taught about the personal aspects of individuals. He didn't even organize a mission to break John the Baptist out of Herold's jail. If he didn't do that for 1 individual, what makes you think he would approve of a crusade? On the contary, he knew his followers would be persecuted and HE COMMANDED THEM TO FLEE!

It ain't right to be in a crusade. It ain't right to be in a war!


But its ok to defend your house (provided that you can't flee).

 

[Faithfreedom]

The Crusades were not about self-protection. They were campaigns of psychopathic slaughter, pure aggression, bloodlust.

I was discussing on the premise that the crusaders behaved perfectly and everything was ideal.

The essence of it is "Can Christians go to war as soldiers?"
The muslims are always excusing their wars by citing the crusades and saying that christians are no different.

What i want to point out, is that Christians who go to war, are really going against Christ's commandments.
Whereas Muslims who go to war are really obeying their Prophet's commandments.

 

[Faithfreedom]

"Jihad" simply means "struggle". There's no struggle in Christianity?

Actually in islam there are 2 kinds of jihad. The smaller jihad and the greater jihad. The smaller jihad is to struggle against opression ie holly war. The greater jihad is to struggle against one's evil side.

Yes, there is struggle in Christianity. And that is the struggle to put away our evil nature.

And in the Epistles, Paul proclaims that all Earthly authorities are God-appointed and should be obeyed as God is obeyed.

God appointed in the sense that God allows man set up their own systems.

The Bible sure does seem to be the Big Book of Multiple Choice, doesn't it?

i know what you mean. It seems confusing but i try to lessen the confusion as much as i can. It takes hard work (reading, researching, meditating, debating, etc)

From what I know of the Jehova's Witnesses, I think they'd be much more dangerous than the Catholic Church if given the same amount of power and influence.

JWs never go to war, never vote, do not hold public office (politics). In what way can they be dangerous? What evil did they do?

 

[Faithfreedom]

why?
is it because their messiah wasn't supposed to die but to bring heaven on earth for the jews?

I think they were sad, demoralized, and scared because they were simple folk - the peasantry.

as for the rest, thanks for the info

 

[Faithfreedom]

have you read the OT and why there were wars?
yes god promised his people the promised land...isn't that creating a border?

Yes, i've read the OT.
Ok, i concede that he created one border. (only one mind you)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually in islam there are 2 kinds of jihad. The smaller jihad and the greater jihad. The smaller jihad is to struggle against opression ie holly war. The greater jihad is to struggle against one's evil side.

Yes, there is struggle in Christianity. And that is the struggle to put away our evil nature.

There is also struggle against oppression in Christianity... or at least the predominant forms of Christianity for the last 2000 years.

God appointed in the sense that God allows man set up their own systems.

And God-appointed in the sense that the author of the Epistle to the Romans proclaims that "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities."

How is a person in subjection to the governing authorities when they tell him to fight but instead he flees or refuses?

i know what you mean. It seems confusing but i try to lessen the confusion as much as i can. It takes hard work (reading, researching, meditating, debating, etc)

Or - and I think this is the more likely possibility - it really is contradictory, just as would be expected of a book written over centuries by many different people.

JWs never go to war, never vote, do not hold public office (politics). In what way can they be dangerous? What evil did they do?

Well, there's the whole "killing children" thing for starters. Any doctrine that leads apparently well-meaning people to needlessly cause their own children to suffer and die is pretty darn evil, IMO.

And from everything I've heard, it sounds like they enforce a strict discipline on their communities that IMO would be profoundly negative if it were ever inflicted on the larger community (which isn't to say it's not negative for the people who are subjected to things like shunning, but at least they have the option of leaving). If you say that JWs aren't interested in pursuing greater secular power, then in my books that's just fine.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, i've read the OT.
Ok, i concede that he created one border. (only one mind you)

that was the beginning, wasn't it....
what do you think is going on in the middle east today?

 

[waitasec]

I think they were sad, demoralized, and scared because they were simple folk - the peasantry.

as for the rest, thanks for the info

sure, my pleasure

 

[Faithfreedom]

And God-appointed in the sense that the author of the Epistle to the Romans proclaims that "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities."

How is a person in subjection to the governing authorities when they tell him to fight but instead he flees or refuses?

A christian is to follow the governing authorities where it doesn't clash with God's commands. When Peter and John were hauled up before the Sanhedrin authorities and told to stop preaching, they replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." Acts 4:19.

Or - and I think this is the more likely possibility - it really is contradictory, just as would be expected of a book written over centuries by many different people.

That's one of the beauty of it. Many authors but it all dove-tails to a whole. With deeper knowledge, the contradictions will be resolved.

I'll stop here for now. I've gotta check out that "killing children thing" b4 i resume.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Well, there's the whole "killing children" thing for starters. Any doctrine that leads apparently well-meaning people to needlessly cause their own children to suffer and die is pretty darn evil, IMO.

i scan the wiki article but couldn't find the "killing children" part. The article was about JW's prohibition of receiving blood transfusions and blood donation.
I too disagree with the JW teaching on this point. Because of it i am not 100% JW.
(i assume that in the article it says that children die because they could get the blood that they needed). I feel that one shouldn't follow any religion blindly. Just take what makes sense and reject the teachings which you feel are really wrong.

And from everything I've heard, it sounds like they enforce a strict discipline on their communities that IMO would be profoundly negative if it were ever inflicted on the larger community (which isn't to say it's not negative for the people who are subjected to things like shunning, but at least they have the option of leaving). If you say that JWs aren't interested in pursuing greater secular power, then in my books that's just fine.

Yeah, the longer i was with them, the more i kinda felt that they wanted to control me. I just rejected their attempts at controlling me.

Now i am stuck. I am a church of one.

 

[Faithfreedom]

that was the beginning, wasn't it....
what do you think is going on in the middle east today?

Prophecy being full-filled.
There will NEVER be peace in that region.

 

[waitasec]

Prophecy being full-filled.
There will NEVER be peace in that region.

because of the boundary placed by their imaginary god i suppose...

 

[Faithfreedom]

because of the boundary placed by their imaginary god i suppose...

That middle east region will never be peaceful because of biblical prophecies. In the bible, Ismael, firstborn son of Abraham by Hagar, his wife Sarah's handmaid, was promised to become the leader of a great people - the Arabs. It was also prophecied that the arabs will be like a wild donkey - kicking out and forever being at odds with his brothers - the Jews and those around them. (i'm too lazy to research the bible now. I'm just typing off the cuff, from what i conclude after years of reading)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that God caused this strife. I'm saying that prophecy is like a newspaper from the future. It just reports the facts; it doesn't cause it.
(where is that "Early Edition" guy when you need him!)