Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Crusades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Glyn,

    IIRC, Augustine, Acquainas and Martin Luther all wrote treatises on why Christians are, in fact, allowed to kill if it must be done to protect his community from an unjust aggressor.

    Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=Triple C;532597]Glyn,

      IIRC, Augustine, Acquainas and Martin Luther all wrote treatises on why Christians are, in fact, allowed to kill if it must be done to protect his community from an unjust aggressor.

      Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.

      Er, you've got the wrong guy, Triple C. 'Tis not me that you need to convince! :)
      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
        Glyn,
        Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.
        However the claim to temporal is actually secular vis a vis the Emperor and later the Pope taking on the duties of Pontifax Maximus or head of church and state. Renouncing faith then became the renouncing of the state and treason since they were ultiamtely one and the same.

        This is one reason early Christians were persecuted. Rome could not understand how some one could be loyal to both the Empire and idea of Rome and yet worship a what they saw as God a deadman obstenably killed by Romans and Jews. We see the freedom of religion as we understand only begin to emerge after the enlightment in the US and France seperated the power of the first estate from the people of third estate. The process in Britian was slower and took a few more twists and had a lot to do with the ideas brought back by the Empire. However even in the most "enlightend" countries in the west, the Church did not lose its last grip until the bloodbath of WW1 destroyed any remaining faith in God and the old order for a generation.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
          Accusing someone of being a Jewish-Bolshevik... well, I am sure that's not how want to come across but take my word for it, please don't do that.
          Why, what's so wrong about it? Not that I'd consider myself one of those commie type people but there's nothing wrong with suggesting that Jesus was more like them if you applied a modern political ideology(?) to him. The only people who would get offended are those crazy Evangelicals in the USA who talk more about the devil/hell than they do about Jesus, and also think that Jesus was an American Capitalist.

          Whatever the case. Christianity/Jesus teachings has long been ruined by Rome/The Vatican/USA

          Like Gandhi once said "Christians are so unlike their Christ"

          Or something like that.

          Comment


          • Jewish-Bolshevik was a term used by the Nazis to denounce their enemies. As I have said, I don't think that's how you want to come accross, but after seeing a couple of Nazi forums hearing the two brought up gives me the creeps.

            The only people who would get offended are those crazy Evangelicals in the USA who talk more about the devil/hell than they do about Jesus, and also think that Jesus was an American Capitalist.
            That is certainly true. Not all evangellicals are of the same intellectual depth though, I have seen plenty of thoughtful and intellegent Christian to make me wary of painting people with broadstrokes. Religion for some is a great source of moral strength.
            Last edited by Triple C; 16 Aug 08,, 11:39.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
              Jewish-Bolshevik was a term used by the Nazis to denounce their enemies. As I have said, I don't think that's how you want to come accross, but after seeing a couple of Nazi forums hearing the two brought up gives me the creeps.



              That is certainly true. Not all evangellicals are of the same intellectual depth though, I have seen plenty of thoughtful and intellegent Christian to make me wary of painting people with broadstrokes. Religion for some is a great source of moral strength.
              Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.

              Comment


              • One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther, but he was also responsible for the reconstituition of secular states in Europe. The abolitionist movement in England and America was swayed by religious passions. To me there is also something unqualified in your definition of religiosity. Does one need to be fanatical in order to be devout? The Enlightenment movement was started by mostly Christian thinkers and philosophers. The earliest coherent expression of the concept of religious tolerance was uttered by very devout men such as Milton and Hume. It was a very devout Jasenist jurist (whose name escape me at this moment) who wrote treatise arguing that a virtuous atheist can go to heaven.

                Glyn,

                Er, you've got the wrong guy, Triple C. 'Tis not me that you need to convince! :)[/QUOTE]

                I know, I just thought that you'd be interested ;)
                Last edited by Triple C; 19 Aug 08,, 11:41.
                All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                  One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther....

                  But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!!

                  Comment


                  • Does that prove religion is foundementally malignant?
                    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.
                      I think Ghandi and Mother Teresa would probably find a way to argue that point if they still lived. it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
                        But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!!
                        That isn't necessarily the case. There has always been vigirous debate in Christanity about the nautre of the religion and the role of the Church, though I would expect the "resident historian" to know that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.
                          Do you have any source to back that up, or are you just cliff-noting the headlines. Suicide bombing is not necessarily a religious phenomonon. The secular Tamil Tigers as a group are responsible for more suicide bombings then any other group. And anyway suicide bombing is more a result of political and cultural issues than purely religious ones.

                          Comment


                          • My main point is that religion has paved the way and been cited as a justification for many attrocities - from the pillage of Jerusalem in 1099 to the burning of the Catholic Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade to the present day Islamic 'Jihad' against the 'Imperialist West'.

                            Mr zraver says "it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour" and this is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Does the fervour create the authority or vice versa. It is undoubtedly a two way process.

                            I do not argue that religion always makes blinds moral judgement nor even that is the sole cause of such blindness. I simply point to the historical occasions where immoral acts have have been defended by appeal to region and the acts themselves having some root in the blindness of religious 'Righteousness'. It seems that such religious righteousness - the appeal to a holy book or priavte knowledge of the divine will or some such - blocks the normal moral sense of right.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                              That isn't necessarily the case. There has always been vigirous debate in Christanity about the nautre of the religion and the role of the Church, though I would expect the "resident historian" to know that.
                              Tell that to the Cathars,Jan Hus, and Zwingli! I guess that's your idea of "vigorous debate".

                              Originally posted by Triple C
                              One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther....

                              Originally posted by Kansas Bear
                              But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!!
                              Last edited by Kansas Bear; 21 Aug 08,, 19:42.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
                                Tell that to the Cathars,Jan Hus, and Zwingli! I guess that's your idea of "vigorous debate".
                                All three of those examples are of Roman Catholic reprisals. No empire dies quietly, but the point you seemed to have missed is at least so far as Hus and Zwingli are concerned is their deaths did not stop the debate. The Reformation occured regardless of what the old guard in the Vatican did. Out of that era we get the Calvanist, Anabaptist, Luthernanism, Puritanism and others. Yet even during this debate and war there remained other Christian groups like the Greek and Eastern Orthodox, Coptics and others.

                                Originally posted by snapper View Post

                                Mr zraver says "it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour" and this is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Does the fervour create the authority or vice versa. It is undoubtedly a two way process.
                                I do not argue that religion always makes blinds moral judgement nor even that is the sole cause of such blindness. I simply point to the historical occasions where immoral acts have have been defended by appeal to region and the acts themselves having some root in the blindness of religious 'Righteousness'. It seems that such religious righteousness - the appeal to a holy book or priavte knowledge of the divine will or some such - blocks the normal moral sense of right.[/QUOTE]


                                I doubt it is a two way process at all. It is however a two step process. 1st you tell the masses they are suffering, then 2nd you point them at their supposed oppressors. This tactic can be traced back at least as far Athen's domination of the Delian League at least in the embryonic stages (Persians). It was fully developed by the time pirates sacked a Roman port and gave birth to the empire with the passage of the Lex Gabinia. While it (the two step tactic for inciting the mob) was and is used by various religious groups. It was also used by Marx (bourgeois) and Hitler (Jews and Communist). We even see it today in Russian comments regarding the US as an excuse for Georgia or in post 9/11 speeches by the US president.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X