Except that at the time neither the state nor the Roman empire existed
At the time it was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the state church was the Roman Catholic church under the pope. The Byzantine Empire also played in I believe. Regardless, the Crusades were not a reflection of Christianity, and that was almost a thousand years ago. Mbig is right too.
At the time it was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the state church was the Roman Catholic church under the pope. The Byzantine Empire also played in I believe. Regardless, the Crusades were not a reflection of Christianity, and that was almost a thousand years ago. Mbig is right too.
As has been the exscuse of everyone that takes a crayon to the history books because they dont like what they see.I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history.
Ok, let's start slow.The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing.
Again, the persecution of Christians is not well established. We know that it happened under Nero as a scapegoating attempt, but not nearly to the degree that people like to inflate the number to.What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.
Disavowing what happened in the past as "someone else's fault" is attempting to whitewash your own history. Some brutal and bloody things were done in the name of Christ. Only a fool would blame the ideology, but it's important to understand that no one has clean hands as far as the history books are concerned.My history may be a little rusty, but the Holy Roman Empire did supply troops and the Catholic church was over all of it. However, the Catholic church does not represent Christianity and what they did was not Biblical. To say that it is in the history of Christianity would also mean that atheism is the bloodies ideology in the world. This thread is about attacks on Christians, and that isn't justified by what the pope did a thousand years ago
The history of my religion begins with creation, climaxes with Jesus, and is not responsible for what the Catholic church did.
My history may be a little rusty, but the Holy Roman Empire did supply troops and the Catholic church was over all of it. However, the Catholic church does not represent Christianity and what they did was not Biblical. To say that it is in the history of Christianity would also mean that atheism is the bloodies ideology in the world. This thread is about attacks on Christians, and that isn't justified by what the pope did a thousand years ago
As has been the exscuse of everyone that takes a crayon to the history books because they dont like what they see.
Ok, let's start slow.
First off, the "Rome" that you are referring to did not exist at the time of the Crusades. Rome had long since fallen and yes Rome did serve as the sometimes seat of the Papacy. However the Crusades were religiously motivated, the pope even went so far as to declare the Bull of the Crusade (in 1089 IIRC) that said, essentially, that a Christian could kill Saracens (Muslims) and other heretics without fear of sin. I suggest you also look up the meaning of the phrase deus vult and it's origins.
Again, the persecution of Christians is not well established. We know that it happened under Nero as a scapegoating attempt, but not nearly to the degree that people like to inflate the number to.
Disavowing what happened in the past as "someone else's fault" is attempting to whitewash your own history. Some brutal and bloody things were done in the name of Christ. Only a fool would blame the ideology, but it's important to understand that no one has clean hands as far as the history books are concerned.
Digsbe,
I'm a Southern Baptist and I am going to call bull**** on this revisionism. The history of my church and of my religion is tied directly to Catholicism.
This is becoming embarrassing that you are going to blindly follow your religion to the point where you will disassociate yourself with its past and with its brothers in faith.
The bloodiest ideology in the world, according to your religion's text, is whatever ideology that God follows.
Fine, I concede that my history was wrong. Whatever, you got me on that, forgive me, I am a simple biology major. What I do know is that the Roman Catholic church was behind it. And I'll say it again, the Catholic church is not Christian history. Christian history is recorded in the Bible, Catholic history is separate. My religion is not Catholicism, and what the Pope did was not Biblical but rather political. No where in the Bible did it say that in the future the Catholic church was to go in and take over the Holy Land. A few bloody things were done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean God supported it or that it is Christian history. True Christian history is what is contained in the Bible. Regardless, if by your standards what the Catholics did constitutes Christian history, than what atheists did in murdering tens of millions also constitutes as within the history of atheism, thus making atheism the most bloody and dangerous ideology. Lets return to the point of this thread instead of debating what a faulty church did a thousand years ago. Christians are being persecuted today on a large scale, and attacks are on the rise.
So I suppose if we are dismissing what occurred during the crusades in the name of Christ because it is not "True Christian history" then we need to be dismissing what some are presently doing in the name of Muhammad because it is not "True Muslim history" as well.
It is true Catholic history, it doesn't reflect on all Christians. I won't deny that the Crusades happened or that they claimed to do it in the name of Christ, but what they did was wrong and not Biblical. If it's Christian history then it's an example where "Christians" ignored the Bible and committed an atrocity. After Muhammad begins the era of the history of Islamic followers, we can't say what people did reflects what the Koran truly says. However, post Muhammad we would see the history of the Sunni, Shiah, and other sects. You can't lump what one sect does and say it's part of the history for all.
Dont jump out of the boat if you cant swimFine, I concede that my history was wrong. Whatever, you got me on that, forgive me, I am a simple biology major.
Revisionist history is NOT going to absolve you or your beliefs. You CANNOT separate Christian history from the actions of the early Church, to do so is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree.What I do know is that the Roman Catholic church was behind it. And I'll say it again, the Catholic church is not Christian history. Christian history is recorded in the Bible, Catholic history is separate. My religion is not Catholicism, and what the Pope did was not Biblical but rather political. No where in the Bible did it say that in the future the Catholic church was to go in and take over the Holy Land. A few bloody things were done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean God supported it or that it is Christian history. True Christian history is what is contained in the Bible.
What official Atheist body was responsible for this?Regardless, if by your standards what the Catholics did constitutes Christian history, than what atheists did in murdering tens of millions also constitutes as within the history of atheism, thus making atheism the most bloody and dangerous ideology.
No you ****ing arent. You cant even BEGIN to know what persecution is. You sleep soundly in your own bed with your majority around you. Yes there are Christian communities in the world that are at odds with their surroundings, but I invite you to look into Africa where extremist Christian beliefs have led people to attack young children and accuse them as witches.Lets return to the point of this thread instead of debating what a faulty church did a thousand years ago. Christians are being persecuted today on a large scale, and attacks are on the rise.
I am only stating the facts of the Bible, I am not revising anything. Catholicism is not all Christianity.
I am trusting in my God, not blindly following my religion. I will be bold enough to say that the pope of the Crusades was not a Christian and what the Catholic church taught was not Biblical, I'd say the pope is in hell right now. The ancient Catholic church was not founded on Christian principals, it even restricted reading the Bible and preached a message of salvation that through the church you are saved, not through Jesus. What about the Orthodox churches at the time or other churches around the world separate from the Catholic church during the time of the Crusades? Is their history apart of that too? Regardless, this thread is not about the Crusades, it's about Christian persecution and an increase if attacks.
Catholic Churches banned reading the bible?
Source? I find that not only hard to believe, but another notch onto the growing list of biases you've made up .
It is true Catholic history, it doesn't reflect on all Christians. I won't deny that the Crusades happened or that they claimed to do it in the name of Christ, but what they did was wrong and not Biblical. If it's Christian history then it's an example where "Christians" ignored the Bible and committed an atrocity. After Muhammad begins the era of the history of Islamic followers, we can't say what people did reflects what the Koran truly says. However, post Muhammad we would see the history of the Sunni, Shiah, and other sects. You can't lump what one sect does and say it's part of the history for all.
And whatever, I just want to talk about the current state of Christianity and persecution. I'll admit my history was rusty, and we can say that the Crusades was apart of Christian history. I was wrong, you all are right. Now lets please get back to the original topic.
How about some history that is a lot more current. Try Germany which is very Christian and Poland where many of the gas chambers were set up is mostly Catholic. Christians have killed millions in the name of their religion.
How about some history that is a lot more current. Try Germany which is very Christian and Poland where many of the gas chambers were set up is mostly Catholic. Christians have killed millions in the name of their religion.
Please lets not argue this anymore. I have conceded that you are right. The Crusades are apart of Christian history in a broad sense (not all Christianity has history in the Catholic church). The Crusades were bloody, people died because the Pope declared it in the name of Christ. It wasn't Biblical and God was not behind it, but whatever. Now, let's please return to the original topic of Christian's being attacked and persecuted worldwide. I sincerely apologize for my ignorance :3oops:
They did ban them at one point in time. Bible possession once banned by the Catholic Church!
they didn't ban the bible. Just the ones they didn't agree with or previously was those not of the Latin tongue.
It didn't really matter anyways because not many people could read the Bible.
It is the classic "scapegoating" argument. Someone is using a minority (large or small) as a scapegoat for all or some problems of the majority.
We see it in every country, even in the west. Often much of the scapegoating is targeted "foreigners" through xenophobia, and when that does not work (or does as in the foreigners leave) and the over all problems that result in the scapegoating still exists, then other minorities are blamed. It is usually people who either look or act differently that are targeted for this scapegoating. And in the Islamic world "christians" some times look but most certainly act differently and hence are easy targets.
In the west, Muslims are like wise targeted because they look and act differently. In the UK it is Poles that are the favourite target at the moment because "they steal our jobs" argument, regardless of the fact that Poles often do jobs that Brits dont want to do or dont have the skills to do. It happens all over the place. In Nazi Germany, Jews were blamed for every problem that the majority had.
Now in Nigeria it is more to do with ancient tribal conflicts than religion. Religion is just an excuse by western media and certain people who want political power to describe a tribal conflict going back long before the populace became bound to one or the other religion. It makes it easier to sell to the masses outside the community to get some sort of sympathy and often financial and political backing.
I agree with you. But that analysis explains the "why" but not the "what do we do about it?".
What do we do about it?
It's only scapegoating if it's not true!!!Not that the left does not use the scapegoat game also.. but that is usually targeted companies these days
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?