The Message of Christianity

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
But what you say completely ignores everything I just said. People who were not clergy men were taught by the Church, Christian and Pagan alike. They were taught everything from agriculture to the philosophy of the Greeks. Maybe blind following of an institution thrives on ignorance, but obviously by the church opening thousands of schools across Europe, the founding of monastic orders whose major function was to educate others and pursue science, and the attachment of schools to nearly every cathedral in Europe the Church obviously wanted to spread literacy and education. The Church may had operated the overwhelming majority of schools (since they didn't operate the Pagan schools, which both Pagans and Christians attended), but that's only because they had the resources to. After all, they were the legitimate government in that time.
They were not taught Greek philosophy, there was no thousands of schools across Europe, maybe dozens. Monastic orders did not pursue science. Church's schools taught the Church's interpretation of the Bible, nothing more.


Let me be very clear: The Church did not teach one thing and do another. The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Government and lawyers; it was in no way, shape, or form run or ordered by the Catholic Church.
Lets move beyond the inquisition already, what about the Crusades? What about the fact that the Church was very corrupt.


You've yet to give any example where the Church has given harm. You mentioned the Spanish Inquisition which wasn't an action of the Church.
The Crusades, and once again, the Church was keeping civilization down. As for the Inquisition: Roman Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The last notable action of the Roman Inquisition occurred in 1858, in Bologna, when Inquisition agents kidnapped a 6-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, separating him from his family."
The Inquisition was one of the Church's institutions.

Let me get this clear; if I were to kill someone because they looked at me funny then you would state the Church is to blame and the Church endorsed the killing of that person? That kind of logic means every organization ever made is unclean, from philanthropic organizations to football teams. As for not being the most tolerant religion, how exactly is the teaching that any discrimination against another man because of his religion is a sin against the Church not tolerant?
Read the above excerpt, it answers both your questions.


An act that raised the level of education in Europe to a level not seen since the fall of Rome. That seems like spreading literacy, not the illiteracy you claim they tried to spread.
The only line of thought within Church's schools was the Bible, it was not open to other ways of thought, the reason for Church's schools was to train propagandists for the Church's rule to the common man.


No, your example is more like saying the United States government endorsed the LAPD beating up Rodney King despite all of the Civil Rights Acts, the LAPD rules, and all other public policy stating it is wrong to beat up an innocent black man for no reason. The Holocaust is related to Nazi Germany in a completely different way. The Nazi Government actively tried to commit the Holocaust, Hitler didn't do everything in his power to prevent the Holocaust and rogue member of the Nazi Government committed it against his will.
Church actively tried to keep civilization down so it could maintain its own political power, the more educated you are the more secular you are.


Everyone is corrupt, that's what it is to be human; to have original sin and to be able to sin. The clergy may have had different sins but they were taught the same message of "follow the example of Jesus Christ to the best of your ability."
So then you agree that it wasn't the "do as I do" but rather "do as I say, not as I do."


Except that membership in the Church is voluntary; the basic definition of empire requires some form of coercive force.
Yeah, kinda like the Crusades. Christianity has mostly spread through the world through war, and majority of it was approved by Rome.

Damn.


Exactly what philosophers are you speaking of then? I was under the impression you were talking about the enlightenment philosophers who heavily influenced the founding of democratic states.
Yeah, those philosophers, reading which would you excommunicated until the Church lost power.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
They were not taught Greek philosophy, there was no thousands of schools across Europe, maybe dozens. Monastic orders did not pursue science. Church's schools taught the Church's interpretation of the Bible, nothing more.

...

The only line of thought within Church's schools was the Bible, it was not open to other ways of thought, the reason for Church's schools was to train propagandists for the Church's rule to the common man.

...

Church actively tried to keep civilization down so it could maintain its own political power, the more educated you are the more secular you are.
Feel free to discredit my source and its citations. Or perhaps, provide a source for your claims. I stand by my claims of widespread education.

Lets move beyond the inquisition already, what about the Crusades? What about the fact that the Church was very corrupt.

The Crusades, and once again, the Church was keeping civilization down. As for the Inquisition: Roman Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The last notable action of the Roman Inquisition occurred in 1858, in Bologna, when Inquisition agents kidnapped a 6-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, separating him from his family."
The Inquisition was one of the Church's institutions.
Yeah, kinda like the Crusades. Christianity has mostly spread through the world through war, and majority of it was approved by Rome.
The crusades were launched by the Church to defend Christian lands (they were defensive wars); the atrocities committed during the crusades were neither sanctioned nor ordered by the Church. This would be like if the US Government gave a solider a gun to fight Japan in WW2 (defensive) and then he went in a market and shot 50 civilians. The war was sanctioned, the atrocity was not.

As for this inquisition, you do realize there are a number of inquisitions like there were a number of crusades? The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Government, the Roman Inquisition was run by the Church. The Roman Inquisition I haven't looked into as much so I'll just cite information:

"the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading...All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time"

As for the kid; it was basically the Middle Age's version of the Child Protective Service.

And you're right, everyone is corrupt, it's called being a sinner.

So then you agree that it wasn't the "do as I do" but rather "do as I say, not as I do."
As long as you concede there was no hypocrisy any semantics is fine.

Yeah, those philosophers, reading which would you excommunicated until the Church lost power.
Source? I've never heard of what you claim; many of the philosophers, notably John Locke, justified their philosophy by the natural rights given to many by God.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
Feel free to discredit my source and its citations. Or perhaps, provide a source for your claims. I stand by my claims of widespread education.


The crusades were launched by the Church to defend Christian lands (they were defensive wars); the atrocities committed during the crusades were neither sanctioned nor ordered by the Church. This would be like if the US Government gave a solider a gun to fight Japan in WW2 (defensive) and then he went in a market and shot 50 civilians. The war was sanctioned, the atrocity was not.
What happened to thou shall not kill? The crusaders were wars to secure trading routes with Asia, there was nothing defensive about them. If a US soldier would kill 50 civilians that would leave a mark on the US military as a whole.

As for this inquisition, you do realize there are a number of inquisitions like there were a number of crusades? The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Government, the Roman Inquisition was run by the Church. The Roman Inquisition I haven't looked into as much so I'll just cite information:

"the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading...All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time"

As for the kid; it was basically the Middle Age's version of the Child Protective Service.
Really now? How can you even say that? It was an act of anti-semitism, i doubt that kid lived long afterwards.

And you're right, everyone is corrupt, it's called being a sinner.


As long as you concede there was no hypocrisy any semantics is fine.
Of course there is hypocrisy, the bible is the most hypocritical text there ever was or ever will be. You can twist it in whatever way you want it, God was with Hitler, according to Hitler, God was with Church then it sent people to their death and killed them through inquisitions. But that is not even relevant, the Church itself was corrupt, the whole rotten structure.


Source? I've never heard of what you claim; many of the philosophers, notably John Locke, justified their philosophy by the natural rights given to many by God.
They only thought that after the Church lots its power, the Church uses religion as a tool to manipulate the masses, separate the tool from the master and the master will go away at the same time the tool will become nothing more then popular tradition. It was the Romans who came up with terms like Senate, checks & balances, etc. not the Church.

By the way the Pope approved the Spanish Inquisition.

Roman Inquisition was responsible for: "prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes related to heresy, including sorcery, blasphemy, and witchcraft, as well for censorship of printed literature."

Also: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Censorship of Books - Wikisource

During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians.

The point all the inquisitions was to destroy other ways of thought that did not revolve around the Church.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Kuzmich said:
What happened to thou shall not kill? The crusaders were wars to secure trading routes with Asia, there was nothing defensive about them.
So you deny that there was eastern expansion into Christian lands?

Kuzmich said:
If a US soldier would kill 50 civilians that would leave a mark on the US military as a whole.
The US Government would apologize, but at the same time the solider who disobeyed standard procedure (not killing civilians) would be responsible. That is what happened with the crusades.

Kuzmich said:
Really now? How can you even say that? It was an act of anti-semitism, i doubt that kid lived long afterwards.
Edgardo Mortara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“In 1870, when Rome was captures from the Pope,…[his parents] tried again, but Edgardo was then 19 and therefore legally an adult, and had declared his firm intention of remaining a Catholic…

…In 1912, in his written statement in favor of the beatification of Pius IX, Mortara recalled his own feelings about the abduction: "Eight days later, my parents presented themselves to the Institute of Neophytes to initiate the complex procedures to get me back in the family. As they had complete freedom to see me and talk with me, they remained in Rome for a month, coming every day to visit me. Needless to say, they tried every means to get me back — caresses, tears, pleas and promises. Despite all this, I never showed the slightest desire to return to my family, a fact which I do not understand myself, except by looking at the power of supernatural grace…

…Mortara died in 1940 in Belgium, after spending some years in a monastery.”

The kid not only lived to ripe old age of 88, he wrote about his experience and his “kidnapper” in a positive light.

Kuzmich said:
Of course there is hypocrisy, the bible is the most hypocritical text there ever was or ever will be. You can twist it in whatever way you want it, God was with Hitler, according to Hitler, God was with Church then it sent people to their death and killed them through inquisitions. But that is not even relevant, the Church itself was corrupt, the whole rotten structure.
Which is why I use the Catholic Catechism in debate, it is an index of the 2000 year old teachings of the Church that is so thorough that it cannot be misinterpreted.

I’ve stated over and over that the Church hierarchy is required to be sinful because all humans are sinful and thus if humans are in the Church the hierarchy is sinful. That being said, what I am trying to get at is the clergy play by the same rules as the laymen.

Kuzmich said:
They only thought that after the Church lots its power, the Church uses religion as a tool to manipulate the masses, separate the tool from the master and the master will go away at the same time the tool will become nothing more then popular tradition. It was the Romans who came up with terms like Senate, checks & balances, etc. not the Church.
I never said they came up with it, I said that they helped promote it by promoting education of clergy and laymen, Christians and Pagans, all throughout Europe. If the purpose of the Church is to manipulate the masses, why would they actively seek to promote a goal that diminished their political power? The idea that the Church was seeking to improve the lives of the people in Europe is more consistent with those facts.

Kuzmich said:
By the way the Pope approved the Spanish Inquisition.
He approved an inquisition, not a perverted grasp for political power masked in religion; hence the reason he soon after condemned the Spanish Inquisition.

Kuzmich said:
Roman Inquisition was responsible for: "prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes related to heresy, including sorcery, blasphemy, and witchcraft, as well for censorship of printed literature."

Also: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Censorship of Books - Wikisource

During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians.

The point all the inquisitions was to destroy other ways of thought that did not revolve around the Church.
Inquisition is not some dirty word, it is something setup to safeguard the teachings of the Church. Back in those days, technology was not advanced enough for the Church to be able to state what was and wasn’t the Catholic teaching so it had to remove the texts that stated that they were the teaching of the Church (since at that time Christianity = the Church). It did not seek to suppress all ways of thought, only things that represented itself as the teachings of the Church. All ways of thought is much too extensive to describe it, because there are many other ways of though that are not solely based in Christianity. These methods are not needed anymore as recent inquisitions can release their results via mass media, Internet, etc. Inquisitions still go on; I think the most recent one was in 2000.
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
Right, so why exactly does receiving the Eucharist, the most important reason for going to church, make you feel less close to God and/or troubled? There's a lot of things that can be debated, but Jesus was pretty specific when he said "do this in remembrance of me" when he broke bread.


.
Sure It says to take the body of christ. Yet, that does not mean that we should build a church just to do so. Nor does it mean that we should build a sanctuary just to worship. I find it more to my liking to have God's creations around me.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
So you deny that there was eastern expansion into Christian lands?
Jerusalem wasn't Christian lands for quiet a while, definitely long enough so that Rome would have no claim to it.


The US Government would apologize, but at the same time the solider who disobeyed standard procedure (not killing civilians) would be responsible. That is what happened with the crusades.
Not at all, that would leave a mark on the whole name of the US government and it does, if US soldiers massacre people in Iraq (as they have done in the past) then US gov't will be ultimately blamed for it. Starting a war on a religious basis is an atrocity in itself.


Edgardo Mortara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“In 1870, when Rome was captures from the Pope,…[his parents] tried again, but Edgardo was then 19 and therefore legally an adult, and had declared his firm intention of remaining a Catholic…

…In 1912, in his written statement in favor of the beatification of Pius IX, Mortara recalled his own feelings about the abduction: "Eight days later, my parents presented themselves to the Institute of Neophytes to initiate the complex procedures to get me back in the family. As they had complete freedom to see me and talk with me, they remained in Rome for a month, coming every day to visit me. Needless to say, they tried every means to get me back — caresses, tears, pleas and promises. Despite all this, I never showed the slightest desire to return to my family, a fact which I do not understand myself, except by looking at the power of supernatural grace…

…Mortara died in 1940 in Belgium, after spending some years in a monastery.â€

The kid not only lived to ripe old age of 88, he wrote about his experience and his “kidnapper†in a positive light.
He was a lucky one then, one of the few.

Which is why I use the Catholic Catechism in debate, it is an index of the 2000 year old teachings of the Church that is so thorough that it cannot be misinterpreted.
Except that it has been, going back to the Crusades.

I’ve stated over and over that the Church hierarchy is required to be sinful because all humans are sinful and thus if humans are in the Church the hierarchy is sinful. That being said, what I am trying to get at is the clergy play by the same rules as the laymen.
The Church hierarchy IS the church.


I never said they came up with it, I said that they helped promote it by promoting education of clergy and laymen, Christians and Pagans, all throughout Europe. If the purpose of the Church is to manipulate the masses, why would they actively seek to promote a goal that diminished their political power? The idea that the Church was seeking to improve the lives of the people in Europe is more consistent with those facts.
Complete and utter nonsense, the Church was the reason why monarchies all over Europe had legitimate power. All the teachings of the Church revolved around the Bible and meant to keep people ignorant. I read your sources, its not the first time someone tried to falsify history. For the Church to do what you claim it did would be to go against human nature and in light of all the unquestionable evils that the Church has done I don't believe this "Church teaching the poor" fairytale one bit.


He approved an inquisition, not a perverted grasp for political power masked in religion; hence the reason he soon after condemned the Spanish Inquisition.
Thats what Inquisition is for, to eliminate other religions and to consolidate power.


Inquisition is not some dirty word, it is something setup to safeguard the teachings of the Church. Back in those days, technology was not advanced enough for the Church to be able to state what was and wasn’t the Catholic teaching so it had to remove the texts that stated that they were the teaching of the Church (since at that time Christianity = the Church). It did not seek to suppress all ways of thought, only things that represented itself as the teachings of the Church. All ways of thought is much too extensive to describe it, because there are many other ways of though that are not solely based in Christianity. These methods are not needed anymore as recent inquisitions can release their results via mass media, Internet, etc. Inquisitions still go on; I think the most recent one was in 2000.
It did attempt to suppress all the other ways of thought, specifically the secular ways.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Kuzmich said:
Jerusalem wasn't Christian lands for quiet a while, definitely long enough so that Rome would have no claim to it.
“That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.”

Madden, Thomas F. "The Real History of the Crusades."

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

Kuzmich said:
Except that it has been, going back to the Crusades.
Self-defense is taught within the Catholic Catechism:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.


Kuzmich said:
The Church hierarchy IS the church.
But you admit that the clergy play by the same rules as the laymen and there was no hypocrisy in the idea of “do your best to follow the example of Jesus Christ”?

Kuzmich said:
Complete and utter nonsense, the Church was the reason why monarchies all over Europe had legitimate power. All the teachings of the Church revolved around the Bible and meant to keep people ignorant. I read your sources, its not the first time someone tried to falsify history. For the Church to do what you claim it did would be to go against human nature and in light of all the unquestionable evils that the Church has done I don't believe this "Church teaching the poor" fairytale one bit.



It did attempt to suppress all the other ways of thought, specifically the secular ways.
I’ll understand that you can just throw off an internet source as the internet is not the most academic of sources, however I’ve looked up another source, a book that is an academic study of education in the Middle Ages. It is on Google Scholar and is available here.

”The development of universities is intimately connected with that of the [Holy Roman] Empire, the Church and Papacy, and many other institutions of the medieval days. They arose from the old cathedral and monastic schools…” (Graves, 77)

”Despite their adherence to dogmatism…they did much to foster intellectual development…and their tendency towards speculation was primarily responsible for the modern spirit of inquiry and rationality.” (Graves, 93)

”...universities were of immediate assistance in promoting freedom of discussion and democracy…[and] became the representatives of secular and popular interests. (Graves, 94)

Graves, Frank Pierrepont. History of Education: During the Middle Ages and the Transition to Modern Times.

About the Author:
Frank Pierrepont Graves 1869-1956, American educator, b. Brooklyn, N.Y., grad. Columbia (B.A., 1890; Ph.D., 1912). He taught Greek and classical philology at Tufts College (1891-96), was president of the Univ. of Wyoming (1896-98) and of the Univ. of Washington (1898-1903), and later served as professor of education and dean at the Univ. of Missouri, Ohio State Univ., and the Univ. of Pennsylvania. From 1921 until his retirement in 1940 he was commissioner of education and president of the Univ. of the State of New York. He wrote several works on both the Greek language and the history of education,..

The evidence that the Church did what I claimed is thorough and overwhelming and the author is an accredited Ph.D who has published numerous books about the history of education. The academic study of education in the Middle Ages supports my assertion.

Kuzmich said:
Thats what Inquisition is for, to eliminate other religions and to consolidate power.
Not other religions, religions that portrayed themselves as being the teachings of the Church. Religious texts that did not do this did not threaten to distort the teachings of the Church were not of concern to the inquisition, an organization created to keep clarity in the teachings of the Church.
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
The message is good.

People are bad.

Thats pretty much it right there.

exactly.... we are born sinners.

Its crazy how everyone wants to judge others. In the bible there is a story of a woman who commits adultry. A massive crowd forms to stone the woman to death. (punishment for adultry way back when) Jesus simply tells the crowd "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Imagine that -- everyone drops their rocks and walks away. Why is it so hard for us to let go?
 

Renzokuken

Saved
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
8,812
Reaction score
12
Location
Zanarkand
It always ends up going back to the Catholics and their doctrines. Just ignore all that and pick up The Bible and discern for yourself what you think the message is.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Sure It says to take the body of christ. Yet, that does not mean that we should build a church just to do so. Nor does it mean that we should build a sanctuary just to worship. I find it more to my liking to have God's creations around me.
My bad, I was under the impression you meant 'go to Church' as synonymous to 'go to service' or 'go to mass'. I'd question the practicality of not having mass in a building, but that's more of a matter of opinion on my part.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
“That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.”

Madden, Thomas F. "The Real History of the Crusades."

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.


Self-defense is taught within the Catholic Catechism:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
Those lands were part of the Bezantine Empire at one point, they had nothing to do with the west, more so one of the Crusades also sacked Constantinople. This is nonsense. The crusades were an offensive military action.

But you admit that the clergy play by the same rules as the laymen and there was no hypocrisy in the idea of “do your best to follow the example of Jesus Christ”?
I admit to nothing you are trying to say. The Church is a hypocritical institution, it preaches one thing, does another. Catholic priests raping little boys has nothing to do with "doing one's best to follow Jesus Christ's example", neither did the Crusades, neither did taxation of the common man. The institution is corrupt then people in it are corrupt, thus Church was corrupt.


I’ll understand that you can just throw off an internet source as the internet is not the most academic of sources, however I’ve looked up another source, a book that is an academic study of education in the Middle Ages. It is on Google Scholar and is available here.

”The development of universities is intimately connected with that of the [Holy Roman] Empire, the Church and Papacy, and many other institutions of the medieval days. They arose from the old cathedral and monastic schools…” (Graves, 77)

”Despite their adherence to dogmatism…they did much to foster intellectual development…and their tendency towards speculation was primarily responsible for the modern spirit of inquiry and rationality.” (Graves, 93)

”...universities were of immediate assistance in promoting freedom of discussion and democracy…[and] became the representatives of secular and popular interests. (Graves, 94)

Graves, Frank Pierrepont. History of Education: During the Middle Ages and the Transition to Modern Times.

About the Author:
Frank Pierrepont Graves 1869-1956, American educator, b. Brooklyn, N.Y., grad. Columbia (B.A., 1890; Ph.D., 1912). He taught Greek and classical philology at Tufts College (1891-96), was president of the Univ. of Wyoming (1896-98) and of the Univ. of Washington (1898-1903), and later served as professor of education and dean at the Univ. of Missouri, Ohio State Univ., and the Univ. of Pennsylvania. From 1921 until his retirement in 1940 he was commissioner of education and president of the Univ. of the State of New York. He wrote several works on both the Greek language and the history of education,..

The evidence that the Church did what I claimed is thorough and overwhelming and the author is an accredited Ph.D who has published numerous books about the history of education. The academic study of education in the Middle Ages supports my assertion.
So because biased propaganda is written in a book somewhere it is not biased propaganda? Interesting.


Not other religions, religions that portrayed themselves as being the teachings of the Church. Religious texts that did not do this did not threaten to distort the teachings of the Church were not of concern to the inquisition, an organization created to keep clarity in the teachings of the Church.
You can not claim that Catholic Church was tolerant of other religions in the middle ages, stop trying to twist facts. You also can not deny that the Pope approved the Spanish Inquisition, whatever his alleged feelings were on the matter afterward is completely irrelevant. The Church, the Catholic Church, was used to justify subjugation of common man, and it as an organization contributed to that structure the best it could.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Those lands were part of the Bezantine Empire at one point, they had nothing to do with the west, more so one of the Crusades also sacked Constantinople. This is nonsense. The crusades were an offensive military action.
"In April 1204, the armies of the Fourth Crusade broke into the city of Constantinople...within months Pope Innocent III, the man who had first called for the Crusade, bitterly lamented the spilling of ‘blood on Christian swords'...as ‘an example of affliction and the works of Hell.’"

Source


The sack of Constantinople being called a 'work of hell' by the pope who called the Crusade seems to counter your assertion. Second, the Byzantine Empire was part of Christendom. Nothing you have said counters my claim that the Crusades were launched as defensive actions and the leaders who led the troops on the battlefield did not follow orders and thus disobeyed the Church on the given mission.

About the Source:
"The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world’s largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 1,200 articles originally published in our various magazines."


Kuzmich said:
I admit to nothing you are trying to say. The Church is a hypocritical institution, it preaches one thing, does another. Catholic priests raping little boys has nothing to do with "doing one's best to follow Jesus Christ's example", neither did the Crusades, neither did taxation of the common man. The institution is corrupt then people in it are corrupt, thus Church was corrupt.
How exactly doesn't raping boys have to do with the idea that all men are sinners? That very fact that they admit and do fail is a major link between the clergy and laymen; they are all human. Crusades are covered above. I also ask you to present an argument that the legitimate government cannot tax its citizens because even I, as someone who is as far right-wing as on the verge of libertarianism, support some form of government taxation. The Church acting as a a public institution is not corrupt, the people in it in their personal lives may be sinners, however those are their actions, not actions given as being from the Church.

Kuzmich said:
So because biased propaganda is written in a book somewhere it is not biased propaganda? Interesting.
Empirical evidence and scholars with those facts I presented support my assertion. Logically, you cannot reject academic studies without giving any source to either discredit the works or authors (as in present a counter argument not based on opinion, as opinion does not outweigh fact).

Kuzmich said:
You can not claim that Catholic Church was tolerant of other religions in the middle ages, stop trying to twist facts. You also can not deny that the Pope approved the Spanish Inquisition, whatever his alleged feelings were on the matter afterward is completely irrelevant. The Church, the Catholic Church, was used to justify subjugation of common man, and it as an organization contributed to that structure the best it could.
The Spanish Inquisition wasn't an 'inquisition' in terms of what the Church considers one. The Pope gave the Spanish Government the okay on an inquisition, not on the political grab for power it was cloaked in a word. His feelings afterwards are relevant because it is based on the fact that the Spanish Government didn't launch an actual inquisition, just a grab for power. It's like saying if the pope said you could pet a puppy (not that he has any authority over that) and then you kill someone and then saying the Pope gave you authority to kill someone because you call killing someone petting a puppy, though the pope met pet a puppy when he said pet a puppy. Thus, beforehand he was happy to say you could pet a puppy, but afterwards he would be sad because you killed someone rather than pet a puppy.

I once again ask you to give any example to support your claim.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
"In April 1204, the armies of the Fourth Crusade broke into the city of Constantinople...within months Pope Innocent III, the man who had first called for the Crusade, bitterly lamented the spilling of ‘blood on Christian swords'...as ‘an example of affliction and the works of Hell.’"

Source


The sack of Constantinople being called a 'work of hell' by the pope who called the Crusade seems to counter your assertion. Second, the Byzantine Empire was part of Christendom. Nothing you have said counters my claim that the Crusades were launched as defensive actions and the leaders who led the troops on the battlefield did not follow orders and thus disobeyed the Church on the given mission.

About the Source:
"The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world’s largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 1,200 articles originally published in our various magazines."
The Church had plenty of time to rewrite history in its favor. In either case, the Crusades themselves were an act of evil and corruption that the Church started.


How exactly doesn't raping boys have to do with the idea that all men are sinners? That very fact that they admit and do fail is a major link between the clergy and laymen; they are all human. Crusades are covered above. I also ask you to present an argument that the legitimate government cannot tax its citizens because even I, as someone who is as far right-wing as on the verge of libertarianism, support some form of government taxation. The Church acting as a a public institution is not corrupt, the people in it in their personal lives may be sinners, however those are their actions, not actions given as being of the Church.
I am talking about those papers people were offered to buy to get their place in haven. And are you actually advocating child molestation? What the people within the Church do IS what the Church does. The Church is an organization of people, a secular organization, that deals in secular matters thus if its members act in a certain way in those secular matters then the Church as a whole must be blamed, especially if its a repeated occurrence. Even in non Papal lands, commoners had to pay taxes to the local church as well as their lords. The Church legitimized generations of oppressive rulers all over Europe.

As for Crusades:

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..the meanest thing of all is that Canon Vacandard, and most of your modern Catholic apologists, raise over the bones of those hundreds of thousands of murdered men, women, and children the smug and lying inscription that they were "'dangerous to society." How? You will smile when you hear: like Christ, they advocated voluntary poverty and virginity! We know their ideas only from bitter enemies, and this seems to be the rock of offense. Yes, but how could society persist if there were no private property, no soldiers (they opposed war), no procreation of children. And the answer again is simple: these counsels of Christ were (exactly as the modern Catholic theologian says) for the elect few, the "perfect," as the Albigensians called them, and the great body of the "believers" could own what property they liked, marry when they liked, and bear arms when necessary. They were, as Professor Bass Mullinger says in an article in the same Encyclopedia, men of "simple blameless life," and were not responsible for the brawls about the churches. Rome murdered a few hundred thousand real followers of Christ because they were not Christians. [16]

Empirical evidence and scholars with those facts I presented support my assertion. Logically, you cannot reject academic studies without giving any source to either discredit the works or authors (as in present a counter argument not based on opinion, as opinion does not outweigh fact).
Objections Sustained! Objection #7: Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence

Indeed, the astounding illiteracy of the time can also be attributed to the church, which relied on its learned clergy's elite-access to the Bible as a great source of their power.



The Spanish Inquisition wasn't an 'inquisition' in terms of what the Church considers one. The Pope gave the Spanish Government the okay on an inquisition, not on the political grab for power it was cloaked in a word. His feelings afterwards are relevant because it is based on the fact that the Spanish Government didn't launch an actual inquisition, just a grab for power. It's like saying if the pope said you could pet a puppy (not that he has any authority over that) and then you kill someone and then saying the Pope gave you authority to kill someone because you call killing someone petting a puppy, though the pope met pet a puppy when he said pet a puppy. Thus, beforehand he was happy to say you could pet a puppy, but afterwards he would be sad because you killed someone rather than pet a puppy.
Uh huh, sure: "The magnitude of the "heresy" can be guessed when we learn that after two years of the most brutal carnage the Albigensians were still so strong that, when the Pope renewed the "crusade" in 1214, a fresh hundred thousand "pilgrims" had to be summoned. Innocent boasts that they took five hundred towns and castles from the heretics, and they generally butchered every man, woman and child in a town when they took it. Noble ladies with their daughters were thrown down wells, and large stones flung upon them. Knights were hanged in batches of eighty. When, at the first large town, soldiers asked how they could distinguish between heretics and orthodox, the Cistercian abbot thundered: "Kill them all, God will know his own," and they put to the sword the forty thousand surviving men, women and children. Modern Catholic writers merely quibble when they dispute these things. It is the Catholics of the time who tell us. [ibid.]"

Thats a different inquisition, one you can not deny by attempting to twist facts.

I once again ask you to give any example to support your claim.
Done.

A few other things, this is about the tolerance of the Church for other religions, Judaism for example:

Catholic Timeline on Antisemitism

306
The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together
325
Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicaea

c. 400
Calling the synagogue "brothel and theater" and "a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts," St. John Chrysostom writes that "the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony"
413
A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
u know, without the crusades it is very VERY likely that islam would have spread deep into europe and the world right now would be very VERY different.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
u know, without the crusades it is very VERY likely that islam would have spread deep into europe and the world right now would be very VERY different.
Islam has already spread deep into Europe by that point, Spain, but non of the Crusades were targeting that because the real point of them was to secure trading routes from Asia. My point is that the Church isn't some kind of idealistic, pure, innocent structure, its as corrupt and tyrannical an organization as any.
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
the moores(sp?) right? portuguese kicked there ass didnt they?

well yeah. any man run organization where the leader claims to interpret gods will is going to become corrupt even with the purest of intent. The worst part is, there are plenty of pure and noble people that are destroyed by this form of religion
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
The Church had plenty of time to rewrite history in its favor. In either case, the Crusades themselves were an act of evil and corruption that the Church started.
So your only attack on the Fourth Crusade, the one that sacked Constantinople, is an unsupported conspiracy theory that the Church rewrote all the history that had to do with the Crusades and has coerced the entire academic community to support it? How does that even work? Do you have even the most basic source to support your claim? This is another matter of your opinion doesn't outweigh empirical studies. And how exactly isn't the Crusade an act of good (assuming self-defense is considered good) that was corrupted by people outside the Church (leaders of the nations of Europe)?

I am talking about those papers people were offered to buy to get their place in haven.
I already answered this; perhaps I didn't make it clear that the name of those pieces of papers were indulgences.

“An indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus' sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints.[2] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.”
Source

Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 8
"...unfortunately the practice of indulgences has on occasion been improperly applied. This has been either through "untimely" and superfluous indulgences which humiliated the power of the keys and weakened penitential satisfaction or it has been through the collection of "unlawful profits" which blasphemously took away the good name of indulgences...""


And are you actually advocating child molestation?
So the logic of (sin = wrong) + (humans = can sin) = I support child molestation? Explain please.

What the people within the Church do IS what the Church does. The Church is an organization of people, a secular organization, that deals in secular matters thus if its members act in a certain way in those secular matters then the Church as a whole must be blamed, especially if its a repeated occurrence.
So let's say that George Bush takes a knife and murders his wife. Him doing that is not endorsed by the US Government and does not discredit the US Government (as it is based on the Constitution, not the private life of the president), just him. It's the same thing as a member of the Church abusing indulgences and/or child molestation; it does not discredit the legitimacy of the Church, just that specific person. If the Church were to order something with the intention of it being evil (according to its constant 2000 year old teaching), then that would discredit the Church.

Even in non Papal lands, commoners had to pay taxes to the local church as well as their lords. The Church legitimized generations of oppressive rulers all over Europe.
Think of it as a federal system; the lands they were in viewed the Church as a legitimate higher government and thus paid taxes.

As for Crusades:

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..the meanest thing of all is that Canon Vacandard, and most of your modern Catholic apologists, raise over the bones of those hundreds of thousands of murdered men, women, and children the smug and lying inscription that they were "'dangerous to society." How? You will smile when you hear: like Christ, they advocated voluntary poverty and virginity! We know their ideas only from bitter enemies, and this seems to be the rock of offense. Yes, but how could society persist if there were no private property, no soldiers (they opposed war), no procreation of children. And the answer again is simple: these counsels of Christ were (exactly as the modern Catholic theologian says) for the elect few, the "perfect," as the Albigensians called them, and the great body of the "believers" could own what property they liked, marry when they liked, and bear arms when necessary. They were, as Professor Bass Mullinger says in an article in the same Encyclopedia, men of "simple blameless life," and were not responsible for the brawls about the churches. Rome murdered a few hundred thousand real followers of Christ because they were not Christians. [16]

...

Uh huh, sure: "The magnitude of the "heresy" can be guessed when we learn that after two years of the most brutal carnage the Albigensians were still so strong that, when the Pope renewed the "crusade" in 1214, a fresh hundred thousand "pilgrims" had to be summoned. Innocent boasts that they took five hundred towns and castles from the heretics, and they generally butchered every man, woman and child in a town when they took it. Noble ladies with their daughters were thrown down wells, and large stones flung upon them. Knights were hanged in batches of eighty. When, at the first large town, soldiers asked how they could distinguish between heretics and orthodox, the Cistercian abbot thundered: "Kill them all, God will know his own," and they put to the sword the forty thousand surviving men, women and children. Modern Catholic writers merely quibble when they dispute these things. It is the Catholics of the time who tell us. [ibid.]"

Thats a different inquisition, one you can not deny by attempting to twist facts.

Objections Sustained! Objection #7: Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence

Indeed, the astounding illiteracy of the time can also be attributed to the church, which relied on its learned clergy's elite-access to the Bible as a great source of their power.
You do realize that most of that article is discredited on the very site your source is from. See this, your source.

Education:
"In his remarks about the Crusades Gerkin says that "the astounding illiteracy of the time can also be attributed to the church, which relied on its learned clergy's elite-access to the Bible as a great source of their power." This is a rather odd objection given that literacy in twelfth-century Europe was historically high in Christian countries as compared to pre-Christian ones. The Church did run most of the schools but made no effort to close them to lay people who paid their fees. Universities required students to be in holy orders, but they were not required to become priests, and ceased to be clerics when they left. Given that church law was considerably milder than secular law, being a clerk was a useful perk for students.[1]

...

No reputable historian today thinks that Christianity caused the Dark Ages. Indeed, most historians do not even use the term 'Dark Ages' at all. Instead, the period is now known as the 'Early Middle Ages' as this nonjudgmental term better reflects the enormous advances in technology, literacy, law, and society that took place.[14] That Gerkin even uses the term Dark Ages shows that he has little idea about the current state of historical study. The myth that the history of the relationship between science and religion has been characterized by a great conflict is also now rejected by all historians of science.[15]"


Unlike the statement made accusing the Church of attacking education, this statement is cited within the article.

On the Albigensian Crusade:
"Gerkin also touches on the Albigensian crusade ordered by Innocent III...Besides McCabe's exaggeration of the numbers who died during the Albigensian crusade (he keeps talking about hundreds of thousands, which would account for the entire population of the Languedoc), he also seems to have little understanding of what the Cathars were about. They were religious fundamentalists of a kind that Gerkin would certainly disapprove of and they harbored a deep hostility towards Catholics.[4] The war was actually triggered by the Cathar murder of the papal legate...the picture of the Cathars as cuddly and oppressed is simply anti-Catholic propaganda.[5]"

All of this information comes from your source and is cited to academic works (unlike the information it is countering). The rest of the article we did not cover is also discredited in that response.

The conclusion at the end of the article from your source is:

"In summary, Gerkin's rebuttal of Strobel suffers badly from his ignorance of most of the issues discussed. To try to argue a historical case without a single reference to a current history book is unwise."

Note: Gerkin is the person who is arguing your side.


306
The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together
325
Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicaea
c. 400
Calling the synagogue "brothel and theater" and "a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts," St. John Chrysostom writes that "the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony"
413
A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall
Feel free to show me where any of this was commanded by the Church and/or restricted the rights of Jews (depending on which applies to the specific of the four statements). I'd also like you to back your assertions with academic sources that are cited, not an uncited website that has a stated message of being against religion.
 

Uncle_Vanya

Гражданин СССР
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
So your only attack on the Fourth Crusade, the one that sacked Constantinople, is an unsupported conspiracy theory that the Church rewrote all the history that had to do with the Crusades and has coerced the entire academic community to support it? How does that even work? Do you have even the most basic source to support your claim? This is another matter of your opinion doesn't outweigh empirical studies. And how exactly isn't the Crusade an act of good (assuming self-defense is considered good) that was corrupted by people outside the Church (leaders of the nations of Europe)?
My attack is on all the Crusades, the Crusades were not an act of good, they were not in self-defense, they were imperialistic campaigns for the lands that had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. As for the Church writing its own version of history, only the clergy could write at that time, so its only logical that they would write about themselves in a favorable light.


I already answered this; perhaps I didn't make it clear that the name of those pieces of papers were indulgences.

“An indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus' sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints.[2] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.”
Source

Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 8
"...unfortunately the practice of indulgences has on occasion been improperly applied. This has been either through "untimely" and superfluous indulgences which humiliated the power of the keys and weakened penitential satisfaction or it has been through the collection of "unlawful profits" which blasphemously took away the good name of indulgences...""



So the logic of (sin = wrong) + (humans = can sin) = I support child molestation? Explain please.
You said that child molestation is all part of the teachings of Christ and the members of the Church hierarchy involved thus do not go against the teachings of the Church.

And from the above statement whoever wrote that admits that the Church is corrupt, okay.


So let's say that George Bush takes a knife and murders his wife. Him doing that is not endorsed by the US Government and does not discredit the US Government (as it is based on the Constitution, not the private life of the president), just him. It's the same thing as a member of the Church abusing indulgences and/or child molestation; it does not discredit the legitimacy of the Church, just that specific person. If the Church were to order something with the intention of it being evil (according to its constant 2000 year old teaching), then that would discredit the Church.
Its a bit different in a democracy then compared to a dictatorship such as the Church, if Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad knife their wifes that will/did discredit the legitimacy of their respective countries. Evil is subject to point of view, narrow minds that try to push an agenda (such as you) will always be able to twist the facts in a way that suits their own set of beliefs, aka the "Crusades were an act of good" and nonsense like that. Starting an imperialistic war is not an act of good. Hell, even Hitler thought that God was with him.


Think of it as a federal system; the lands they were in viewed the Church as a legitimate higher government and thus paid taxes.
No, I won't, the monarchies that ruled those lands were legitimate federal systems, the Church was an organization that through superstitious teachings scared the populace into paying.


You do realize that most of that article is discredited on the very site your source is from. See this, your source.

Education:
"In his remarks about the Crusades Gerkin says that "the astounding illiteracy of the time can also be attributed to the church, which relied on its learned clergy's elite-access to the Bible as a great source of their power." This is a rather odd objection given that literacy in twelfth-century Europe was historically high in Christian countries as compared to pre-Christian ones. The Church did run most of the schools but made no effort to close them to lay people who paid their fees. Universities required students to be in holy orders, but they were not required to become priests, and ceased to be clerics when they left. Given that church law was considerably milder than secular law, being a clerk was a useful perk for students.[1]


The above is of course nonsense and I will most assuredly find another source to prove it as such.

...

No reputable historian today thinks that Christianity caused the Dark Ages. Indeed, most historians do not even use the term 'Dark Ages' at all. Instead, the period is now known as the 'Early Middle Ages' as this nonjudgmental term better reflects the enormous advances in technology, literacy, law, and society that took place.[14] That Gerkin even uses the term Dark Ages shows that he has little idea about the current state of historical study. The myth that the history of the relationship between science and religion has been characterized by a great conflict is also now rejected by all historians of science.[15]"
That is clear nonsense, the Early Middle Ages were a time period then almost every aspect of life went down hill and then the Bubonic Plague arrived. I heard Dark Ages used by several people with PhDs in history such as all of my college level history class teachers so far. Whoever is writing this rebuttal is obviously an advocate of the Church.


On the Albigensian Crusade:
"Gerkin also touches on the Albigensian crusade ordered by Innocent III...Besides McCabe's exaggeration of the numbers who died during the Albigensian crusade (he keeps talking about hundreds of thousands, which would account for the entire population of the Languedoc), he also seems to have little understanding of what the Cathars were about. They were religious fundamentalists of a kind that Gerkin would certainly disapprove of and they harbored a deep hostility towards Catholics.[4] The war was actually triggered by the Cathar murder of the papal legate...the picture of the Cathars as cuddly and oppressed is simply anti-Catholic propaganda.[5]"
Ah yes, he uses the word "cuddly", must be a scholar.

Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His alleged reply, recalled by a fellow Cistercian, was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."

So this buffoon above is trying to downplay the massacre, he obviously shares the same narrow minded, excusist agenda as you.


Feel free to show me where any of this was commanded by the Church and/or restricted the rights of Jews (depending on which applies to the specific of the four statements). I'd also like you to back your assertions with academic sources that are cited, not an uncited website that has a stated message of being against religion.
Excuse me? What more proof do you need? I gave you a wikipedia article there it states clearly what restrictions the Church has put up on the Jews and each point is cited to another source. Trying to play the "race card" I see, just because people don't share the ridiculous view that the Catholic church is somehow sacred and clean doesn't mean they're anti-religion, rather they are realists trying to disperse the superstition from which this religion draws power.

And btw, my guy also cited all of his facts.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
My attack is on all the Crusades, the Crusades were not an act of good, they were not in self-defense, they were imperialistic campaigns for the lands that had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. As for the Church writing its own version of history, only the clergy could write at that time, so its only logical that they would write about themselves in a favorable light.
You have yet to give a source showing that 2/3 of Christendom had been conquered and that it was consistently under siege. Second, what is your source that only the clergy could write. Third, what is your source that no one in the Middle East could write.

You said that child molestation is all part of the teachings of Christ and the members of the Church hierarchy involved thus do not go against the teachings of the Church.
I said: "How exactly doesn't raping boys have to do with the idea that all men are sinners?" Hence, the statement "do your best to follow the example of Christ" applies to all men including the clergy. Thus, there is no hypocrisy as all teachings apply to all members of the Church, clergy or laymen, the same.


And from the above statement whoever wrote that admits that the Church is corrupt, okay.
All men are sinners; I've said this repeatedly.

Its a bit different in a democracy then compared to a dictatorship such as the Church, if Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad knife their wifes that will/did discredit the legitimacy of their respective countries. Evil is subject to point of view, narrow minds that try to push an agenda (such as you) will always be able to twist the facts in a way that suits their own set of beliefs, aka the "Crusades were an act of good" and nonsense like that. Starting an imperialistic war is not an act of good. Hell, even Hitler thought that God was with him.
How is it different? In the United States, the legitimacy of the government is based on our social contract, the Constitution. In dictatorships, the legitimacy of the government is based on the leader. In the Church, the legitimacy is based on the teachings of the Church. Each of these is what is the thing used to justify the existence of the institution.

Also, if you believe self-defense is an act of evil, we have a difference of opinion. However, it's safe to say that most people do not view self-defense as an act of evil and to most people that would not be a stain on an institution.


No, I won't, the monarchies that ruled those lands were legitimate federal systems, the Church was an organization that through superstitious teachings scared the populace into paying.
First, I'd like your substantive absolute proof that God does not exist, the Bible is false, and thus the teachings are superstitious. I do not claim they God exists or the Bible is true here, I claim that this cannot be decided and is a matter of opinion and you are putting opinion into an argument of facts.

Second, the those governments viewed the Church as a legitimate authority, as is obvious because otherwise they would not have submitted to being taxed. Also, do you have some source talking about this?

The above is of course nonsense and I will most assuredly find another source to prove it as such.
Okay.

That is clear nonsense, the Early Middle Ages were a time period then almost every aspect of life went down hill and then the Bubonic Plague arrived. I heard Dark Ages used by several people with PhDs in history such as all of my college level history class teachers so far. Whoever is writing this rebuttal is obviously an advocate of the Church.
Do you have some source to counter my source? For example, something to discredit the website you provided and my further source, wikipedia:

"The modern stereotype of this Age as a time of backwardness is reflected in popular misconceptions related to the history of science. Notions such as: "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", "the medieval Christian Church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences", "the medieval Christians thought that the world was flat", and "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", are all reported by Ronald Numbers and others as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by historical research."
Source - Wikipedia

Ah yes, he uses the word "cuddly", must be a scholar.
His vocabulary may suck, but facts are facts regardless of whether or not the word cuddly is used.

Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His alleged reply, recalled by a fellow Cistercian, was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."

So this buffoon above is trying to downplay the massacre, he obviously shares the same narrow minded, excusist agenda as you.
You use an 'alleged' reply as proof? Historians don't know if he even said it:

"There is little to authenticate Arnaud's reportedly infamous command to the crusaders at Beziers in July of 1209 to "Kill them all. God will know his own." No source of the time actually records his saying this. The first time the quote is attributed to Arnaud is decades later by the German Cistercian monk Cesar d' Heisterbach in his Dialogus Miraculorum, or Of the Miracles.(2)"
Source

I'm not saying the massacre didn't happen, downplay it, or anything of the sort; it just matters how the massacre actually came about is important to see who is responsible and this line is tenuous at best.

Excuse me? What more proof do you need? I gave you a wikipedia article there it states clearly what restrictions the Church has put up on the Jews and each point is cited to another source. Trying to play the "race card" I see, just because people don't share the ridiculous view that the Catholic church is somehow sacred and clean doesn't mean they're anti-religion, rather they are realists trying to disperse the superstition from which this religion draws power.
You gave me a bunch of dates and events with not context for the anti-semitism; I don't even know if the events even happened because I can't find any information on any of it except in that one list which is far from an academic source.

And btw, my guy also cited all of his facts.
He doesn't cite his claim that "the astounding illiteracy of the time can also be attributed to the church, which relied on its learned clergy's elite-access to the Bible as a great source of their power" or anything else in that paragraph.
 

NewPosts

New threads

Top