The Message of Christianity

[Uncle_Vanya]

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.

When did I say that no one in the middle east could write? "You have yet to give a source showing that 2/3 of Christendom had been conquered and that it was consistently under siege." - thats something you're arguing, so you give me a source.

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.

So by raping boys they did their best to follow the teachings of Christ? Good one. If those are the teachings of your Church then it is not just hypocritical, its also self-serving, the Church can basically do whatever because its teachings allow it to. The thing here is that such a Church can not associate itself with the image of "good", an image it attempts to push, thus the hypocrisy.

All men are sinners; I've said this repeatedly.

Which does not at all invalidate the fact that the Church is corrupt because of the sins committed by it in an individual and organized manner.

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.

It is completely different, you can not even attempt to argue that Kim Jong Ils personal actions does not discredit the whole state of North Korea, it does. The Church's "legitimacy" is based on making people believe in fairy tales so they act in a way that the Church itself chooses not to act. Thus again, hypocrisy. It is "do as I say, not as I do" all over again, thou shall not kill, except if its the Church I guess, etc., etc.

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.

Yeah, you're yet to come up with any sort of a logical argument about how attacking the Holy Land which wasn't under the Catholic church's control since the schism is an act of self-defense. Starting a war of one religion against another is an act of evil, trying to make it look holy is an act of hypocrisy.

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.

And so are you, you're twisting facts to be in line with your opinion no matter how illogical your conclusions end up.

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?

Eh? The reason they viewed the Church as legitimate authority was because the Church told them a bunch of stories about how they will burn in hell if they don't, and education level being low people believe those stories. Do you have any source to counter the simple logic that is presented here?

His vocabulary may suck, but facts are facts regardless of whether or not the word cuddly is used.

Attempting to downplay a massacre of an entire religious group doesn't deal with facts.

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.

The fact that the massacre happened already should be enough to kick the Church off of its self-righteous high horse. And yes, you are attempting to downplay it.

You gave me a bunch of dates and events with not context for the anti-semitism.

Eh?
306
The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together

Read it a few times if thats not enough for you. You're saying that forbidding a group of people to intermarry, have sexual intercourse or eat together based on religion and ethnicity is not an act of anti-semitism?

 

[Tipsy]

When did I say that no one in the middle east could write?

"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." In order for that to be true, there have to be no records from Middle Eastern writers as well.

"You have yet to give a source showing that 2/3 of Christendom had been conquered and that it was consistently under siege." - thats something you're arguing, so you give me a source.

...

Yeah, you're yet to come up with any sort of a logical argument about how attacking the Holy Land which wasn't under the Catholic church's control since the schism is an act of self-defense. Starting a war of one religion against another is an act of evil, trying to make it look holy is an act of hypocrisy.

I did on earlier in this thread:

“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.

So by raping boys they did their best to follow the teachings of Christ? Good one.

Honestly, only they and God (assuming he exists) can know. The point is that everyone sins and too point out the clergy can to is no hypocrisy on their part.

If those are the teachings of your Church then it is not just hypocritical, its also self-serving, the Church can basically do whatever because its teachings allow it to.

How can teachings that have been constant for 2000 years allow the Church to do whatever it wants with them?

The thing here is that such a Church can not associate itself with the image of "good", an image it attempts to push, thus the hypocrisy.

Not completely sure what you're getting at here; could you expand on it a bit for me?

Which does not at all invalidate the fact that the Church is corrupt because of the sins committed by it in an individual and organized manner.

It is completely different, you can not even attempt to argue that Kim Jong Ils personal actions does not discredit the whole state of North Korea, it does. The Church's "legitimacy" is based on making people believe in fairy tales so they act in a way that the Church itself chooses not to act. Thus again, hypocrisy. It is "do as I say, not as I do" all over again, thou shall not kill, except if its the Church I guess, etc., etc.

It does; as I said in my last post, as democracy is legitimatized by a Constitution, a dictatorships is legitimatized by the dictator, the Church is legitimatized by its teachings. The Church has consistently acted with its teachings and you have yet to show an example otherwise. Kim Jong Il acting as a douchebag does discredit his government, as it is a dictatorship and is legitimatized by the dictator. As for "thou shall not kill, except if its the Church I guess", you have shown examples of self-defense, something a right, according to the Church, of a nation being invaded and an individual being attacked - there is no hypocrisy, the same teaching applies to all.

And so are you, you're twisting facts to be in line with your opinion no matter how illogical your conclusions end up.

My conclusions are based on historical fact and evidence. Discussing whether the Bible is true, whether God exists, and other articles of faith are conclusions drawn from no evidence. The actions of the Church throughout history can be argued empirically, the existence of God cannot.

Eh? The reason they viewed the Church as legitimate authority was because the Church told them a bunch of stories about how they will burn in hell if they don't, and education level being low people believe those stories. Do you have any source to counter the simple logic that is presented here?

I do indeed. It is because the governments in Europe did not have enough power to provide some of the services the Church could, so they had their subjects pay taxes to the Church so that their subjects could receive the services they could not provide.

"[the medieval Church] routinely provided provided certain public goods that weak and fragmented governments were unable to supply in the Middle Ages. Among these public goods were jurisprudence, a certain measure of individual security, economic assistance to the poor and disadvantaged, and scholarship--which consisted of a kind of information technology."
Source

Attempting to downplay a massacre of an entire religious group doesn't deal with facts.

The fact that the massacre happened already should be enough to kick the Church off of its self-righteous high horse. And yes, you are attempting to downplay it.

Neither does you blaming the Church when your only evidence for the connection between the Church condoning and/or commanding the massacre has been discredited. Also, I'm in no way downplaying the atrocity that this massacre was.

Eh?
306
The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together

Read it a few times if thats not enough for you. You're saying that forbidding a group of people to intermarry, have sexual intercourse or eat together based on religion and ethnicity is not an act of anti-semitism?

There is no context; what was their justification for passing such a thing? Is there a passage in the results that say it was passed because Jews suck? Is there some more pragmatic reason?

It's like saying saying in 1944 the USSR took Berlin without mentioning that the USSR had been attacked by another country and that WW2 was happening. If you take the first statement without context you can condemn the USSR, if you put it in context however, a more practical reason becomes obvious, self-defense.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

"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." In order for that to be true, there have to be no records from Middle Eastern writers as well.

Obviously I was talking about Europe since that is what we are discussing.

I did on earlier in this thread:

“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.â€

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.

And his opinions are obviously biased. It doesn't make sense, the Catholic Church had no claim to the Holy Lands they belonged to Beznatine Empire before they went to the Muslims. If the Crusades were in self-defense then the first place they would strike would be Spain. The Crusades were not in any way, shape or form defensive, to claim that they are is ridiculous. And to claim that the Crusades were not started by the Church is also ridiculous.

Honestly, only they and God (assuming he exists) can know. The point is that everyone sins and too point out the clergy can to is no hypocrisy on their part.

If the clergy sins, the Church sins. It is hypocrisy, if they tell others to not do the things that they are doing its hypocritical.

How can teachings that have been constant for 2000 years allow the Church to do whatever it wants with them?

It hasn't been constant for 2000 years, hell even the Bible was compiled 300 years after Christ. Then we look at all the rules and regulations that have been changed, hell just look at all the decisions about Jews etc. The Church doesn't need to go along with what its teaching, it is the only authority on its teaching and people who are stupid enough to follow it will believe whatever the Church presents as its teaching. The clergy try to press on their values onto the populace and then rape little boys, according to you thats all in line with the teaching, thus the teaching is self-serving.

Not completely sure what you're getting at here; could you expand on it a bit for me?

Its quite simple really, the Church attempts to present itself as The Good, meanwhile it commits immoral acts for no reason but to consolidate power thus it is hypocritical.

It does; as I said in my last post, as democracy is legitimatized by a Constitution, a dictatorships is legitimatized by the dictator, the Church is legitimatized by its teachings. The Church has consistently acted with its teachings and you have yet to show an example otherwise. Kim Jong Il acting as a douchebag does discredit his government, as it is a dictatorship and is legitimatized by the dictator. As for "thou shall not kill, except if its the Church I guess", you have shown examples of self-defense, something a right, according to the Church, of a nation being invaded and an individual being attacked - there is no hypocrisy, the same teaching applies to all.

Kim Jong Il acting like a douchebag does discredit his government, you can not point to the otherwise because thats just silly. Once again, the Crusades were not self-defense. Was Holy Land ever a papal state? No. Its Christian affiliation was with the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church, there is no point you can make that makes your claims that the Crusades were a self-defense logical.

My conclusions are based on historical fact and evidence. Discussing whether the Bible is true, whether God exists, and other articles of faith are conclusions drawn from no evidence. The actions of the Church throughout history can be argued empirically, the existence of God cannot.

You are twisting facts though, you are attempting to excuse the Church from any wrong doing by ignoring the logical conclusions a neutral person would have based on the facts presented. Your argument is illogical.

I do indeed. It is because the governments in Europe did not have enough power to provide some of the services the Church could, so they had their subjects pay taxes to the Church so that their subjects could receive the services they could not provide.

What services? List em. Middle ages were a superstitious time, the Monarchs truly believed in the Church's ability to send them to hell, and so did the common people.

Neither does you blaming the Church when your only evidence for the connection between the Church condoning and/or commanding the massacre has been discredited. Also, I'm in no way downplaying the atrocity that this massacre was.

Yeah, you are, you're downplaying it by trying to guide it away from its obvious connection with the Church. The massacre was the Church's doing and not one of yours sources denies this, but you do.

There is no context; what was their justification for passing such a thing? Is there a passage in the results that say it was passed because Jews suck? Is there some more pragmatic reason?

You can not pragmatically alienate a group of people, it can only be done with racism. You can pragmatically alienate a person for his/her own actions but you can not alienate a whole religious group in such a way.

It's like saying saying in 1944 the USSR took Berlin without mentioning that the USSR had been attacked by another country and that WW2 was happening. If you take the first statement without context you can condemn the USSR, if you put it in context however, a more practical reason becomes obvious, self-defense.

Eh, we took in in 1945. Self-defense was driving the Germans out of Russia and Ukraine, the rest was creation of the Soviet Empire. And nothing wrong with that, but we're honest about it, and the Church and you are not.

 

[Tipsy]

Obviously I was talking about Europe since that is what we are discussing.

Yet when modern historians study history they study it from all sources (including the Middle Eastern sources). So I repeat, for your statement to be true ("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."), the Middle East must have been completely illiterate. You have acknowledged it was not; thus, your original statement is false.

And his opinions are obviously biased. It doesn't make sense, the Catholic Church had no claim to the Holy Lands they belonged to Beznatine Empire before they went to the Muslims.

The Byzantine Empire was part of Christendom.

If the Crusades were in self-defense then the first place they would strike would be Spain.

So either help the heart of Christendom that was under attack or take back an extremity of Christendom that had already been conquered? At best, your argument is that you disagree with the land/population they value most and their tactics; that's hardly enough to even begin to suggest that it might have not been defensive.

The Crusades were not in any way, shape or form defensive, to claim that they are is ridiculous. And to claim that the Crusades were not started by the Church is also ridiculous.

Calling academics ridiculous doesn't make you right or prove your point; you need sources to back up your baseless assertions.

If the clergy sins, the Church sins. It is hypocrisy, if they tell others to not do the things that they are doing its hypocritical.

You do realize that holding themselves to the same standard as laymen is the opposite of hypocrisy, right?

It hasn't been constant for 2000 years,

Source?

The Church doesn't need to go along with what its teaching, it is the only authority on its teaching and people who are stupid enough to follow it will believe whatever the Church presents as its teaching.

It is the only authority, however if they're constant that doesn't help them manipulate anything.

The clergy try to press on their values onto the populace and then rape little boys, according to you thats all in line with the teaching, thus the teaching is self-serving.

And you call me the one twisting facts? I say the Church is against raping children and you say I said they are for it?

Its quite simple really, the Church attempts to present itself as The Good, meanwhile it commits immoral acts for no reason but to consolidate power thus it is hypocritical.

The Church presents its teachings as good; it teaches no human is perfect. The Church always presents the same 2000 year old message and teaches that everyone should follow it to the best of their ability, including themselves (the opposite of hypocrisy).

Kim Jong Il acting like a douchebag does discredit his government, you can not point to the otherwise because thats just silly.

Which is why I said it discredits his government.

Once again, the Crusades were not self-defense. Was Holy Land ever a papal state? No. Its Christian affiliation was with the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church, there is no point you can make that makes your claims that the Crusades were a self-defense logical.

Source that the Greek Orthodox Church isn't Christian please.

You are twisting facts though, you are attempting to excuse the Church from any wrong doing by ignoring the logical conclusions a neutral person would have based on the facts presented.

Ignoring logical conclusions? You mean the ones that academics have and present evidence to support that I constantly use to support my argument?

Your argument is illogical.

Yet the academics continuously agree with me and you throw out knee-jerk reaction events and words (Inquisition, Crusades, Hypocrisy) and just reject evidence presented to you by source after source.

What services? List em. Middle ages were a superstitious time, the Monarchs truly believed in the Church's ability to send them to hell, and so did the common people.

I already listed some in my last post; I will quote myself:

-----
I do indeed. It is because the governments in Europe did not have enough power to provide some of the services the Church could, so they had their subjects pay taxes to the Church so that their subjects could receive the services they could not provide.

"[the medieval Church] routinely provided provided certain public goods that weak and fragmented governments were unable to supply in the Middle Ages. Among these public goods were jurisprudence, a certain measure of individual security, economic assistance to the poor and disadvantaged, and scholarship--which consisted of a kind of information technology."
Source
-----

Yeah, you are, you're downplaying it by trying to guide it away from its obvious connection with the Church. The massacre was the Church's doing and not one of yours sources denies this, but you do.

What obvious connection? So obvious that there is no source to state that the Church condoned/commanded the massacre? That's what your argument has supplied so far.

Then we look at all the rules and regulations that have been changed, hell just look at all the decisions about Jews etc.

...

You can not pragmatically alienate a group of people, it can only be done with racism. You can pragmatically alienate a person for his/her own actions but you can not alienate a whole religious group in such a way.

I still await context.

Eh, we took in in 1945. Self-defense was driving the Germans out of Russia and Ukraine, the rest was creation of the Soviet Empire. And nothing wrong with that, but we're honest about it, and the Church and you are not.

Forgive my lack of WW2 knowledge; reread everything I said in the WW2 example and replace Berlin with Ukraine and you'll understand the analogy I was going for.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Yet when modern historians study history they study it from all sources (including the Middle Eastern sources). So I repeat, for your statement to be true ("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."), the Middle East must have been completely illiterate. You have acknowledged it was not; thus, your original statement is false.

What? You're twisting my words and making up ridiculous claims. What I said was that in Europe only the clergy could write, thats it, nothing about the Middle East.

The Byzantine Empire was part of Christendom.

But not under the control of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church was the one that started the Crusades. Once again I stay, the Holy Lands had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, neither was Muslim invasion of them a threat to the Catholic Church.

So either help the heart of Christendom that was under attack or take back an extremity of Christendom that had already been conquered? At best, your argument is that you disagree with the land/population they value most and their tactics; that's hardly enough to even begin to suggest that it might have not been defensive.

Again, you don't have a logical argument, I do, your reluctance to accept the simply logic behind all this is not my problem. The Muslims did not take the Holy Lands from the Catholic Church, thus they did not attack the Catholic Church's possessions, thus the Crusades is not a retaliation to prior attack but rather an offensive campaign by the Church to claim someone else's land as their own.

Calling academics ridiculous doesn't make you right or prove your point; you need sources to back up your baseless assertions.

If an academic's conclusion makes no sense based on facts presented then yes he is ridiculous and I am going to call him such.

You do realize that holding themselves to the same standard as laymen is the opposite of hypocrisy, right?

They don't though and thats the thing, if a priest rapes a little boy he obviously is going against what he himself is preaching.

Source?

A variety of sources, every time the Church has made a decision its doctrine changed, for example it is no longer anti-semetic.

It is the only authority, however if they're constant that doesn't help them manipulate anything.

As I said, they changed it before, not that they ever really needed to officially change anything, common man didn't know how to read he wouldn't question whatever the clergy told them.

And you call me the one twisting facts? I say the Church is against raping children and you say I said they are for it?

Because you said they are for it, repeatedly. You said that by raping children the priests aren't hypocritical, which implies that you're for it.

The Church presents its teachings as good; it teaches no human is perfect. The Church always presents the same 2000 year old message and teaches that everyone should follow it to the best of their ability, including themselves (the opposite of hypocrisy).

Nonsense.

Which is why I said it discredits his government.

So you agree with me than? The Church is the clergy and the Church's legacy is the actions of the clergy.

Source that the Greek Orthodox Church isn't Christian please.

It is Christian, but it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church nor the nations under the Catholic Church, Bezantine Empire didn't pay taxes to the Catholic Church and did not belong to it, Catholic Church can not defensively retaliate against a people that conquered something that never belonged to the Catholic Church in the first place.

Ignoring logical conclusions? You mean the ones that academics have and present evidence to support that I constantly use to support my argument?

Yeah those, they're completely illogical.

Yet the academics continuously agree with me and you throw out knee-jerk reaction events and words (Inquisition, Crusades, Hypocrisy) and just reject evidence presented to you by source after source.

And you try to weasel your way out of each, with no logical trail of thought what so ever, rather a line up of ridiculous excuses that don't make sense.

I already listed some in my last post; I will quote myself:

-----
I do indeed. It is because the governments in Europe did not have enough power to provide some of the services the Church could, so they had their subjects pay taxes to the Church so that their subjects could receive the services they could not provide.

"[the medieval Church] routinely provided provided certain public goods that weak and fragmented governments were unable to supply in the Middle Ages. Among these public goods were jurisprudence, a certain measure of individual security, economic assistance to the poor and disadvantaged, and scholarship--which consisted of a kind of information technology."
Source[
-----

Still irrelevant, the legitimacy of the Church was primarily based on faith, aka the brainwashing power of its fairytales.

What obvious connection? So obvious that there is no source to state that the Church condoned/commanded the massacre? That's what your argument has supplied so far.

Even YOUR OWN sources agree that it was the Church's doing, that first buffoon you presented tried to make the case that the Church's actions were righteous because the victims weren't cuddly.

I still await context.

Racism does not require context, a racist act generalizing a whole ethnic group is a racist act in whatever context.

Forgive my lack of WW2 knowledge; reread everything I said in the WW2 example and replace Berlin with Ukraine and you'll understand the analogy I was going for.

Its completely different, Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire of Russia for over a thousand years, the Holy Lands were not part of the Catholic Church's dominion.

 

[Tipsy]

What? You're twisting my words and making up ridiculous claims. What I said was that in Europe only the clergy could write, thats it, nothing about the Middle East.

You said that the history of the crusades was written in a positive light because only the clergy could write: ("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 am saying your claim of bias in the source cannot be true because there are also historical records from the Middle East about the history of the Crusades. Thus, the assertion that the history of the Crusades was only written in a positive light is false, as the history from the Middle East is not only not positive, but negative.

But not under the control of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church was the one that started the Crusades. Once again I stay, the Holy Lands had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, neither was Muslim invasion of them a threat to the Catholic Church.

Again, you don't have a logical argument, I do, your reluctance to accept the simply logic behind all this is not my problem. The Muslims did not take the Holy Lands from the Catholic Church, thus they did not attack the Catholic Church's possessions, thus the Crusades is not a retaliation to prior attack but rather an offensive campaign by the Church to claim someone else's land as their own.

If an academic's conclusion makes no sense based on facts presented then yes he is ridiculous and I am going to call him such.


It is Christian, but it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church nor the nations under the Catholic Church, Bezantine Empire didn't pay taxes to the Catholic Church and did not belong to it, Catholic Church can not defensively retaliate against a people that conquered something that never belonged to the Catholic Church in the first place.

Its completely different, Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire of Russia for over a thousand years, the Holy Lands were not part of the Catholic Church's dominion.[

All of these quotes have to do with the same Crusades argument so I put them all together.

Please show me where I or my sources claim the Catholic Church was under siege. Everywhere in this thread I and my sources have consistently said Christendom in regards to this. My source:

“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.â€
Source


So why would they think that they would be alarmed into sending a Crusade?

"In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks."
Source


And how wasn't it defense?

"Many Muslims, for instance, still reckon that the crusades initiated centuries of European aggression and exploitation. Some Catholics want the pope to apologise to the world for them. Liberals of all stripes see the crusades as examples of bigotry and fanaticism. Almost all these opinions are, however, based on fallacies. The denigrators of the crusades stress their brutality and savagery, which cannot be denied; but they offer no explanation other than the stupidity, barbarism and intolerance of the crusaders, on whom it has become conventional to lay most blame. Yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression;"

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. Religious Warriors: Reinterpreting the Crusades. The Economist.


"Islam began with one man in Mecca and, within less than two centuries, encompassed territory from the Iberian Peninsula to the Hindu Kush. This expansion did not happen peacefully. The Arab Muslim armies attacked and conquered Byzantine Christian territories in Syria and Egypt and, a bit later, Arab-Berber Muslim forces conquered the formerly Roman, but still Christian, cities and towns across North Africa and into what is now Spain and Portugal, ruling there for seven centuries. Muslim armies invaded the Frankish Kingdom, later to become France, in 732 and were defeated by Charlemagne's grandfather, Charles Martel. Over the next three centuries the Sunni Muslim Seljuq Turks further dissected the Byzantine Empire, beginning a process that would be completed by their cousins the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453 and ruled southeastern Europe for centuries.So the Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats, really fought back."

Furnish, Timothy. How the Media Misconstrue Jihad and the Crusades. History News Network


"The Crusades satisfied the requirements of a just war in at least two ways. The Muslims had taken certain Christian territories by force and had thereby denied to Christians, east and west, the opportunity to engage in one of the most important of medieval religious exercises, namely, pilgrimages. The concept of the just war not only permits people to defend themselves when directly attacked, it also permits them to go to the aid of others who have been attacked."

James Hitchcock. The Crusades and Their Critics.


"Crusades cannot be defined solely in terms of inter-faith relations as many of them were waged against opponents who were not Muslim, but, what- ever the theatre of war, an expedition could not be launched to spread Christianity or Christian rule, but had to be a defensive reaction to an injury perpetrated by another."

Riley-Smith, Johnathan. Truth is the First Victim.


Do you have any source that claims it was an offensive war? Do you have any source that shows that years before Crusaders got anywhere near Jerusalem that Muslim armies hadn't already fought Christendom near Paris? Do you have a source showing that as soon as the Byzantine Empire fell that Muslims would simply declare peace on the rest of Christendom? You can have your bias opinion against the Church, but you have to realize that it is based in your dislike of religion, not in the facts and conclusions of historians.

They don't though and thats the thing, if a priest rapes a little boy he obviously is going against what he himself is preaching.

Because you said they are for it, repeatedly. You said that by raping children the priests aren't hypocritical, which implies that you're for it.

Please, quote me on it, because I guarantee you will not be able to find a quote saying I said something I didn't.

Please, just find the flaw in this logic that makes hypocrisy exist. Clergy teaches all people should try to follow the message of Christ to the best of their ability. It also teaches that all people are not perfect, and that they can sin. Finally, the Church teaches raping anyone, including but not limited to children. is against the message of Christ. Thus, everyone follows the same rules and everyone is hold in the same moral standing.

Nonsense.

Well, I will take the Church's word over yours on what it is they teach.

Catechism Passage 402
"all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

Please, tell me where the Catholic Catechism says the ability to sin does not apply to all men.

A variety of sources, every time the Church has made a decision its doctrine changed, for example it is no longer anti-semetic.

As I said, they changed it before, not that they ever really needed to officially change anything, common man didn't know how to read he wouldn't question whatever the clergy told them.

Racism does not require context, a racist act generalizing a whole ethnic group is a racist act in whatever context.

And yet you cannot show me one source? Show me the context and if it agrees with what you claim, I will continue to agree with facts.

So you agree with me than? The Church is the clergy and the Church's legacy is the actions of the clergy.

What you quoted was talking about legitimacy, not legacy; please respond to what I actually said:

"It does; as I said in my last post, as democracy is legitimatized by a Constitution, a dictatorships is legitimatized by the dictator, the Church is legitimatized by its teachings. The Church has consistently acted with its teachings and you have yet to show an example otherwise. Kim Jong Il acting as a douchebag does discredit his government, as it is a dictatorship and is legitimatized by the dictator."

Still irrelevant, the legitimacy of the Church was primarily based on faith, aka the brainwashing power of its fairytales.

When you don't like facts, that doesn't mean you can ignore them. The sources I have shown clearly show that the Church had a legitimate function in collecting taxes.


"[the medieval Church] routinely provided provided certain public goods that weak and fragmented governments were unable to supply in the Middle Ages. Among these public goods were jurisprudence, a certain measure of individual security, economic assistance to the poor and disadvantaged, and scholarship--which consisted of a kind of information technology."
Source

Even YOUR OWN sources agree that it was the Church's doing, that first buffoon you presented tried to make the case that the Church's actions were righteous because the victims weren't cuddly.

Please quote me where. I don't see anywhere saying the Church condoned/commanded the massacre. It's hard to do when no source actually claims that.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

You said that the history of the crusades was written in a positive light because only the clergy could write: ("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 am saying your claim of bias in the source cannot be true because there are also historical records from the Middle East about the history of the Crusades. Thus, the assertion that the history of the Crusades was only written in a positive light is false, as the history from the Middle East is not only not positive, but negative.

You are yet to give me a source from the Middle East that shows the crusades in a positive light.

All of these quotes have to do with the same Crusades argument so I put them all together.

Please show me where I or my sources claim the Catholic Church was under siege. Everywhere in this thread I and my sources have consistently said Christendom in regards to this. My source:

You're not getting it, it can not be a defensive war if Catholic Church expands into something that never belonged to it in the first place, thats imperialistic expansionism and has nothing to do with defense.

“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.â€
Source

As I said repeatedly the above statement goes against both logic and historical fact.

So why would they think that they would be alarmed into sending a Crusade?

"In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks."
Source


And how wasn't it defense?

As I have explained repeatedly, taking someone else's land is not a defensive move.

"Islam began with one man in Mecca and, within less than two centuries, encompassed territory from the Iberian Peninsula to the Hindu Kush. This expansion did not happen peacefully. The Arab Muslim armies attacked and conquered Byzantine Christian territories in Syria and Egypt and, a bit later, Arab-Berber Muslim forces conquered the formerly Roman, but still Christian, cities and towns across North Africa and into what is now Spain and Portugal, ruling there for seven centuries. Muslim armies invaded the Frankish Kingdom, later to become France, in 732 and were defeated by Charlemagne's grandfather, Charles Martel. Over the next three centuries the Sunni Muslim Seljuq Turks further dissected the Byzantine Empire, beginning a process that would be completed by their cousins the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453 and ruled southeastern Europe for centuries.So the Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats, really fought back."

Furnish, Timothy. How the Media Misconstrue Jihad and the Crusades. History News Network

Again, this is irrelevant, the Holy Lands had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, it was not a reclamation of lands lost to the invaders because the Catholic Church never owned them in the first place. If the Crusades targeted the Muslim expansion in Spain that would be a defensive war.

"Crusades cannot be defined solely in terms of inter-faith relations as many of them were waged against opponents who were not Muslim, but, what- ever the theatre of war, an expedition could not be launched to spread Christianity or Christian rule, but had to be a defensive reaction to an injury perpetrated by another."

Riley-Smith, Johnathan. Truth is the First Victim.


Do you have any source that claims it was an offensive war? Do you have any source that shows that years before Crusaders got anywhere near Jerusalem that Muslim armies hadn't already fought Christendom near Paris? Do you have a source showing that as soon as the Byzantine Empire fell that Muslims would simply declare peace on the rest of Christendom? You can have your bias opinion against the Church, but you have to realize that it is based in your dislike of religion, not in the facts and conclusions of historians.

No, I want you to realize that your conclusions don't make sense, the Crusades to the Holy Land were not there to return land to Byzantine Empire, they were there to expand the territories under control of the Catholic Church, thus they were imperialistic wars and thats the only logical conclusion based on the facts presented, regardless of the Muslim expansionism a war to annex someone's land is not defensive.

Please, quote me on it, because I guarantee you will not be able to find a quote saying I said something I didn't.

Here you go:

Honestly, only they and God (assuming he exists) can know. The point is that everyone sins and too point out the clergy can to is no hypocrisy on their part.


Nonsense like that.

Please, just find the flaw in this logic that makes hypocrisy exist. Clergy teaches all people should try to follow the message of Christ to the best of their ability. It also teaches that all people are not perfect, and that they can sin. Finally, the Church teaches raping anyone, including but not limited to children. is against the message of Christ. Thus, everyone follows the same rules and everyone is hold in the same moral standing.

Yes, now see if the Church teaches that raping anyone, including but not limited to children is against the message of Christ and then the priests who deliver that message to others go ahead and rape children they are hypocrites in a most direct way, they go against what they preach. I am tired of explaining this, you should have gotten it by now.

Well, I will take the Church's word over yours on what it is they teach.

Of course you would, little sheep.

Catechism Passage 402
"all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

Please, tell me where the Catholic Catechism says the ability to sin does not apply to all men.

Again that point is irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. If a priest preaches "though shall not kill" and then kills someone, it doesn't matter if he also preaches that all man are sinners, he told others not to kill and committed the act himself, thus he is a hypocrite.

And yet you cannot show me one source? Show me the context and if it agrees with what you claim, I will continue to agree with facts.

For the final time, context is unneeded here, an act alienating a whole religious group is anti-semetic in any context.

What you quoted was talking about legitimacy, not legacy; please respond to what I actually said:

"It does; as I said in my last post, as democracy is legitimatized by a Constitution, a dictatorships is legitimatized by the dictator, the Church is legitimatized by its teachings. The Church has consistently acted with its teachings and you have yet to show an example otherwise. Kim Jong Il acting as a douchebag does discredit his government, as it is a dictatorship and is legitimatized by the dictator."

The Church's teachings are shaky enough that they can twist them in whatever way they can, I agree with you, the Church is legitimized by its fairytales now that it no longer has armies. But you were getting at originally is that the acts of the clergy do not put any dirt on the name of the Church whatever they are, which is the point Im arguing against on the simple basis that the Church is an organization and an organization is the people in it and nothing else.

Please quote me where. I don't see anywhere saying the Church condoned/commanded the massacre. It's hard to do when no source actually claims that.

You surprise me with your every post. I already posted this:

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc.

Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.

 

[Tipsy]

You are yet to give me a source from the Middle East that shows the crusades in a positive light.

You do realize that modern historians compile data from all the sources available, right? They don't follow some Eurocentric model where only European sources are used. Point being, all my sources involve records from the Middle East.

You're not getting it, it can not be a defensive war if Catholic Church expands into something that never belonged to it in the first place, thats imperialistic expansionism and has nothing to do with defense.

As I have explained repeatedly, taking someone else's land is not a defensive move.

Again, this is irrelevant, the Holy Lands had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, it was not a reclamation of lands lost to the invaders because the Catholic Church never owned them in the first place. If the Crusades targeted the Muslim expansion in Spain that would be a defensive war.


No, I want you to realize that your conclusions don't make sense, the Crusades to the Holy Land were not there to return land to Byzantine Empire, they were there to expand the territories under control of the Catholic Church, thus they were imperialistic wars and thats the only logical conclusion based on the facts presented, regardless of the Muslim expansionism a war to annex someone's land is not defensive.

First, they belong there; it was part of Christendom that had been taken. Second, the Catholic Church didn't expand, the territory taken in the more successful crusades created crusader states, not an addition to the papal states. Third, the Byzantine Empire reclaimed it's land that had been taken in Turkey. No expansion, no imperialism.

As I said repeatedly the above statement goes against both logic and historical fact.

Except the quote is historical fact from an accredited historian.

Here you go:

Honestly, only they and God (assuming he exists) can know. The point is that everyone sins and too point out the clergy can to is no hypocrisy on their part.

That quote says child molestation is a sin (as that was the sin we were discussing). That quote says that the Church is against child molestation because they are against sin. Please try again.

Yes, now see if the Church teaches that raping anyone, including but not limited to children is against the message of Christ and then the priests who deliver that message to others go ahead and rape children they are hypocrites in a most direct way, they go against what they preach. I am tired of explaining this, you should have gotten it by now.



Again that point is irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. If a priest preaches "though shall not kill" and then kills someone, it doesn't matter if he also preaches that all man are sinners, he told others not to kill and committed the act himself, thus he is a hypocrite.

They say God says it is wrong - they have no power to deem what is right and what is wrong; and by word of God I mean the constant 2000 year old teaching they have no power to change. They are not God, thus they are not a hypocrite.

For the final time, context is unneeded here, an act alienating a whole religious group is anti-semetic in any context.

Ukraine example again; without context it is not self-defense and would be considered doing something bad. If your going to make an assertion don't go half assed. I don't even know if the events you talk about even happened because I haven't been able to find any information about them from anything except that one list, the list being far from an academic source.

The Church's teachings are shaky enough that they can twist them in whatever way they can, I agree with you, the Church is legitimized by its fairytales now that it no longer has armies. But you were getting at originally is that the acts of the clergy do not put any dirt on the name of the Church whatever they are, which is the point Im arguing against on the simple basis that the Church is an organization and an organization is the people in it and nothing else.

And yet every example you give is shot down. Every quote from the Catechism is very clear and concise and cannot be misinterpreted. You make claim after claim and even with all the empirical evidence against every claim you make, you keep your opinion blinded from fact.

You surprise me with your every post. I already posted this:

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc.

Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.

I see an order for an inquisition, not for a massacre.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

You do realize that modern historians compile data from all the sources available, right? They don't follow some Eurocentric model where only European sources are used. Point being, all my sources involve records from the Middle East.

But you can't prove that. There is no indication that there is a source from the middle east in that time period that addressed the events in a way that supports your claims. I highly doubt that the Muslims were writing about taxation of Catholic Church.

First, they belong there; it was part of Christendom that had been taken. Second, the Catholic Church didn't expand, the territory taken in the more successful crusades created crusader states, not an addition to the papal states. Third, the Byzantine Empire reclaimed it's land that had been taken in Turkey. No expansion, no imperialism.

They may not have been papal states but they were catholic states, they paid taxes to the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as Christendom, not since the schism, it was the east and the west and there was a rivalry. Bezantine Empire in no way, shape or form was related to the Catholic nations. Creation of Catholic states in the Holy land is imperialism, same as sacking Constantinople.

Except the quote is historical fact from an accredited historian.

Or rather a religious propagandist who can't add 2+2 without a prayer.

That quote says child molestation is a sin (as that was the sin we were discussing). That quote says that the Church is against child molestation because they are against sin. Please try again.

Im tired of going in circles with you, this is really simple, if a person says one thing and does another they are a hypocrite, thats all there is to it, you claim that its not like that in the quote I have presented you. Come up with better excuse next time or get a clue already.

They say God says it is wrong - they have no power to deem what is right and what is wrong; and by word of God I mean the constant 2000 year old teaching they have no power to change. They are not God, thus they are not a hypocrite.

But they are hypocrite, once again, look up the definition of a hypocrite, someone that says one thing and does another, if they preach one thing and then do the complete opposite THEY ARE HYPOCRITES and your god has nothing to do with it.

Ukraine example again; without context it is not self-defense and would be considered doing something bad. If your going to make an assertion don't go half assed. I don't even know if the events you talk about even happened because I haven't been able to find any information about them from anything except that one list, the list being far from an academic source.

What Ukraine example? How does Ukraine possibly relate to this? You're comparing apples to racism.

And yet every example you give is shot down. Every quote from the Catechism is very clear and concise and cannot be misinterpreted. You make claim after claim and even with all the empirical evidence against every claim you make, you keep your opinion blinded from fact.

Now you're making stuff up, you making same pointless, illogical statements backed up by nothing against my arguments over and over doesn't mean that my arguments get shot down it simply means that you're either not too bright or you've got an agenda. Neither does what you just said address the argument I presented. You haven't made any sort of logical argument about the crusades, neither about the Inquisition, neither about the hypocrisy of the Church, you're going in circles stating the same nonsense over and over, bringing up pro-Catholic "historians" to state the nonsense for you.

I see an order for an inquisition, not for a massacre.

So I guess you can't read either then?

Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.



Read the part there they burn people a few times and that the power to do so was granted by the Pope.

P.S.: Apparently they're making a movie about Catholic antisemitism - Film revisits Catholic anti-Semitism - JTA, Jewish & Israel News

and there are books on the issue: Macmillan: A History of Catholic Antisemitism: The Dark Side of the Church Robert Michael: Books

In either case, I realize now why others have decided not to get into this, its pointless, Im done here.

 

[MacMan]

You stupid cunts need to get laid ASAP.

 

[Tipsy]

But you can't prove that. There is no indication that there is a source from the middle east in that time period that addressed the events in a way that supports your claims. I highly doubt that the Muslims were writing about taxation of Catholic Church.

Who said anything about taxation? That quote was writing about the crusades. After hundreds of years of fighting with Christendom, they'd have to be illiterate for there to be no sources on that fighting.

They may not have been papal states but they were catholic states, they paid taxes to the Catholic Church.

Source?

There is no such thing as Christendom, not since the schism, it was the east and the west and there was a rivalry. Bezantine Empire in no way, shape or form was related to the Catholic nations. Creation of Catholic states in the Holy land is imperialism, same as sacking Constantinople.

"In the East, Christendom became increasingly well defined as the Byzantine Empire's gradual loss of territory to an expanding Islam caused Christianity to become ever more important to Byzantine identity. Even after the East-West Schism which divided the Church, there had always been a vague notion of a universal Christendom that included the East and the West."
Source

As for the Fourth Crusade:
"The final and most recent of the interpretative schools is the "accident" theory, which argues that the diversion of the Fourth Crusade was due to a series of missteps that ultimately led the crusaders to attack the Byzantine capital. This interpretation is generally accepted by historians who have studied the crusades, but has not entirely penetrated the popular consciousness."

The sack of Constantinople was not commanded by the Church, nor intended by the Church (there is more information on this earlier in the thread).

Christendom existed before and after the schism. The Fourth Crusade

Or rather a religious propagandist who can't add 2+2 without a prayer.

So despite the educations, the PhD's, the acclaim from other historians that I have put after the sources in the 'about the author' part, you call the scientific study of the past propaganda. And you said the Church was against education lol.

Im tired of going in circles with you, this is really simple, if a person says one thing and does another they are a hypocrite, thats all there is to it, you claim that its not like that in the quote I have presented you. Come up with better excuse next time or get a clue already.

But they are hypocrite, once again, look up the definition of a hypocrite, someone that says one thing and does another,

That is the correct definition, I agree. I am, however, claiming that is not what they did, which you seem to not get. Explanation in response to next quote.

if they preach one thing and then do the complete opposite THEY ARE HYPOCRITES and your god has nothing to do with it.

The clergy do not say something is immoral, they say God says it is immoral since in Catholicism they have no power to define right and wrong. Thus, there would only be hypocrisy is God (whose existence is debatable) was part of the clergy and sinned after defining right and wrong. As for the quote, it says clergy sin are say God say it is wrong; it completely support what I just said.

What Ukraine example? How does Ukraine possibly relate to this? You're comparing apples to racism.

Taking things out of context can frame any action any way. Also, without any legitimate source other than a list of dates I cannot verify that such a thing ever happened and I haven't been able to find anything on it other than on that one specific anti-Christian website the list is on uncited, a website that is far from being an academic source.

So I guess you can't read either then?

Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.



Read the part there they burn people a few times and that the power to do so was granted by the Pope.

And where does it specifically say the Pope gave them the power to burn people? It says the Pope gave them powers and expands upon it no further. The second sentence has to do with the actions within the campaign. For example, John Paul 2 gave great powers to the inquisition that occurred in 2000, yet no one was burned. When you make a claim, I ask for a clear source backing up what you say (like the ones I have provided you), not a vague source with your opinion added to draw its conclusion.

P.S.: Apparently they're making a movie about Catholic antisemitism - Film revisits Catholic anti-Semitism - JTA, Jewish & Israel News

and there are books on the issue: Macmillan: A History of Catholic Antisemitism: The Dark Side of the Church Robert Michael: Books

"Like its source material, the film is riddled with historical distortions, at least some of which seem agenda-driven, perhaps even more or less deliberate.

...

Selectivity isn’t the film’s only problem. During an interview with scholar Jan Willem Drijvers discussing Constantine and Helen, the film cuts to voiceover narration from Carroll, purportedly paraphrasing Drijvers, to the effect that prior to Constantine “the cross had never been an important Christian symbol.” For “two and a half centuries,” Carroll continues, “Christians had used symbols of life: the fish, the lamb, the shepherd. Now this image of execution is brought in to justify the empire under a single orthodox doctrine.”

Did Drijvers really say that? It’s impossible to know (Carroll’s use, or misuse, of sources in his book has raised critical eyebrows). In any case, the implication that the “image of execution” represented by the cross was unimportant to pre-Constantinian Christianity, that Jesus’ death on the cross acquired a novel importance in the fourth century, is sheer nonsense."

Or another review:

"In "Constantine's Sword" (First Run), an earnest but unbalanced documentary based on his book, "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History," Boston Globe columnist James Carroll surveys the fraught history of Christian anti-Semitism, particularly as it plays out among American evangelicals today, and its roots dating back to the early days of the Roman Catholic Church.

As history and theology, the film is considerably flawed and has a pervasive anti-institutional church bias."

Or another review (this one of his book by the same title):

"Carroll is simply wrong about anti-Semitism being integral to Catholic Christianity: no direct historical highway leads from the evangelists to Auschwitz. Just as suspect, therefore is Carroll's attempt to discredit traditional Christianity by contextualizing it together with the dreadful crimes of anti-Semitism. He is overpresenting his case in order to justify a "reform agenda" that amounts to a blueprint for the annihilation of the Catholic Church. Much of Carroll's book is devoted to his agenda for a proposed Third Vatican Council, which would cure the Catholic Church of the dreadful faults that have made it a "failed and sinful Church." For all its excellent intentions, its moral fervor, Carroll's book is a frontal attack on Catholic Christianity, and this agenda shapes its interpretations on every page. "

Or another:

" Constantine's Sword is presented as "a history," but most of the research is from controversial secondary sources (Hans Kueng is a favorite), and Carroll fails seriously to discuss conflicting evidence and arguments. For example, Carroll makes much of the letter written by Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross) in 1933 requesting a papal encyclical condemning Nazism. He does not, however, explain that the 1937 encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge (With Burning Anxiety, one of the strongest condemnations of any national regime that the Holy See ever published), did just that."

Distorted interpretations, supporting a self-proclaimed agenda to call a Vatican III council, misquoting his sources, using sources the historical community considers sketchy - none of these make a source credible or academic.

And in the future, when you present a source, could you cite the part that actually supports your argument such as I have done? A vague 'this supports me' instead of citing where and how it supports you is needed in an argument of facts.

In either case, I realize now why others have decided not to get into this, its pointless, Im done here.

I guess eventually you get sick of trying to push your opinion while the sources I cite show the actual historical fact is against your argument.


---
edit:

You stupid cunts need to get laid ASAP.

lol @ pun.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

You stupid cunts need to get laid ASAP.

Two more weeks and my three months of blueballing is over. But shame on you for flaming in Arcane Sanctuary.

Who said anything about taxation? That quote was writing about the crusades. After hundreds of years of fighting with Christendom, they'd have to be illiterate for there to be no sources on that fighting.

So you saying that the Muslim sources claimed that the Crusades were an action of self-defense? Where exactly in any of your sources is that stated?

Source?

Common sense.

"In the East, Christendom became increasingly well defined as the Byzantine Empire's gradual loss of territory to an expanding Islam caused Christianity to become ever more important to Byzantine identity. Even after the East-West Schism which divided the Church, there had always been a vague notion of a universal Christendom that included the East and the West."
Source

And? Once again I remind you that the Crusades were not there to return the land lost by Bezantine Empire but were there to expand Catholicism, thus there is no way to claim that the war was defensive, firstly is wasn't defending Catholicism, secondly it wasn't defending the Bezantine Empire.

As for the Fourth Crusade:
"The final and most recent of the interpretative schools is the "accident" theory, which argues that the diversion of the Fourth Crusade was due to a series of missteps that ultimately led the crusaders to attack the Byzantine capital. This interpretation is generally accepted by historians who have studied the crusades, but has not entirely penetrated the popular consciousness."

The sack of Constantinople was not commanded by the Church, nor intended by the Church (there is more information on this earlier in the thread).

Heh, suuuure, it wasn't.

So despite the educations, the PhD's, the acclaim from other historians that I have put after the sources in the 'about the author' part, you call the scientific study of the past propaganda. And you said the Church was against education lol.

You put up Catholics that push catholic propaganda, whatever the facts their conclusions just don't make sense.

That is the correct definition, I agree. I am, however, claiming that is not what they did, which you seem to not get. Explanation in response to next quote.


The clergy do not say something is immoral, they say God says it is immoral since in Catholicism they have no power to define right and wrong. Thus, there would only be hypocrisy is God (whose existence is debatable) was part of the clergy and sinned after defining right and wrong. As for the quote, it says clergy sin are say God say it is wrong; it completely support what I just said.

Oh, so they're not just hypocrites they're also self-serving bastards leaving themselves room to weasel out of any wrong doing? I once again repeat for the 1000th time, if the Church's official position is against child molestation and then the clergy who promote that position to the masses molest children they are hypocrites and if enough of them do it, the Church as a whole is hypocritical.

Taking things out of context can frame any action any way. Also, without any legitimate source other than a list of dates I cannot verify that such a thing ever happened and I haven't been able to find anything on it other than on that one specific anti-Christian website the list is on uncited, a website that is far from being an academic source.

What you need is a good sound ass whooping to beat the stupid out of you. Racism once again, doesn't need context.

And where does it specifically say the Pope gave them the power to burn people?

So I guess you really can't read can you?

Again:


Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.

The pope gave them great power, they used that power to burn people. It says it right there.

It says the Pope gave them powers and expands upon it no further. The second sentence has to do with the actions within the campaign. For example, John Paul 2 gave great powers to the inquisition that occurred in 2000, yet no one was burned. When you make a claim, I ask for a clear source backing up what you say (like the ones I have provided you), not a vague source with your opinion added to draw its conclusion.

This was done by the Inquisition, the Inquisition is a part of the Church, thus it was done by the Church. You gave me nothing in ways of a clear source but OPINIONS of pseudohistorians that don't make any logical sense with the facts they themselves present.

"Like its source material, the film is riddled with historical distortions, at least some of which seem agenda-driven, perhaps even more or less deliberate.

...

Selectivity isn’t the film’s only problem. During an interview with scholar Jan Willem Drijvers discussing Constantine and Helen, the film cuts to voiceover narration from Carroll, purportedly paraphrasing Drijvers, to the effect that prior to Constantine “the cross had never been an important Christian symbol.” For “two and a half centuries,” Carroll continues, “Christians had used symbols of life: the fish, the lamb, the shepherd. Now this image of execution is brought in to justify the empire under a single orthodox doctrine.”

Did Drijvers really say that? It’s impossible to know (Carroll’s use, or misuse, of sources in his book has raised critical eyebrows). In any case, the implication that the “image of execution” represented by the cross was unimportant to pre-Constantinian Christianity, that Jesus’ death on the cross acquired a novel importance in the fourth century, is sheer nonsense."

Or another review:

"In "Constantine's Sword" (First Run), an earnest but unbalanced documentary based on his book, "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History," Boston Globe columnist James Carroll surveys the fraught history of Christian anti-Semitism, particularly as it plays out among American evangelicals today, and its roots dating back to the early days of the Roman Catholic Church.

As history and theology, the film is considerably flawed and has a pervasive anti-institutional church bias."

Or another review (this one of his book by the same title):

"Carroll is simply wrong about anti-Semitism being integral to Catholic Christianity: no direct historical highway leads from the evangelists to Auschwitz. Just as suspect, therefore is Carroll's attempt to discredit traditional Christianity by contextualizing it together with the dreadful crimes of anti-Semitism. He is overpresenting his case in order to justify a "reform agenda" that amounts to a blueprint for the annihilation of the Catholic Church. Much of Carroll's book is devoted to his agenda for a proposed Third Vatican Council, which would cure the Catholic Church of the dreadful faults that have made it a "failed and sinful Church." For all its excellent intentions, its moral fervor, Carroll's book is a frontal attack on Catholic Christianity, and this agenda shapes its interpretations on every page. "

Or another:

" Constantine's Sword is presented as "a history," but most of the research is from controversial secondary sources (Hans Kueng is a favorite), and Carroll fails seriously to discuss conflicting evidence and arguments. For example, Carroll makes much of the letter written by Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross) in 1933 requesting a papal encyclical condemning Nazism. He does not, however, explain that the 1937 encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge (With Burning Anxiety, one of the strongest condemnations of any national regime that the Holy See ever published), did just that."

Those reviews were made by whom exactly?

Distorted interpretations, supporting a self-proclaimed agenda to call a Vatican III council, misquoting his sources, using sources the historical community considers sketchy - none of these make a source credible or academic.

And in the future, when you present a source, could you cite the part that actually supports your argument such as I have done? A vague 'this supports me' instead of citing where and how it supports you is needed in an argument of facts.

When you probably need to get some facts on board as well and not just attempt to weasel your way out of solid conclusions because you're in denial.

I guess eventually you get sick of trying to push your opinion while the sources I cite show the actual historical fact is against your argument.

The historical fact is on my side, opinion of buffoons and dubious logic is on yours. With your severe degree of stupidity there is only one cure and thats a repeated application of my fist to your face.


More proof of Catholic anti-semiticism:

Portuguese Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Henry Charles Lea[1] between 1540 and 1794 tribunals in Lisbon, Porto, Coimbra and Évora resulted in the burning of 1,175 persons, the burning of another 633 in effigy, and the penancing of 29,590. But documentation of fifteen out of 689[2] Autos-da-fé has disappeared, so these numbers may slightly understate the activity.

The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were mainly the Sephardic Jews

Are you gonna say that the Pope did not approve? He authorized this one as well just like he authorized ALL inquisitions.

But as I said, Im done, you're a waste of my time and a waste of everybody's breathing air.

 

[please help me :(]

Uncle_Vanya is the Antichrist.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Uncle_Vanya is the Antichrist.

Of course I am.

 

[Jason]

Christians are the worst example for Christianity. We (as a community) have screwed up the message.

I agree with this. Although I don't follow his beliefs, Marilyn Manson coined it well in his song "Disposable Teens".

"I never really hated a one true god, but the God of the people I hated"

Christians ruined religion for me. Terrorism ruined religion for me. People ruined religion for me.

I stick to my own individual beliefs of the world, which at this point, aren't entirely clear to me.

 

[Tipsy]

Forgive my late response.

So you saying that the Muslim sources claimed that the Crusades were an action of self-defense? Where exactly in any of your sources is that stated?

Muslim sources state that Muslims took over much of Christendom:

“The ten years of 'Umar's rule saw the rapid, unexpected, almost explosive expansion of Islam out of Arabia. Muslim armies headed north and west every year, with astonishing results. They faced two large, well-established, wealthy, powerful empires; and they defeated both of them…and the Byzantine Empire was overrun as far north as Turkey. Damascus, capital of the Byzantine province of Syria, fell in 635, just three years after the death of the Prophet. Jerusalem, already a holy city to the Muslims, fell…In 641 Alexandria, the largest city in Egypt and one of the largest in the world, surrendered to the Muslim armies, and in the next few years northern Africa was overrun to the Atlantic, three thousand miles from Egypt…The expansion of the lands under Islamic rule continued for two more generations, until the French turned back the Muslim armies at Tours in 733…Even after that date.as far north as Vienna, Austria, was conquered as late as the 1500s. The Muslims in Bosnia are only three hundred miles from Rome.â€
Source

Self-Defense: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant.
Dictionary.

Muslim accounts state that Islamic expansion happened by the sword through Christian lands and that the Christian counter blow came after (and up to) the expansion had begun. Thus, by the definition of the word, the Crusades were an act of self-defense.

Common sense.

Logical Fallacy:
APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.

And? Once again I remind you that the Crusades were not there to return the land lost by Bezantine Empire but were there to expand Catholicism, thus there is no way to claim that the war was defensive, firstly is wasn't defending Catholicism, secondly it wasn't defending the Bezantine Empire.

That flies in the face of the facts; the First Crusade was launched after a plea from the Byzantine Emperor (see here) and that it did return land to the Byzantine Empire:

Before:

After:

Heh, suuuure, it wasn't.

Your opinion versus the position “ generally accepted by historians who have studied the crusades.†Despite the respect I have for you, I take the general opinion of historians over yours.

Oh, so they're not just hypocrites they're also self-serving bastards leaving themselves room to weasel out of any wrong doing? I once again repeat for the 1000th time, if the Church's official position is against child molestation and then the clergy who promote that position to the masses molest children they are hypocrites and if enough of them do it, the Church as a whole is hypocritical.

Because the Church doesn’t have the power to make the rules and thus can’t make them and then break them (ie hypocrisy). They present the rules as made by God, or from your perspective, a bunch of random guys who lived 2000 years ago. If the people who made the rules broke them, people who have been dead for the better part of 2000 years from your perspective, then they would be hypocrites.

What you need is a good sound ass whooping to beat the stupid out of you. Racism once again, doesn't need context.

It does if I question whether it happened and can’t find any source to corroborate what you are claiming other than the 1 anti-Christian website list.

Those reviews were made by whom exactly?

The first two pages of results when searching for “Constantine’s Sword Review.â€

So I guess you really can't read can you?

Again:


Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquisition was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.

The pope gave them great power, they used that power to burn people. It says it right there.

This was done by the Inquisition, the Inquisition is a part of the Church, thus it was done by the Church. You gave me nothing in ways of a clear source but OPINIONS of pseudohistorians that don't make any logical sense with the facts they themselves present.

That doesn’t address what I said at all:

“And where does it specifically say the Pope gave them the power to burn people? It says the Pope gave them powers and expands upon it no further. The second sentence has to do with the actions within the campaign. For example, John Paul 2 gave great powers to the inquisition that occurred in 2000, yet no one was burned. When you make a claim, I ask for a clear source backing up what you say (like the ones I have provided you), not a vague source with your opinion added to draw its conclusion.â€

I’ll give another example in the form of a spoof of that wikipedia entry:
Under Tipsy’s rule the bug killers was given great power to kill bugs. A campaign started in 2008, burning neighbors’ houses, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many neighbors still resisted, taking refuge in the police station.

This doesn’t mean I said the bug exterminators could arson my neighbors’ houses; it happened, but I neither commanded nor approved of it. In order to link the two sentences to my command, “Under Tipsy’s rule the bug killers was given great power to kill bugs†and “A campaign started in 2008, burning neighbors’ houses, even exhuming some bodies for burningâ€, you would require another source to show that of the ‘great power’ committing arson against my neighbors was a norm, implied, or otherwise reasonably commanded or endorsed.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Forgive my late response.


Muslim sources state that Muslims took over much of Christendom:

“The ten years of 'Umar's rule saw the rapid, unexpected, almost explosive expansion of Islam out of Arabia. Muslim armies headed north and west every year, with astonishing results. They faced two large, well-established, wealthy, powerful empires; and they defeated both of them…and the Byzantine Empire was overrun as far north as Turkey. Damascus, capital of the Byzantine province of Syria, fell in 635, just three years after the death of the Prophet. Jerusalem, already a holy city to the Muslims, fell…In 641 Alexandria, the largest city in Egypt and one of the largest in the world, surrendered to the Muslim armies, and in the next few years northern Africa was overrun to the Atlantic, three thousand miles from Egypt…The expansion of the lands under Islamic rule continued for two more generations, until the French turned back the Muslim armies at Tours in 733…Even after that date.as far north as Vienna, Austria, was conquered as late as the 1500s. The Muslims in Bosnia are only three hundred miles from Rome.â€
Source

Self-Defense: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant.
Dictionary.

Muslim accounts state that Islamic expansion happened by the sword through Christian lands and that the Christian counter blow came after (and up to) the expansion had begun. Thus, by the definition of the word, the Crusades were an act of self-defense.

One thing wrong with that logical trail, the Crusades were waged by nations under Catholicism, Bezantine Empire was an entity separate from them, thus they were not acting in self-defense since it wasn't them who was getting attacked it was Bezantine Empire.

Logical Fallacy:
APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.

It is not a logical fallacy to ask for common sense if your argument carries non. If your argument is void of logic and backed only by your ability to twist words it is a fallacy in itself.

That flies in the face of the facts; the First Crusade was launched after a plea from the Byzantine Emperor (see here) and that it did return land to the Byzantine Empire:

Before:

After:

From that wikipedia article:

"What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia quickly turned into a wholescale Western migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe."

Do I need to connect the dots for you in hopes that finally something will click in your head?

Your opinion versus the position “ generally accepted by historians who have studied the crusades.†Despite the respect I have for you, I take the general opinion of historians over yours.

Its not my opinion it is also opinion shared by sources I have provided, ones that you attempted to refute by restating your opinion by your experts. Its a question of who's experts are better which will one the way or the other end up along the line of "my dad can beat up your dad" type of argument.

Because the Church doesn’t have the power to make the rules and thus can’t make them and then break them (ie hypocrisy). They present the rules as made by God, or from your perspective, a bunch of random guys who lived 2000 years ago. If the people who made the rules broke them, people who have been dead for the better part of 2000 years from your perspective, then they would be hypocrites.

But they did make the rules, here:

"The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the fourth century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[29]"

They decided which books go into the Bible, but besides that its not even about that. They preach the rules, they maintain official positions towards things, if they go against their official position they are hypocrites.

It does if I question whether it happened and can’t find any source to corroborate what you are claiming other than the 1 anti-Christian website list.

Hmm, you know I can start calling all your sites pro-Christin if you want to break down into that type of argument.

The first two pages of results when searching for “Constantine’s Sword Review.â€

Lots of Catholics out there.

That doesn’t address what I said at all:

“And where does it specifically say the Pope gave them the power to burn people? It says the Pope gave them powers and expands upon it no further. The second sentence has to do with the actions within the campaign. For example, John Paul 2 gave great powers to the inquisition that occurred in 2000, yet no one was burned. When you make a claim, I ask for a clear source backing up what you say (like the ones I have provided you), not a vague source with your opinion added to draw its conclusion.â€

The Pope has legitimized all the inquisitions, empowering those people to commit those acts as stated in that article thus the Pope and the Church are directly or indirectly responsible for atrocities committed.

I’ll give another example in the form of a spoof of that wikipedia entry:
Under Tipsy’s rule the bug killers was given great power to kill bugs. A campaign started in 2008, burning neighbors’ houses, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many neighbors still resisted, taking refuge in the police station.

This doesn’t mean I said the bug exterminators could arson my neighbors’ houses; it happened, but I neither commanded nor approved of it. In order to link the two sentences to my command, “Under Tipsy’s rule the bug killers was given great power to kill bugs†and “A campaign started in 2008, burning neighbors’ houses, even exhuming some bodies for burningâ€, you would require another source to show that of the ‘great power’ committing arson against my neighbors was a norm, implied, or otherwise reasonably commanded or endorsed.

Has Tipsy then publically denounced and fired the bugkillers? Even if he has he is still indirectly responsible for the bugkillers actions by legitimizing them. From the same source, one of the crusading groups were Knight Templar, an organization endorsed by the Catholic Church.

 

[GAMEMASTERCHAN]

Personally I dont believe God is some all mighty judge who deams us worthy or unworthy. But I believe finding God is to come to terms with your self, when you can truely fall asleep at night and wake up in the morning and be like I am proud of who I am, and what I have done, how i have pursued my goals, and raised my family, how I treat others, and how they respect me, without a dout in your mind that you have done the right thing or not. Then you have found God. When your 60 years old sitting on your pourch on a cool summer breeze and you can look back and say I did things right, and not a thought of hate or discontent goes through your mind, then my friend you have found God in his purest form. Not from some dusty book writen by some random person, or the ranting and preaching of priest, but in your heart and your mind that is where God resides.

 

[Kuro Neko]

Personally I dont believe God is some all mighty judge who deams us worthy or unworthy. But I believe finding God is to come to terms with your self, when you can truely fall asleep at night and wake up in the morning and be like I am proud of who I am, and what I have done, how i have pursued my goals, and raised my family, how I treat others, and how they respect me, without a dout in your mind that you have done the right thing or not. Then you have found God. When your 60 years old sitting on your pourch on a cool summer breeze and you can look back and say I did things right, and not a thought of hate or discontent goes through your mind, then my friend you have found God in his purest form. Not from some dusty book writen by some random person, or the ranting and preaching of priest, but in your heart and your mind that is where God resides.

Even though it's examined as correct by many, and myself, people just won't see it the same and stick with how they see their God, their perspectives will stay with them until the end. But up to now, there is no set in stone evidence of what is totally true about God and existance, etc. obviously.

 

[GAMEMASTERCHAN]

You say their God, but does any God belong to the people or do they belong to it?