Some terrorists bomb My Country!

[Fragony]

Actually, a Crusade is a war of liberation, at least originally.

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

[Ironside]

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

[Fragony]

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

Wasn't seen like that by the participants, most went unarmed in small groups, it wasn't an army heading to the holy land, it was very fragmented.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

Wasn't seen like that by the participants, most went unarmed in small groups, it wasn't an army heading to the holy land, it was very fragmented.

Actually, you're both right. There was a military expadition which went to the the Holy Land, and a popular movement that initially followed it and eventually overtook it. It was the popular movement that committed most of the atrocities, the knights were generally much more circumspect.

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

Easy.

Romans 1:32 - the gays shall die.

But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Easy.

Romans 1:32 - the gays shall die.

Romans 1.32

They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die - yet they not only do them but even aplaud others who practice them.

2.1

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Where are the Gays and where is the call to kill them? Try again, prefferable from the Gospel.

But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return

Where does it say in the Gospel that God is going to go around massacring people. What is the principle of the New Testemant?

Murder?

If Jesus was such a blood-thirsty man why did he go bumbing around the desert for three years holding picnics?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought that not following religious dogma does generally mean you're not following the religion. I guess you could argue they're following a branch that believes that this is God's will which was revealed to Mohammed but right at this moment they're not 100% happy to go along with everything God said... possibly s/he was having a bad day on some bits of it... Sort of nearly practising Muslims.

My favourite problem, who decides Dogma? The Pope? The Caliph?

So.... Every christian who doesn't support the death penalty for gays, are not christians...?

Also, there are more than just one version of Islam, just like there are more than one version of christianity. Face it Rory, Islam isn't set in stone. There is interpretation and discussion.

Actually, Paul says don't kill the gays. As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out a couple of years ago, he just doesn't like them, but he's talking about Jewish law for Jewish people.

[HoreTore]

Where does it say in the Gospel that God is going to go around massacring people. What is the principle of the New Testemant?

Murder?

If Jesus was such a blood-thirsty man why did he go bumbing around the desert for three years holding picnics?

Oh come on. Don't tell me you haven't read what happens to the unbelievers.

Jesus wasn't a blood-thirsty man, Jesus was a powerless and beaten man - that's why he was in no position to be blood-thirsty.

Mark 4:11-12: Jesus is kind enough to speak in parables, so that people won't understand him and therefore go to hell.

Mark 6:11: Any city that doesn't welcome jesus' followers will be destroyed(by god).

But hey, how can you even begin to call a concept such as hell anything but evil?

[Centurion1]

Also, if you want to give intro courses in Latin, perhaps one ought to be aware that 'crusade' isn't derived from Latin in the first place.

It was taken from latin roots by the french.

The origin of the word "crusade" may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication.

True the french "made" the word but they used latin roots. Which makes it in my mind latin. Of course almost all words originating in western europe have latin roots......

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

He is going to talk about the fig tree like he did before

I want to make it clear that i dont hold muslims entirely to blame. i think Christianity has done some evil like the inquisition, treatment of native americans. But all i ever hear about in my history classes, is white males bad, western culture bad, Christianity bad. So all we ever learn about is the Middle East, south america, Near East, India, and Sub-saharan africa. In my AP World class we spent like a week on european and western history. This is supposed to be a college class mind you. In return we spent 4 weeks on sub-sahara africa. now i think these places should be learned about because they are very important. i dont even mind learning just about them, but i dont like my culture, race, gender, and religion to get trashed. yeah according to those standards white males did some bad , but i just get tired of hearing people talk about HOW evil we are and how we ruined their lives. Yeah, the south americans may have hated us when we first came, but i think at least some are happy they dont have to worry about being sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl. so yeah western culture has done ALOT of bad stuff, but we have also done a lot of good.

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

[Cute Wolf]

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

A very good point centurion... I totally agree with your arguments here... BTW, even if their religious scriptures said about that, it was based on condition of some 1200 years ago, when every king demands his subjects to follow his religion or face dire consequences.

Well, it was really right, a religion is being twisted for violence. And what that those terrorists aim isn't truly a religious "earthly heaven"... at least for their inner circle such as OBL, AK, AHM, NMT, and ABB (all are still free and can do more evil deeds in the wolrd, if any of us have a weak link in our security, what they aim is power.... power to control the deeds of people through sheer fear and twisted religious system. The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

[Odin]

The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

Its not really complex and isnt masked in some deep inner logic within the religion, its crystal clear. The fact that the majority of Muslims dont adhere to the doctrines of thier faith (much like Christians dont) dosent mean that the "pure religion" isnt one that embodies and exports violent means to achieve its indoctrinated end.

We like to call them radical, but in truth they got the intent right they just happen to be applying it in an absolute way, which isnt prudent given that it was written as a social construct within a society structure that was highly factional. We are still to a degree but not nearly as much as we were 1400 years ago.

so essentially: KILL, MAIM,BURN

[Cute Wolf]

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

It was a context quite common that time... more political than religious.... as they face bosth ERE and Sassanids that time...

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go...