I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything! - Page 7 | General No…
I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything!
    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 135
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:05:22 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?
    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it. 

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:44:29 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.
    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Last edited by broleaf on 17:59:28 - 27/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 433
    • Karma: 278
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:19:36 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Idk if you could assert that all of the Crusades (weren't there like 7 of them?) were just wars according to these criteria. Some of them might fail 1, 4, and/or 5. It's a very complicated issue that I don't have the credentials to go all into. But what I do recall from high school history is that, despite most of the Crusades failing (even the successful ones saw the Holy Land retaken by the Muslims within a generation or two), they had the effect of halting the advance of the invading Ottoman Turks. That particular effect was a good one...but then, we can't judge all actions purely on their effects, intended or otherwise.
    It's hard to look back several centuries to figure out the intentions of those involved. On paper, the principles would have maintained that their cause was a pious one. But I'm sure a good many nobles went along with the hopes of filling their pockets over any other objective.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:15:00 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Strand [2821241]

    Idk if you could assert that all of the Crusades (weren't there like 7 of them?) were just wars according to these criteria. Some of them might fail 1, 4, and/or 5. It's a very complicated issue that I don't have the credentials to go all into. But what I do recall from high school history is that, despite most of the Crusades failing (even the successful ones saw the Holy Land retaken by the Muslims within a generation or two), they had the effect of halting the advance of the invading Ottoman Turks. That particular effect was a good one...but then, we can't judge all actions purely on their effects, intended or otherwise.
    It's hard to look back several centuries to figure out the intentions of those involved. On paper, the principles would have maintained that their cause was a pious one. But I'm sure a good many nobles went along with the hopes of filling their pockets over any other objective.
    Consider this in the context of the Roman Pope being infallible (as defined by Vatican I) and the highest moral authority in the Catholic Church. Atheists and liberal rationalizations don't come into the equation. The Pope creates the casus belli with a call to arms while also setting its moral guidelines and giving it moral approval, and secularist Christian leaders then carry it out.

    edit for clarification

    Last edited by broleaf on 23:07:36 - 28/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:39:50 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 135
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:44:12 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:50:44 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.
    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive'  war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Last edited by broleaf on 21:05:53 - 27/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 135
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:11:09 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:17:37 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?
    I'm not a Catholic; that is my identity, though I converted to Orthodoxy, after my family was Protestant for a few hundred years. As for Christian moralism, to me, it is the foundation of what is right and wrong, derived from the submission to the higher authority I call God. It provides grounding, in contrast to what liberals and atheists have, which is zero grounding and thus purity spiraling off illogically in the enlightenment until they are destroyed.

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 135
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:43:47 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm not a Catholic; that is my identity, though I converted to Orthodoxy, after my family was Protestant for a few hundred years. As for Christian moralism, to me, it is the foundation of what is right and wrong, derived from the submission to the higher authority I call God. It provides grounding, in contrast to what liberals and atheists have, which is zero grounding and thus purity spiraling off illogically in the enlightenment until they are destroyed.
    So with that as your definition, how does the Crusades fit Christian moralism in its entirety?  


    Sidenote if you don't mind I would love to ask a few questions about Orthodox and/or Catholic beliefs as I am not associated with either.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:13:14 - 27/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm not a Catholic; that is my identity, though I converted to Orthodoxy, after my family was Protestant for a few hundred years. As for Christian moralism, to me, it is the foundation of what is right and wrong, derived from the submission to the higher authority I call God. It provides grounding, in contrast to what liberals and atheists have, which is zero grounding and thus purity spiraling off illogically in the enlightenment until they are destroyed.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So with that as your definition, how does the Crusades fit Christian moralism in its entirety?


    Sidenote if you don't mind I would love to ask a few questions about Orthodox and/or Catholic beliefs as I am not associated with either.
    Despite those who took part in the Crusades not being homogeneous in the sense of being exclusively Catholic, only the Catholic Pope has the power to declare a Christian holy war. There is no canon in Orthodoxy for such a declaration, and Protestants don't even have a patriarchy to create a new canon to enable one. However, Orthodox bishops could theoretically call a crusade if they reached a collective agreement.
    Last edited by broleaf on 23:21:22 - 27/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 433
    • Karma: 278
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:20:15 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    Yeah like I said, I'm definitely not able to give a true answer to what happened during the Crusades because of my lack of knowledge and studies of it. I am not against self-defense. Hey if someone puts my family in danger, I will do what I have to do to protect my family. But can we accurately say that every iteration of the Crusades(I think 7-9 wars) was self-defense? Again if I studied it, I could find the answer, but if you have evidence that every iteration of the Crusades is self-defense then I can correct myself.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm not a Catholic; that is my identity, though I converted to Orthodoxy, after my family was Protestant for a few hundred years. As for Christian moralism, to me, it is the foundation of what is right and wrong, derived from the submission to the higher authority I call God. It provides grounding, in contrast to what liberals and atheists have, which is zero grounding and thus purity spiraling off illogically in the enlightenment until they are destroyed.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So with that as your definition, how does the Crusades fit Christian moralism in its entirety?


    Sidenote if you don't mind I would love to ask a few questions about Orthodox and/or Catholic beliefs as I am not associated with either.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Despite those who took part in the Crusades not being homogeneous in the sense of being exclusively Catholic, only the Catholic Pope has the power to declare a Christian holy war. There is no canon in Orthodoxy for such a declaration, and Protestants don't even have a patriarchy to create a new canon to enable one. However, Orthodox bishops could theoretically call a crusade if they reached a collective agreement.
    Are you Eastern Orthodox? Or Greek or Russian Orthodox?
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:36:52 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    Oh no, I don't think you understand. Self-defense kicked it off, but just war is a casus belli. We could hypothetically call a crusade against atheism in a modern context if the Pope deemed it fit. I'm sure one could attempt to rationalize it by claiming that these people are harmful to society and thus, as an existential threat sequentially then label it as 'defensive' war.

    Contemporary rationality does not enter the equation; Christian moralism is based on something completely different. So, if you want to critique it, one must do so inward from the Christian moral foundation, or else a Christian will just dismiss it. Much like it is pointless to argue with these contemporary lunatics and appeal to them with liturgy; rather, you should approach them materialistically from a pragmatic stance and appeal to their identity or the functional use of Christianity as a moral operating system.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So as a Catholic, what does Christian moralism mean to you?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm not a Catholic; that is my identity, though I converted to Orthodoxy, after my family was Protestant for a few hundred years. As for Christian moralism, to me, it is the foundation of what is right and wrong, derived from the submission to the higher authority I call God. It provides grounding, in contrast to what liberals and atheists have, which is zero grounding and thus purity spiraling off illogically in the enlightenment until they are destroyed.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So with that as your definition, how does the Crusades fit Christian moralism in its entirety?


    Sidenote if you don't mind I would love to ask a few questions about Orthodox and/or Catholic beliefs as I am not associated with either.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Despite those who took part in the Crusades not being homogeneous in the sense of being exclusively Catholic, only the Catholic Pope has the power to declare a Christian holy war. There is no canon in Orthodoxy for such a declaration, and Protestants don't even have a patriarchy to create a new canon to enable one. However, Orthodox bishops could theoretically call a crusade if they reached a collective agreement.

    Strand [2821241]

    Are you Eastern Orthodox? Or Greek or Russian Orthodox?

    OCA

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 433
    • Karma: 278
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 03:17:41 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Cinder [2623632]

    real question time.. how do you feel about the crusades? how would you feel about a new one in modern times? what are your views on "the holy land"?

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So the Crusades is a topic that usually comes up when you speak about Christianity. Now I'll be the first to say, that my knowledge of it is limited compared to you or other people who have reall,y studied the history of it and the details behind it. But regardless I'll give my input on it.

    CRUSADES

    For context, this is the many wars between Islam and Christianity for the Holy Land, which in the current day refers to Jerusalem but spanned across the right strip of the Mediterranean Sea during the Crusades. The European Christians wanted to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and were doing so by force.

    Now was this a God-sanction order that the European Christians received? My answer would be no. We see multiple examples in the Bible that when God orders an attack on a city/nation, there isn't a fight back and forth. There are a few examples of this here, like the walls of Jericho, the Canaanites, and even when David killed Goliath. Yes, David wasn't ordered to kill Goliath by God, but he rejected a sword and armor as an attack, but instead brought a slingshot and his trust in God to kill Goliath. So we see multiple examples where if God sanctioned something, it will happen without fail. The Crusades were a failed attempt.

    Second point, God calls us to love our neighbor with no conditions. So let's say my church moves to a different location, and the people who buy my church are Muslims and they convert it to a Mosque. Yes in my heart I'll be sad, but who am I to attack them or berate them? I don't agree with what they are doing, but at the end of the day, God called me to show everyone the love of Christ regardless of their position in Christianity. The Crusades weren't an action of love or an action sanctioned by God, but rather an action for power and possibly wealth, using Christianity as the justification for the actions.

    MODERN CRUSADES?

    Well, to be honest, the war between Palestinians and Israel is basically a form of a modern crusade. They are both fighting for the land of Jerusalem to call their own. I will not put my stance on the matter unless you want to know what side I'm in favor of. But revolving back to the question, there is a modern crusade happening between Islamic beliefs vs Jewish beliefs between Israel and Palestine. What I want is peace between the two nations tbh.

    Sidenote, the grief between Islam and Jewish beliefs actually dates back to Abraham in the Old Testament where Abraham had 2 sons. One with his wife Sarah (Isaac) and one with his servant Hagar(Ishmael). The Bible speaks about Abraham waiting for the Lord to give him a kid with Sarah but in their doubt of God, Sarah told him to have a child with the servant instead. Long story short Sarah got jealous of Hagar and kicked her out of the house and God comforted Hagar saying Ishmael would make a nation of the descendants of Ishmael(Arabs) the same way he would make a nation of the descendants of Isaac(Jewish). Hence the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    The Holy Land?
    So for the Holy Land, I'm strictly going to focus on the modern version of it which is Jerusalem. According to the Bible, I am for Jerusalem is for the Israelites. However, I believe that we are seeing a shift to Jerusalem in our current age. Again referring to prophecies in the Bible, again sticking to what Jesus said about the future of the world:

    Luke 21:20 NLT - "And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the times of its destruction has arrived"
    Also the prophecy of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14. Now I don't know if this war is going to be the start of these prophecies or if the war is completely unrelated, but I do know there will be a shift in Jerusalem regardless of the outcome of the war.

    broleaf [3140943]

    If you're not Catholic, please refrain from explaining the Crusades unless you have a thorough understanding of the history and intrinsic doctrine involved. Muslims invaded: iberian peninsula, Constantinople and experienced the concept of a 'just war,' which was also applied in the context of the Reconquista also. This then expanded all the way to retaking the Holy Land.

    Think of it akin to f**k around find out.


    Strand [2821241]

    Idk if you could assert that all of the Crusades (weren't there like 7 of them?) were just wars according to these criteria. Some of them might fail 1, 4, and/or 5. It's a very complicated issue that I don't have the credentials to go all into. But what I do recall from high school history is that, despite most of the Crusades failing (even the successful ones saw the Holy Land retaken by the Muslims within a generation or two), they had the effect of halting the advance of the invading Ottoman Turks. That particular effect was a good one...but then, we can't judge all actions purely on their effects, intended or otherwise.
    It's hard to look back several centuries to figure out the intentions of those involved. On paper, the principles would have maintained that their cause was a pious one. But I'm sure a good many nobles went along with the hopes of filling their pockets over any other objective.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Consider this in the context of the Roman Pope being infallible (as defined by Vatican I) and the highest moral authority in the Catholic Church. Atheists and liberal rationalizations don't come into the equation. The Pope creates the casus belli with a call to arms while also setting its moral guidelines and giving it moral approval, and secularist Christian leaders then carry it out.

    edit for clarification

    I'm not sure that the pope's infallibility renders him the ability to make a war just simply by his declaring it. The pope is infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra, i.e., on matters of moral teaching. I don't think this extends to determining whether a war is just or not. Being pope doesn't preserve you from sin or errors in other matters of governance or state, unfortunately.
    While some of the crusades may have met all Aquinas' just war criteria, some of them were so doomed from the outset that the holy father ought to have steered nobles away from pursuing reconquest of the holy land, since there was small hope of success.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,538
    • Karma: 1,538
    • Last Action: 26 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:50:59 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:47:10 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?
    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.
    Last edited by broleaf on 20:50:31 - 28/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • JusticeDragon [2641318]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 1,525
    • Karma: 2,122
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:58:55 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I absolutely agree! Christ is my lord and savior and am really glad to see someone take the courage and open this thread. 


    Just a few questions to another brother:

    what denomination would you classify yourself as (sorry if you already mentioned it in this thread)?

    what are your thoughts on Catholicism?

    How do you think we as Christian’s should act to best glorify the Lord?
    Last edited by JusticeDragon on 22:08:48 - 28/11/23
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 6 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:03:06 - 28/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    JusticeDragon [2641318]

    I absolutely agree! Christ is my lord and savior and am really glad to see someone take the courage and open this thread.


    Just a few questions to another brother:

    what denomination would you classify yourself as (sorry if you already mentioned it in this thread)?

    what are your thoughts on Catholicism?

    How do you think we as Christian’s should act to best glorify the Lord?
    What's a modern Christian like—someone alive in contemporary context, or a liberal Christian who is essentially a pagan LARPing as a Christian? Like many of these Protestant denominations. I understand that their hearts are in the right place, but eventually, they need to reach the conclusion that the Christian worldview is not compatible with contemporary modernity's values that means accepting rebirth. 

    Notably, it's also accelerating away from our view at breakneck speed, like a mutating monster developing multifaceted limbs in real-time before our very eyes, operating illogically and sometimes hurting itself, albeit on some occasions—hilarious, perhaps, but equally terrifying. The risk of cross-infection should not be understated; we can't afford to give ground to this situation, much like those conservative politicians who are conservative about being conservative. Render unto Caesar what is his, but that doesn't mean cave and adopt these heathens as they are or their morals.
    Last edited by broleaf on 03:28:23 - 29/11/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,538
    • Karma: 1,538
    • Last Action: 26 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 11:24:36 - 30/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.
    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 433
    • Karma: 278
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:09:11 - 30/11/23 (6 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    Any 21st Christian who thinks "hey, holding slaves is moral because the Bible says so!" is making the same error you are in not considering the historical context in which these books were written.

    When St Paul wrote the letter to Philemon, which is I think the text from which the quote about beating slaves is derived, it was common practice for slaves to be beaten to death. Therefore, this letter was exhorting people to be more merciful rather than more brutal.

    It was also common, I believe, for a man at the time to suffer no consequence from raping a woman. However, the passages about marrying the woman are meant to hold men accountable to their actions and ensure that women were taken care of rather than disowned for being "damaged goods."

    There's also a passage in the Old Testament about taking "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Without context, this passage appears to condone revenge. However, it's actually a limitation on revenge. If you punch me and knock out my tooth, I might hit you in the mouth back, kick you while you're down, beat you senseless, and then kill you in my rage. The scripture here placed a hard line on how much revenge was permissible by law. In the New Testament, Jesus takes this old law a step further by telling us to turn the other cheek.
Reply
Thread Title: