The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Herskerstad]

New Rabbi, New Congregation, New Teachings.

Not fun for a guy who doesn't like change.

What happened with the old one?

[The Blaatschapen]

First let me try to understand what you try to achieve here.

Essentially, we love this thread and we like to hang around and banter a bit every now and then, but we are often told to get back to topic, make it relevant, ect. And while I can understand that such serves the purpose of the thread, there are plenty of times when it just kills the mood not to mention that there are similar threads where said leniency seems to be much more expansive.

The purpose of adding an informal thread to which Christian aspects can be discussed and I am willing to coat this under just about any omnibus purpose would make it acceptable verbose to the mods is to essentially escape this, to just have general, informal banter on one side still within the sphere of the issue on one, and the more serious, heavy theological stuff on the other which we presently reside in.

So, I will ask again, are there any rules that would prohibit the formation of clubs or such threads in the relevant forums?

Clubs, yes. Well, except for RP, nothing is closed. And so a CDT:TET would just be TET, which means it is duplicate, and we would merge or lock.

You can have a chat location thread in F7.

Alternatively, ask your question in Moderation for more/better input. Lest we go too offtopic here.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

New Rabbi, New Congregation, New Teachings.

Not fun for a guy who doesn't like change.

I often listen to Rabbis who differs from the principles of faith which God established.

Zing

[Bari]

Many people are against the Crusades, and they basically claim that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth. They also claim that they were acts of aggression and offensive campaigns. I completely disagree with that assessment.

I, as a Catholic, believe the Crusades overall were good, that they were justified and that they were acts of defense. I'll note that not a single saint has spoken against the Crusades. In fact, every Saint that speaks about the Crusades speaks about them in a positive light.

They were good because they were an attempt to regain and defend the Holy Land from Muslim aggressors, who had invaded it in the first place. This is why Emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Blessed Urban II, a venerable leader, for assistance in defending against the Turks. They were a defensive campaign against foreign offenses.

Now, I understand some acts were committed during the Crusades and in the name of the Crusades, such as the Siege of Constantinople in the subsequent crusade. That, however, was a mutinous performance, but it was not the intent of the Crusades, and the Pope condemned what they did, and he had forbidden it.

[The Alma Mater]

Many people are against the Crusades, and they basically claim that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth. They also claim that they were acts of aggression and offensive campaigns. I completely disagree with that assessment.

I, as a Catholic, believe the Crusades overall were good, that they were justified and that they were acts of defense. I'll note that not a single saint has spoken against the Crusades. In fact, every Saint that speaks about the Crusades speaks about them in a positive light.

They were good because they were an attempt to regain and defend the Holy Land from Muslim aggressors, who had invaded it in the first place. This is why Emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Blessed Urban II, a venerable leader, for assistance in defending against the Turks. They were a defensive campaign against foreign offenses.

Now, I understand some acts were committed during the Crusades and in the name of the Crusades, such as the Siege of Constantinople in the subsequent crusade. That, however, was a mutinous performance, but it was not the intent of the Crusades, and the Pope condemned what they did, and he had forbidden it.

I cannot help notice that your entire defense of the crusades in no way contradicts the whole "that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth" bit.

[Bari]

Many people are against the Crusades, and they basically claim that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth. They also claim that they were acts of aggression and offensive campaigns. I completely disagree with that assessment.

I, as a Catholic, believe the Crusades overall were good, that they were justified and that they were acts of defense. I'll note that not a single saint has spoken against the Crusades. In fact, every Saint that speaks about the Crusades speaks about them in a positive light.

They were good because they were an attempt to regain and defend the Holy Land from Muslim aggressors, who had invaded it in the first place. This is why Emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Blessed Urban II, a venerable leader, for assistance in defending against the Turks. They were a defensive campaign against foreign offenses.

Now, I understand some acts were committed during the Crusades and in the name of the Crusades, such as the Siege of Constantinople in the subsequent crusade. That, however, was a mutinous performance, but it was not the intent of the Crusades, and the Pope condemned what they did, and he had forbidden it.

I cannot help notice that your entire defense of the crusades in no way contradicts the whole "that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth" bit.

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion. They did not do it because they hated Jews and because they hated Muslims. They did not do it because they were ruthless and wanted to murder anyone or pillage a city (of course, the mutinous ones saw the opportunity to do that and did it). They did not do it because they wanted to conquer Turkish territory. They did it because they wanted to help their Christians in the east.

I'm sorry that was not clear to you.

[The Archregimancy]

I could get behind a Christian art thread.

It needs to be hammered out a bit though. Discussions on dogma and christianity as a whole should be pointed back to here. The thread should really focus on the art. I'll leave it to Arch (I don't know if he reads all of this, so I'll just nudge him here) to shine a light on it. This might take some time.

I don't see anything wrong with the concept, but is it strictly necessary?

I'm not really seeing the point here given that the present thread does regularly deal with art-related topics.

My occasional nudges to get this thread back on-topic aren't related to art, but are rather related to the occasional tendency to use this as a chat thread - but separating out discussion of Christianity-related artistic topics won't, I think, end that tendency.

All of which said, it's not up to Blaat and myself to decide what's an appropriate topic for A&F; neither of us would step in to stop a 'Christian Art Thread'. That we're not convinced it's necessary isn't a statement on its legitimacy.

[Bari]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-fr ... s-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This finding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

[Menassa]

[...]

I, as a Catholic, believe the Crusades overall were good, that they were justified and that they were acts of defense.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... usades-the

[Bari]

[...]

I, as a Catholic, believe the Crusades overall were good, that they were justified and that they were acts of defense.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... usades-the

The People's Crusade? You mean the so-called crusade that was condemned by the Church and was managed outside of the Church?

Not only did the Church condemn rouge and mutinous actions like that, but they actively attempted to defend Jews against any attacks or threats. That happens even today with certain soldiers. But those actions are not an indictment on the overall legitimacy of the effort.

[Salus Maior]

I cannot help notice that your entire defense of the crusades in no way contradicts the whole "that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth" bit.

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion. They did not do it because they hated Jews and because they hated Muslims. They did not do it because they were ruthless and wanted to murder anyone or pillage a city (of course, the mutinous ones saw the opportunity to do that and did it). They did not do it because they wanted to conquer Turkish territory. They did it because they wanted to help their Christians in the east.

I'm sorry that was not clear to you.

I think it's fairly clear that the nobility involved were also heavily interested in getting land for themselves. Considering they overthrew the Armenian Christian rulership of Edessa.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I cannot help notice that your entire defense of the crusades in no way contradicts the whole "that the crusaders were bad Christians, who hated Jews and Muslims and wanted to murder and to pillage and so forth" bit.

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion. They did not do it because they hated Jews and because they hated Muslims. They did not do it because they were ruthless and wanted to murder anyone or pillage a city (of course, the mutinous ones saw the opportunity to do that and did it). They did not do it because they wanted to conquer Turkish territory. They did it because they wanted to help their Christians in the east.

I'm sorry that was not clear to you.

We could say that, however, the political power grab these military expeditions carried is not to be undermined just because they were taken into consideration to help other Christians in the East.

If it would have been just helping other Christians in the East as you claim I would agree with you. However, these countries also acted on their own interests more than once.

[Bari]

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion. They did not do it because they hated Jews and because they hated Muslims. They did not do it because they were ruthless and wanted to murder anyone or pillage a city (of course, the mutinous ones saw the opportunity to do that and did it). They did not do it because they wanted to conquer Turkish territory. They did it because they wanted to help their Christians in the east.

I'm sorry that was not clear to you.

I think it's fairly clear that the nobility involved were also heavily interested in getting land for themselves. Considering they overthrew the Armenian Christian rulership of Edessa.

I don't think they went to war in order to plunder anyone or to get rich. Becoming a soldier was extremely expensive, and claiming an enemy's treasure was the usual way of financing war in that day. The casualty rate for crusaders were very high, with some estimates as high as 75 percent. The prospects for survival were low, much less getting wealthy.

[Luminesa]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This founding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

[Bari]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This finding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

Officially, they have no state religion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This founding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

I think most countries with ambitions of imperial domination were strongly Christian and their descendants in the territories they conquered as a result have a strong Christian heritage as well.

And I don't mean that because they were closer to the Papal States. I mean because of the theory of divine right was an expedient excuse for rulers back in the day, and the pope ruled every aspect of politics back in the day with other nations. So even if a king did not agree with the pope, they found it politically expedient to bow their head and nod.

[Conscentia]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole
In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.
Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This founding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

Only if by "Christian country" you mean a country that contains many Christians. France is not officially Christian, although just over half of it's population is Christian.

Also, there was no France "before Christ". That far back the land was Roman Gaul. There was no France until a while after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

[Diopolis]

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

I think most countries with ambitions of imperial domination were strongly Christian and their descendants in the territories they conquered as a result have a strong Christian heritage as well.

And I don't mean that because they were closer to the Papal States. I mean because of the theory of divine right was an expedient excuse for rulers back in the day, and the pope ruled every aspect of politics back in the day with other nations. So even if a king did not agree with the pope, they found it politically expedient to bow their head and nod.

Divine right isn't exactly exclusive to Catholic or even Christian lands. Shintoism and Confucianism also advance variants of it, as do dozens of pagan religions. Really, it's more the exception than the norm for divine right to not be compatible with a given religion.

[Salus Maior]

I think it's fairly clear that the nobility involved were also heavily interested in getting land for themselves. Considering they overthrew the Armenian Christian rulership of Edessa.

I don't think they went to war in order to plunder anyone or to get rich. Becoming a soldier was extremely expensive, and claiming an enemy's treasure was the usual way of financing war in that day. The casualty rate for crusaders were very high, with some estimates as high as 75 percent. The prospects for survival were low, much less getting wealthy.

That doesn't explain away why they betrayed the Armenians in Edessa, who had welcomed them into their cities btw.

[Luminesa]

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

Only if by "Christian country" you mean a country that contains many Christians. France is not officially Christian, although just over half of it's population is Christian.

I mean "culturally", it's majorly Christian.

[Salus Maior]

I think most countries with ambitions of imperial domination were strongly Christian and their descendants in the territories they conquered as a result have a strong Christian heritage as well.

And I don't mean that because they were closer to the Papal States. I mean because of the theory of divine right was an expedient excuse for rulers back in the day, and the pope ruled every aspect of politics back in the day with other nations. So even if a king did not agree with the pope, they found it politically expedient to bow their head and nod.

Divine right isn't exactly exclusive to Catholic or even Christian lands. Shintoism and Confucianism also advance variants of it, as do dozens of pagan religions. Really, it's more the exception than the norm for divine right to not be compatible with a given religion.

I'd go as far as to say that the Japanese and Chinese were much more intense about the idea also.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This finding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

I despise laicite, it's an evil and oppressive ideology.

[Angleter]

I think it's fairly clear that the nobility involved were also heavily interested in getting land for themselves. Considering they overthrew the Armenian Christian rulership of Edessa.

I don't think they went to war in order to plunder anyone or to get rich. Becoming a soldier was extremely expensive, and claiming an enemy's treasure was the usual way of financing war in that day. The casualty rate for crusaders were very high, with some estimates as high as 75 percent. The prospects for survival were low, much less getting wealthy.

To back this up, it's worth pointing out that one of the key factors in the growth in power of the French monarchy was that the nobility bankrupted itself/wiped itself out by going on Crusade. Cynical self-interest (other than not wanting to look impious/cowardly) only really came into it when they'd won. Which wasn't very often.

[Herskerstad]

Of course France is a Christian country. Maybe not in its very beginning, before Christ, but from the Dark Ages onward France was and has been ever since a Christian country. =__=

I think most countries with ambitions of imperial domination were strongly Christian and their descendants in the territories they conquered as a result have a strong Christian heritage as well.

And I don't mean that because they were closer to the Papal States. I mean because of the theory of divine right was an expedient excuse for rulers back in the day, and the pope ruled every aspect of politics back in the day with other nations. So even if a king did not agree with the pope, they found it politically expedient to bow their head and nod.

I think most countries with ambitions of imperial dominion where nations that simply had the means to do so before an age of human rights, as it would explain every empire ever.

And no, the pope did not rule every aspect of politics back in the day, for a time they tried to establish real authority over the temporal, but that never materialized. In the early stage of the political papacy the pope was something of a kingmaker, in the later stages they were becoming increasingly irrelevant. At their most powerful in between they were tangled up politically in the schemes of their own, that of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and France for the most part and not always to their benefit. Nowadays? I think it fair to say that the world treats him as a celebrity of good will. I mean there is an expectation that the pope won't go around and dictate national policies or make claims over the temporal realm and as such that is unlikely to change.

[The Flutterlands]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/25-french-connection-sunni-militancy-mccants-meserole

In other news, a team of researchers posited a theory (they did not claim it to be true but rather, put it forward as a possible explanation) that suggested France's policy of laïcité, which is described as the exclusion of religion from national identity and political discourse and the belief that any role of religion in the state should be condemned as pernicious, is a principal reason that people, especially Muslims, become radicalized.

Personally, I'm not surprised by this preliminary finding. In my opinion, their version of secularism is very inane and just a disguised form of anti-clericalism. This finding would suggest it's also a harmful policy.

I despise laicite, it's an evil and oppressive ideology.

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to keep religion out of government, the way it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up. I'd rather live under laicite rather than any sort of theocracy.