The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Luminesa]

“What-aboutism” would require for the event to be isolated, and the Ottomans certainly did a lot of conquering throughout their long existence, Constantinople being the apex of Ottoman takeover. I merely used it as an example because it was one of the more prominent examples I could think of. If I had said, “But what about that one time,” in a case in which the Ottomans were not known for being conquerors, then your accusation would be more valid. Furthermore, the Fall of Constantinople can hardly be called an “unrelated” event, but rather one of the most important events in modern history, both in its buildup and its aftermath.

It is completely unrelated, Lumi. It wouldn't happen for another 400 years after the Crusades. To bring it up is simply to say "Okay, yeah. But look at what the Muslims did".

1. It wasn't illegal, or taxed highly, though. The Templar got all their money from donations, and every member was required to be poor. Any money that the members had was to go to the Order. The Templar simply wanted to protect pilgrims going on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. And the best way to do that was to ask for their valuable possessions and lock them up so that the pilgrims wouldn't be mugged or killed by marauders and thieves on their way to Jerusalem.

2. They were liberating the city from the Seljuk Turks who were killing/selling into slavery Christian men, women and children who just wanted to go to the Holy Land for pilgrimages.

1. That isn't what I asked. Is usury a sin in Christianity?

2. The Seljuks didn't control Jerusalem when it was captured...

“Okay but,” is not always a whataboutism.

History is not in a vacuum.

[Dylar]

“What-aboutism” would require for the event to be isolated, and the Ottomans certainly did a lot of conquering throughout their long existence, Constantinople being the apex of Ottoman takeover. I merely used it as an example because it was one of the more prominent examples I could think of. If I had said, “But what about that one time,” in a case in which the Ottomans were not known for being conquerors, then your accusation would be more valid. Furthermore, the Fall of Constantinople can hardly be called an “unrelated” event, but rather one of the most important events in modern history, both in its buildup and its aftermath.

It is completely unrelated, Lumi. It wouldn't happen for another 400 years after the Crusades. To bring it up is simply to say "Okay, yeah. But look at what the Muslims did".

1. It wasn't illegal, or taxed highly, though. The Templar got all their money from donations, and every member was required to be poor. Any money that the members had was to go to the Order. The Templar simply wanted to protect pilgrims going on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. And the best way to do that was to ask for their valuable possessions and lock them up so that the pilgrims wouldn't be mugged or killed by marauders and thieves on their way to Jerusalem.

2. They were liberating the city from the Seljuk Turks who were killing/selling into slavery Christian men, women and children who just wanted to go to the Holy Land for pilgrimages.

1. That isn't what I asked. Is usury a sin in Christianity?

2. The Seljuks didn't control Jerusalem when it was captured...

1. Yes it is. But the Templar were not practicing usury
2.Of course not, we took it from them. Then they came back for it in the 2nd

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

It is completely unrelated, Lumi. It wouldn't happen for another 400 years after the Crusades. To bring it up is simply to say "Okay, yeah. But look at what the Muslims did".


1. That isn't what I asked. Is usury a sin in Christianity?

2. The Seljuks didn't control Jerusalem when it was captured...

1. Yes it is. But the Templar were not practicing usury
2.Of course not, we took it from them. Then they came back for it in the 2nd

1. How did they make money off of their loans? This site doesn't deny they committed usury. Rather, it says the Church turned a blind eye to it.

2. Do you not know the history of what you talk about? The Fatimids controlled Jerusalem and Palestine when it was captured in 1099 by the Crusaders.

[Menassa]

Didn't the Crusaders kill Jews once they took Jerusalem the first time? And the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders due to it?

No. [...].

The crusaders burned Jews inside their synagogue. When they entered Jerusalem.

[Pasong Tirad]

We kind of can, actually. Of course, they don't take all of the blame for the major atrocities, but they were complicit in allowing those atrocities to happen. This was warfare in its most brutal form until maybe the 19th or the 20th century, and they were either part of it or complicit in allowing it to happen. They're not exactly the innocent, blameless lot here.

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

I'm saying atrocities were done. And in the name of God, too. Whether or not the crusaders establishing the foundations for modern banking doesn't negate that fact.

[Dylar]

No. [...].

The crusaders burned Jews inside their synagogue. When they entered Jerusalem.

They weren't excommunicated for it though. So I get a 1/2-point, right?

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

I'm saying atrocities were done. And in the name of God, too. Whether or not the crusaders establishing the foundations for modern banking doesn't negate that fact.

I'm not saying it does. But you can't blame the entire military order for those atrocities especially when only 10% of them were soldiers.

1. Yes it is. But the Templar were not practicing usury
2.Of course not, we took it from them. Then they came back for it in the 2nd

1. How did they make money off of their loans? This site doesn't deny they committed usury. Rather, it says the Church turned a blind eye to it.

2. Do you not know the history of what you talk about? The Fatimids controlled Jerusalem and Palestine when it was captured in 1099 by the Crusaders.

1.Here's the thing though, usury is charging someone an extremely high interest rate when they take out a loan. So if you asked for a loan of $50, and I gave you the money, I'd charge you $150 + the $50 that you already owe me. The Templar didn't do that. Sure they added interest on their loans, but they didn't add exceedingly high interest on them. Also, your site has no sources to back it up other than the word of some guy who appeared on History Channel, which, may I remind you, claims a bunch of BS when it comes to religion. (Like the fact that they say that the fiery chariot that Elijah used to ascend into Heaven was actually a UFO)
2. It appears I've made a mistake. Forgot about the Fatimids taking control of Jerusalem a year before the siege.

[Menassa]

The crusaders burned Jews inside their synagogue. When they entered Jerusalem.

They weren't excommunicated for it though. So I get a 1/2-point, right?

I mean, it sounded like you were talking about the Rhineland Massacres.

[Dylar]

They weren't excommunicated for it though. So I get a 1/2-point, right?

I mean, it sounded like you were talking about the Rhineland Massacres.

Ah, well,my apologies for that. Didn't mean to make it sound like that...

[Menassa]

I mean, it sounded like you were talking about the Rhineland Massacres.

Ah, well,my apologies for that. Didn't mean to make it sound like that...

The crusaders did kill Jews in Jerusalem upon capturing the city.

[Northern Davincia]

Ah, well,my apologies for that. Didn't mean to make it sound like that...

The crusaders did kill Jews in Jerusalem upon capturing the city.

Which is unfortunate, but the Jewish population afterwards saw relatively the same quality of life.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

The crusaders did kill Jews in Jerusalem upon capturing the city.

Which is unfortunate, but the Jewish population afterwards saw relatively the same quality of life.

Source on that?

[Hakons]

The crusaders did kill Jews in Jerusalem upon capturing the city.

Which is unfortunate, but the Jewish population afterwards saw relatively the same quality of life.

They probably faced the same circumstances as European Jews. Generally, lay Christians discriminated against them while ecclesiastical figures discouraged the laymen from doing unChristian activities against the Jews.

[Aillyria]

Hello my Christian brothers and sisters!

I have a question for you all. How do Christians feel about pantheism and panentheism? In the Islamic Discussion Thread, I and another muslim were debating whether or not they would violate our concept of Tawhid (oneness of God), among other things like your Trinity (which I actually agree with, and don't see as a violation of tawhid. ). Do you guys view pantheism as blasphemy?

We sufis muslims see no incompatiblity in this with the nature of God, infact we see it as a near necessity.

[Salus Maior]

Hello my Christian brothers and sisters!

I have a question for you all. How do Christians feel about pantheism and panentheism? In the Islamic Discussion Thread, I and another muslim were debating whether or not they would violate our concept of Tawhid (oneness of God), among other things like your Trinity (which I actually agree with, and don't see as a violation of tawhid. ). Do you guys view pantheism as blasphemy?

We sufis muslims see no incompatiblity in this with the nature of God, infact we see it as a near necessity.

Pantheism/Panentheism is heresy. There's only one God.

Scripturally, historically, scripturally this is clear.

[Aillyria]

Hello my Christian brothers and sisters!

I have a question for you all. How do Christians feel about pantheism and panentheism? In the Islamic Discussion Thread, I and another muslim were debating whether or not they would violate our concept of Tawhid (oneness of God), among other things like your Trinity (which I actually agree with, and don't see as a violation of tawhid. ). Do you guys view pantheism as blasphemy?

We sufis muslims see no incompatiblity in this with the nature of God, infact we see it as a near necessity.

Pantheism/Panentheism is heresy. There's only one God.

Scripturally, historically, scripturally this is clear.

Ok, but pantheism says nothing about other deities existing, it can (like in some varieties of Hinduism), but it can also be monotheistic....the kind I'm talking about.

It states that there ultimately is nothing but God, and existence is nothing more than physical manifestations of God's (swt) divine essence, and is part of that essence.

[Menassa]

Hello my Christian brothers and sisters!

I have a question for you all. How do Christians feel about pantheism and panentheism? In the Islamic Discussion Thread, I and another muslim were debating whether or not they would violate our concept of Tawhid (oneness of God), among other things like your Trinity (which I actually agree with, and don't see as a violation of tawhid. ). Do you guys view pantheism as blasphemy?

We sufis muslims see no incompatiblity in this with the nature of God, infact we see it as a near necessity.

Pantheism seems problematic, Pantheism does not. I don't know about Idol worship.... it's for sure a denial of God.

[Aillyria]

Hello my Christian brothers and sisters!

I have a question for you all. How do Christians feel about pantheism and panentheism? In the Islamic Discussion Thread, I and another muslim were debating whether or not they would violate our concept of Tawhid (oneness of God), among other things like your Trinity (which I actually agree with, and don't see as a violation of tawhid. ). Do you guys view pantheism as blasphemy?

We sufis muslims see no incompatiblity in this with the nature of God, infact we see it as a near necessity.

Pantheism seems problematic, Pantheism does not. I don't know about Idol worship.... it's for sure a denial of God.

Oh, hello there Tanna!

I didn't mention idolatry, but I definitely agree. Idol worship is blasphemous.

[Menassa]

Pantheism seems problematic, Pantheism does not. I don't know about Idol worship.... it's for sure a denial of God.

Oh, hello there Tanna!

I didn't mention idolatry, but I definitely agree. Idol worship is blasphemous.

The oneness of God and Idolatry aren't considered separate?

[Aillyria]

Oh, hello there Tanna!

I didn't mention idolatry, but I definitely agree. Idol worship is blasphemous.

The oneness of God and Idolatry aren't considered separate?

I don't quite understand your question......

[The Parkus Empire]

The oneness of God and Idolatry aren't considered separate?

I don't quite understand your question......

If you think everything is God, including an idol, then what would be the issue with worship of the idol?

Panentheism is the Orthodox Christian stance. Pantheism is totally rejected.

[Aillyria]

I don't quite understand your question......

If you think everything is God, including an idol, then what would be the issue with worship of the idol?

Panentheism is the Orthodox Christian stance. Pantheism is totally rejected.

I lean towards panentheism myself. But, still a thing would still be a thing. I can recognize something as part of God without seeing it as equivalent with God himself.

[The Parkus Empire]

If you think everything is God, including an idol, then what would be the issue with worship of the idol?

Panentheism is the Orthodox Christian stance. Pantheism is totally rejected.

I lean towards panentheism myself. But, still a thing would still be a thing. I can recognize something as part of God without seeing it as equivalent with God himself.

Huh? I do not quite understand. My hand is a part of me, and me myself, just not the entirety of me.

[Aillyria]

I lean towards panentheism myself. But, still a thing would still be a thing. I can recognize something as part of God without seeing it as equivalent with God himself.

Huh? I do not quite understand. My hand is a part of me, and me myself, just not the entirety of me.

You wouldn't profess your love to someones hand though, would you?

[The Parkus Empire]

Huh? I do not quite understand. My hand is a part of me, and me myself, just not the entirety of me.

You wouldn't profess your love to someones hand though, would you?

Not unless I was trying to be sensual and profess my love to them over their entire being bit by bit, but I still love and treasure someone's hand in loving them, as it is part of their being.

[Aillyria]

You wouldn't profess your love to someones hand though, would you?

Not unless I was trying to be sensual and profess my love to them over their entire being bit by bit, but I still love and treasure someone's hand in loving them, as it is part of their being.

The hand has no volition of it's own though. You can like their hand, but you love who it's attached to, not the hand in and of itself.