How come we fight?

[MDK]

I am pretty sure I will know when god tells me to join the RCC.

It doesn’t, but if you think I am that bad arrogant then maybe you should look around.

I never said I was too smart. I don’t know where you get that from. You might want to learn my reasons before you think of some, but anyways. I do not think the RCC is wrong, but I don’t think they are perfect. I would explain why, but I doubt it would really matter to you, and if you want you can PM me for a personal talk, but other than that, happy trails.

Are you waiting for God to send you a personal text message, an email, or booming voice from a cloud? If you seek Christ honestly, you will find Him, and His Church.

You don’t have to say with words directly, but it’s evident from your rejection of Christ’s true Church that you believe what you’ve got going is better… that you’re smarter for doing what you’re doing. Sadly and tragically for many, rejection of Christ’s Church is not going to help one walk in greater friendship with our Lord.

The Catholic Church has never taught error in faith and morals. As promised by Christ, the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. Christ made no such promise about any such church started by men even if done ostensibly in His name.

The people who are members of the Church, laity and including those in the hierarchy are not perfect. If we were, would we really need a Church?

You will likely find what you seek. Are you truly seeking God above man made descriptions of God, and His Church above man made churches?

 

[ChristianKnight]

Are you waiting for God to send you a personal text message, an email, or booming voice from a cloud? If you seek Christ honestly, you will find Him, and His Church.

You don’t have to say with words directly, but it’s evident from your rejection of Christ’s true Church that you believe what you’ve got going is better… that you’re smarter for doing what you’re doing. Sadly and tragically for many, rejection of Christ’s Church is not going to help one walk in greater friendship with our Lord.

The Catholic Church has never taught error in faith and morals. As promised by Christ, the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. Christ made no such promise about any such church started by men even if done ostensibly in His name.

The people who are members of the Church, laity and including those in the hierarchy are not perfect. If we were, would we really need a Church?

You will likely find what you seek. Are you truly seeking God above man made descriptions of God, and His Church above man made churches?

I am seeking truth. Not a church. If the truth is the church then I’ll probably end up their, won’t I?

The Church has done terrible things though. I am not bashing it, I am simply stating truth. The Church has done awful things to gain power.

 

[LutheranDK]

I am in a very good mood right now, so I am just gonna type out one of them hippie topics. Prepare yourselves.

How come Christians fight each other? Debating, thats good, helps the mind, but some of what I see, not just on here, is just flat out bashing. It is like gangs. One bashes the other, the other retaliates, it counter-retaliatites, goes on and on and on. Rather retarded.

I think we should all unite under Orthocatholotastints (Catholics+Orthodox+Protestants=ITS OVER 9000!).

Well, that might not work, but this might.

How about we have a minister from every church (yes I mean every physical church) meet at certain locations, probably 1 per state, and for Europe and others, 1 per province, or however, and they vote on certain subjects, larger subjects, such as:

Homosexuality, Women Preachers, Abortion, and others.

Then all of them elect 1 to represent them, then they meet at a national one ,then they elect 1 to represent them, then International. I doubt it’d work, but just throwing things out.

Or we could just work on more focused issues seperately. I would focus on these mainly:

Trinity, Prayer, Respect, Tolerance, Intelligence (If I ran a church, I’d want every member to be able to recite the bible, but thats just cause I am insane over lack of organization and lack of policy).

Good video fro us all to kinda watch and see how people unite: youtube.com/watch?v=7cMxJBenigY

Mostly good thoughts, however:
The Church of Christ (and anyone who’ve read some of my earlier posts will know what I mean when I say this) is not a democrazy (intentional typo), and never has been. The “vote on important issues”-mindset is unreasonable and unbiblical. Truth faith is NOT a product of the opinion of a majority, but of the teachings of the Word of God.

 

[MDK]

I am seeking truth. Not a church. If the truth is the church then I’ll probably end up their, won’t I?

The Church has done terrible things though. I am not bashing it, I am simply stating truth. The Church has done awful things to gain power.

What does Scripture say about the Church of God… it says it is the pillar and bulwark of truth. So, how can you really know the truth without the Church? The Bible doesn’t teach its own truths. The evidence is so many different interpretations of the same Scriptures.

I don’t know what you have in mind, but likely your idea of the Church was taught by enemies of the Church, and is distorted. People who understand the Church, and what has happened don’t write what you have. For instance, power was given the Church by Christ. No other church can speak for Him.

So, how is it that you seek the truth, but are currently too smart to join the Church that teaches the truth?

 

[ChristianKnight]

Mostly good thoughts, however:
The Church of Christ (and anyone who’ve read some of my earlier posts will know what I mean when I say this) is not a democrazy (intentional typo), and never has been. The “vote on important issues”-mindset is unreasonable and unbiblical. Truth faith is NOT a product of the opinion of a majority, but of the teachings of the Word of God.

If your talking about the CoC like we have here in the South, them people are well known for hating Baptists (I am one) and Methodists

 

[Rolltide]

I am seeking truth. Not a church. If the truth is the church then I’ll probably end up their, won’t I?

The Church has done terrible things though. I am not bashing it, I am simply stating truth. The Church has done awful things to gain power.

ChristianKnight,
I know from our discussions that you have issues with the Catholic Church and things like the Crusades, treatment of the Knights Templars, and the Inquisition. These are exceptionally complex topics. When I teach these subjects at the college I work at, it takes the better part of an entire semester to get through them. (I offer an entire course on the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation.) You have also commented that your knowledge of Christian history (and history in general) before 1500 is lacking. Perhaps this would be a good time to start a new thread on those topics. It is not as simple as the Catholic Church doing “awful” things. The context of the time must be examined, as well as the threats involved and the political background, among other things.

 

[ChristianKnight]

ChristianKnight,
I know from our discussions that you have issues with the Catholic Church and things like the Crusades, treatment of the Knights Templars, and the Inquisition. These are exceptionally complex topics. When I teach these subjects at the college I work at, it takes the better part of an entire semester to get through them. (I offer an entire course on the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation.) You have also commented that your knowledge of Christian history (and history in general) before 1500 is lacking. Perhaps this would be a good time to start a new thread on those topics. It is not as simple as the Catholic Church doing “awful” things. The context of the time must be examined, as well as the threats involved and the political background, among other things.

What would I say in the topic?

 

[Rolltide]

What would I say in the topic?

Something like, “I’d like to more about the Crusades, the Knights Templar, and the Inquisition from the Catholic perspective. These events give me reservations about the Catholic Church and I’d like to explore them more fully.”?

 

[ChristianKnight]

Something like, “I’d like to more about the Crusades, the Knights Templar, and the Inquisition from the Catholic perspective. These events give me reservations about the Catholic Church and I’d like to explore them more fully.”?

Well, I am about done with a 500 page book on the Crusades. I think I see why they happened, still a very bad reason.

 

[Rolltide]

Well, I am about done with a 500 page book on the Crusades. I think I see why they happened, still a very bad reason.

Which book?

 

[LutheranDK]

If your talking about the CoC like we have here in the South, them people are well known for hating Baptists (I am one) and Methodists

I am not. I don’t even know what kind that movement is.
When I say the Church of Christ, I could also say the Church Catholic, as I use those two terms interchangably. But I do not put the same meaning into those words which y’all do.

Because I am not speaking about some obscure sect, or the Roman-Catholic church. I am speaking of the universal ekklesia (assembly) of ALL believers in God. Lutherans, RCs, etc…

 

[Rolltide]

Well, I am about done with a 500 page book on the Crusades. I think I see why they happened, still a very bad reason.

There were many reasons. The most important was, of course, to save the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe was still relatively weak, and they needed to keep the Byzantine Empire intact as a barrier against the Seljuk Empire. Other reasons included a sincere desire to retake the Holy Land for Christianity (although that was secondary to saving the Byzantines), an effort to reunite the newly-separated Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and the rise of primogeniture (the idea that only the oldest son inherits everything).

Primogeniture was an important development in Western Europe. When leaders like Clovis and Charlemagne created empires in Western Europe in 500 AD and 800 AD, they nearly reunified the region. BUT… Germanic cultures believed that all male children should inherit everything equally. That seems logical today, but at the time, it meant that empires would have to be divided up among all their children. So finally after Charlemagne, this gets changed, but what happens is that there’s a bunch of really angry second, third, and fourth born princes running around Europe fighting everyone, causing chaos because now they have to take over someone else’s kingdom. So, the Crusades was an opportunity to provide a safety valve for Europe. If all of these disinherited princes went off to defend the Byzantine Empire, the worst that would happen is that they would die and never come back (in which case, problem solved). However, if they were successful, Christianity would spread and they would have their own kingdoms to rule over in the Middle East. Either way, politically, the governments of Europe found it very helpful.

It is also good to keep in mind that the atrocities committed by the Crusaders were committed by soldiers led by the secular rulers of Europe, like Richard the Lionhearted, Philip Augustus, and Frederick Barbarossa. The pope was back in Rome, and had very little control over what was going on overseas. There is a gigantic secular component to the Crusades, and often, the countries crusading together hated each other to the point of fighting each other, rather than the Seljuks.

 

[ChristianKnight]

I am not. I don’t even know what kind that movement is.
When I say the Church of Christ, I could also say the Church Catholic, as I use those two terms interchangably. But I do not put the same meaning into those words which y’all do.

Because I am not speaking about some obscure sect, or the Roman-Catholic church. I am speaking of the universal ekklesia (assembly) of ALL believers in God. Lutherans, RCs, etc…

Which book?

The Crusades by Harold Lamb

There were many reasons. The most important was, of course, to save the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe was still relatively weak, and they needed to keep the Byzantine Empire intact as a barrier against the Seljuk Empire. Other reasons included a sincere desire to retake the Holy Land for Christianity (although that was secondary to saving the Byzantines), an effort to reunite the newly-separated Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and the rise of primogeniture (the idea that only the oldest son inherits everything).

Primogeniture was an important development in Western Europe. When leaders like Clovis and Charlemagne created empires in Western Europe in 500 AD and 800 AD, they nearly reunified the region. BUT… Germanic cultures believed that all male children should inherit everything equally. That seems logical today, but at the time, it meant that empires would have to be divided up among all their children. So finally after Charlemagne, this gets changed, but what happens is that there’s a bunch of really angry second, third, and fourth born princes running around Europe fighting everyone, causing chaos because now they have to take over someone else’s kingdom. So, the Crusades was an opportunity to provide a safety valve for Europe. If all of these disinherited princes went off to defend the Byzantine Empire, the worst that would happen is that they would die and never come back (in which case, problem solved). However, if they were successful, Christianity would spread and they would have their own kingdoms to rule over in the Middle East. Either way, politically, the governments of Europe found it very helpful.

It is also good to keep in mind that the atrocities committed by the Crusaders were committed by soldiers led by the secular rulers of Europe, like Richard the Lionhearted, Philip Augustus, and Frederick Barbarossa. The pope was back in Rome, and had very little control over what was going on overseas. There is a gigantic secular component to the Crusades, and often, the countries crusading together hated each other to the point of fighting each other, rather than the Seljuks.

lol, Also a reason is that Urban wanted to get people back into the Catholic Church after Henry’s new church aroused.

 

[LutheranDK]

The Crusades by Harold Lamb

lol, Also a reason is that Urban wanted to get people back into the Catholic Church after Henry’s new church aroused.

Erm…this might just be me asking stupid questions because it’s 2.38 AM, but which Henry are we talking about here? Not VIII I assume, because the first crusade was called in 1095, and
Henry VIII broke away from Rome in what? 1546?

 

[ChristianKnight]

Erm…this might just be me asking stupid questions because it’s 2.38 AM, but which Henry are we talking about here? Not VIII I assume, because the first crusade was called in 1095, and
Henry VIII broke away from Rome in what? 1546?

I think it was Henry IV, but I am not sure, I’ll check the book later, but kinda busy watching EWTN and working on alliance stuff atm.

 

[Rolltide]

I think it was Henry IV, but I am not sure, I’ll check the book later, but kinda busy watching EWTN and working on alliance stuff atm.

It’s Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire. As most people know, the Holy Roman Empire was notoriously weak. Henry was notorious for practicing one of the worst forms of corruption within Christianity, which was investiture. This is when the king “invested” bishops and other church officials with secular titles and lands in an effort to try and influence them for their own purposes. They also picked the people themselves, when only a bishop or pope was allowed to do so. There was a problem with corruption in the church at this time, but a movement started at Cluny Abbey in France was sweeping through Europe and instituting very effective reforms that straightened out most of these problems. Among the reforms instituted were seminaries (to train priests with very little education), a rejection of simony (the outright sale of church offices), and clerical celibacy as a universal rule (to keep priests from using their positions to advance the careers of their children, and to stop wild spending out of the collection basket on priest’s families). They also created the College of Cardinals, to provide for a smooth transition between popes. It was also an attempt to limit political influence from the selection of popes. Cluny Abbey was SO successful and well-liked, that tens of thousands of people from around Europe wanted to join it. Over 1400 daughter monasteries (branches of the main monastery) were founded across Europe.

With the announced end to investiture, Henry IV was shocked. He would have to secularize his empire, and most small kingdoms within the Holy Roman Empire wanted to break away from his authority. Without the ability to control bishops and force them support him from the pulpit, the chances of him maintaining control were slim. Henry IV felt he had no choice but to continue investiture, so the Pope excommunicated him. At the same time, the German princes revolted, and Henry IV was forced to travel to Canossa, Italy and recant by Pope Gregory VII.

Henry IV returns to Germany, where he gets so angry, he regroups his forces and decides once again to continue investiture. This time, Henry IV invades Italy, overthrows the pope, and installs his own anti-pope named Clement III. Very few people recognize Clement III, and the people of the Holy Roman Empire are so enraged by Henry IV’s affront to the church that they revolt again. Henry IV eventually dies, and his son, Henry V, reinstates the legitimate pope and signs the Concordat of Worms in 1122, renouncing investiture.

 

[ChristianKnight]

It’s Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire. As most people know, the Holy Roman Empire was notoriously weak. Henry was notorious for practicing one of the worst forms of corruption within Christianity, which was investiture. This is when the king “invested” bishops and other church officials with secular titles and lands in an effort to try and influence them for their own purposes. They also picked the people themselves, when only a bishop or pope was allowed to do so. There was a problem with corruption in the church at this time, but a movement started at Cluny Abbey in France was sweeping through Europe and instituting very effective reforms that straightened out most of these problems. Among the reforms instituted were seminaries (to train priests with very little education), a rejection of simony (the outright sale of church offices), and clerical celibacy as a universal rule (to keep priests from using their positions to advance the careers of their children, and to stop wild spending out of the collection basket on priest’s families). They also created the College of Cardinals, to provide for a smooth transition between popes. It was also an attempt to limit political influence from the selection of popes. Cluny Abbey was SO successful and well-liked, that tens of thousands of people from around Europe wanted to join it. Over 1400 daughter monasteries (branches of the main monastery) were founded across Europe.

With the announced end to investiture, Henry IV was shocked. He would have to secularize his empire, and most small kingdoms within the Holy Roman Empire wanted to break away from his authority. Without the ability to control bishops and force them support him from the pulpit, the chances of him maintaining control were slim. Henry IV felt he had no choice but to continue investiture, so the Pope excommunicated him. At the same time, the German princes revolted, and Henry IV was forced to travel to Canossa, Italy and recant by Pope Gregory VII.

Henry IV returns to Germany, where he gets so angry, he regroups his forces and decides once again to continue investiture. This time, Henry IV invades Italy, overthrows the pope, and installs his own anti-pope named Clement III. Very few people recognize Clement III, and the people of the Holy Roman Empire are so enraged by Henry IV’s affront to the church that they revolt again. Henry IV eventually dies, and his son, Henry V, reinstates the legitimate pope and signs the Concordat of Worms in 1122, renouncing investiture.

Wow, Son went kinda backwards on that. lol

 

[Rolltide]

Wow, Son went kinda backwards on that. lol

Well first, his entire country was against him. The church was very popular at this time, and was in the middle of successfully cleaning up a LOT of corruption. Monks were seen as the heroes of the day, undertaking charity and helping the poor at a time when governments wouldn’t. The vast majority of the Germans at this time legitimately favored the pope’s side. (In fact, had the Catholic Church been able to successfully undertake another “Cluny Reform Movement” in the 1400s, there might never have been a Reformation.)

Secondly, most of the princes in what would become Germany hated the Holy Roman Emperor anyway. If Henry V hadn’t had resolved the issue with the church, he wouldn’t have lasted long.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, that might not work, but this might.

How about we have a minister from every church (yes I mean every physical church) meet at certain locations, probably 1 per state, and for Europe and others, 1 per province, or however, and they vote on certain subjects, larger subjects, such as:

Homosexuality, Women Preachers, Abortion, and others.

Then all of them elect 1 to represent them, then they meet at a national one ,then they elect 1 to represent them, then International. I doubt it’d work, but just throwing things out.

Or we could just work on more focused issues seperately. I would focus on these mainly:

Trinity, Prayer, Respect, Tolerance, Intelligence (If I ran a church, I’d want every member to be able to recite the bible, but thats just cause I am insane over lack of organization and lack of policy).

• We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree to what’s in the best interest of all the people, and then do it.
• That’s exactly what we do. The problem is that people don’t always agree.
  (Episode II)

 

[Peter_J]

I am not. I don’t even know what kind that movement is.
When I say the Church of Christ, I could also say the Church Catholic, as I use those two terms interchangably. But I do not put the same meaning into those words which y’all do.

Because I am not speaking about some obscure sect, or the Roman-Catholic church. I am speaking of the universal ekklesia (assembly) of ALL believers in God. Lutherans, RCs, etc…

It would be nice if we could reach some kind of consensus on that whole terminology issue, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

For example, not long ago I asked an Orthodox poster why she kept referring to the RCC as “the Catholic Church” if she didn’t really consider us to be the one true church. She replied that she felt she should call us the name that we had chosen for ourselves. (I guess it’s kind of like Catholics calling the Church of England “the Church of England”, even thought we don’t really consider them to be a church.) I couldn’t think of a good response to that.