Pope Benedict XVI Apology to Muslims in TEXT:

[Contarini]

Christians violence

This term is something that does not exist.

You can define anything into non-existence if you are arrogant and reckless enough in your use of language. You (and many other fundamentalists) appear to adhere to Humpty Dumpty’s theory that language means whatever you say it means. You forget that there are other people in the world besides yourselves, and you have no right to redefine language arbitrarily to mean something opposite to what it has previously meant.

There was the crusades, where non-Christians, going against the will of God, waved the cross. This was the catholic church, not Chrsitians.

The Catholic Church is Christian and cannot reasonably be defined as anything else. This is the purest Humpty-Dumpty-ism.

The Bible commands that true Christianity be spread through preaching of the Gospel. The crusaders acted in disobidience to the Word of God.

Christians never disobey the Word of God or interpret it incorrectly? Bunk.

You can hold those men accountable for what they did, but it was not Christians.

Christian means “Christ-like,”

You can of course define it that way if you want to, but I think this is misguided. More typically, “Christian” has meant one who professes to adhere to the way of Christ. If we deny the title to anyone who falls short in this, we’ll wind up in a bog of subjectivism, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy. Which is pretty much where Christians of your persuasion generally end up–incapable of speaking meaningfully to anyone else or recognizing the failings of your own perspective, because you’ve defined language in such a way that it can’t possibly convey anything that would shake up your view of the world.

Do you claim to be perfectly Christ-like?

the crusaders were not like Christ.

They were (on the whole) trying to be. Have you ever bothered reading the decree of Pope Urban that authorized the Crusades? The whole point was that Christians were called to take up the Cross (in every sense of the word) by giving up their worldly possessions and their ordinary lives and travelling to the Holy Land to defend their fellow Christians against the Muslims.

Of course (though many here will deny this) it all went horribly wrong. The Crusaders frequently behaved in a most un-Christlike fashion and committed dreadful atrocities. The idea was misguided, but I’m convinced it was sincere. If there had been a better understanding between Eastern and Western Christians, it might actually have produced good fruit. But for that there would have to have been less arrogance on both sides (particularly, I’d argue, on the Western side). Things might have turned out differently if medieval Christians had been more willing to recognize as Christian those who differed from them. If, in short, they had been less like you.

That’s the terrifying irony of arguments like yours. Your smug claim that sinners of the past were “not Christians” is exactly the sort of attitude that led to the very action you condemn.

Christianity is not a religion.

So Christians do not pray, do not worship together, do not read Scripture, do not have a relationship with God? All of these are facets of religion. Again, you’re defining words in a manner that serves no purpose except to insulate your false ideas from contact with reality.

The catholic church also killed many many Christians (non Catholic) during this time for not submitting to Rome.

Some, that’s true. Increasingly so in the 13th century–the second century of the Crusades. Most of the people killed were no more Christian than Mormons (which is not to say that it was OK to kill them!). But it appears that a few were orthodox Christians by our standards.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Christians violence

This term is something that does not exist. There was the crusades, where non-Christians, going against the will of God, waved the cross. This was the catholic church, not Chrsitians.

And yet it does exist.

Wasn’t the church a bit more violent with Justinian I?

And Luther didn’t incite violence with the peasants revolt?

The Anabaptists had no violent intentions to overthrough the heiracrchy?

How about the violence still going on today in Ireland?

Pointing to the crusdes as the only example of Christian violence is a strong error. It’s been prevalent in the church, on and off for a while.

 

[rbarcia]

And yet it does exist.

Wasn’t the church a bit more violent with Justinian I?

And Luther didn’t incite violence with the peasants revolt?

The Anabaptists had no violent intentions to overthrough the heiracrchy?

How about the violence still going on today in Ireland?

Pointing to the crusdes as the only example of Christian violence is a strong error. It’s been prevalent in the church, on and off for a while.

I never said the crusades was the only instance of violence. Again, any person claiming to be a Christian and using war instead the “spreading of the gospel” (forgiveness of sins and eternal life in Jesus Christ, the Son of God), is not a Christian, they are pretenders using the Christian label. The Bible itself claims that many people will be pretenders.

Those people who use violence do so in disobidience to the Bible, they are not obeying the Bible.

On the otherhand, is Jihad in disobidience to the Koran?

 

[sadie2723]

I never said the crusades was the only instance of violence. Again, any person claiming to be a Christian and using war instead the “spreading of the gospel” (forgiveness of sins and eternal life in Jesus Christ, the Son of God), is not a Christian, they are pretenders using the Christian label. The Bible itself claims that many people will be pretenders.

Those people who use violence do so in disobidience to the Bible, they are not obeying the Bible.

On the otherhand, is Jihad in disobidience to the Koran?

That was SO well put! And to answer the question, violence is mandated in the Koran.

Cheers!

 

[rbarcia]

You can define anything into non-existence if you are arrogant and reckless enough in your use of language. You (and many other fundamentalists) appear to adhere to Humpty Dumpty’s theory that language means whatever you say it means. You forget that there are other people in the world besides yourselves, and you have no right to redefine language arbitrarily to mean something opposite to what it has previously meant.

I am not redefining anything. What it means to be a Christian has always been so. Violence is not in it.

Thanks for the name calling. I am sure you will define it as being perfectly acceptable to do that as a Christian as well.

The Catholic Church is Christian and cannot reasonably be defined as anything else. This is the purest Humpty-Dumpty-ism.

Christians never disobey the Word of God or interpret it incorrectly? Bunk.

You can of course define it that way if you want to, but I think this is misguided. More typically, “Christian” has meant one who professes to adhere to the way of Christ. If we deny the title to anyone who falls short in this, we’ll wind up in a bog of subjectivism, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy. Which is pretty much where Christians of your persuasion generally end up–incapable of speaking meaningfully to anyone else or recognizing the failings of your own perspective, because you’ve defined language in such a way that it can’t possibly convey anything that would shake up your view of the world.

Do you claim to be perfectly Christ-like?

You are going off topic. I am not perfect, as James says I would be lying. However, we are discussing a group of people who use violence as a means of religious conversion.

the crusaders were not like Christ.

They were (on the whole) trying to be. Have you ever bothered reading the decree of Pope Urban that authorized the Crusades? The whole point was that Christians were called to take up the Cross (in every sense of the word) by giving up their worldly possessions and their ordinary lives and travelling to the Holy Land to defend their fellow Christians against the Muslims.

This is not Christlike. To take up your cross is to spread the gospel, even to the point of suffering and persecution.

Of course (though many here will deny this) it all went horribly wrong. The Crusaders frequently behaved in a most un-Christlike fashion and committed dreadful atrocities. The idea was misguided, but I’m convinced it was sincere. If there had been a better understanding between Eastern and Western Christians, it might actually have produced good fruit. But for that there would have to have been less arrogance on both sides (particularly, I’d argue, on the Western side). Things might have turned out differently if medieval Christians had been more willing to recognize as Christian those who differed from them. If, in short, they had been less like you.

That’s the terrifying irony of arguments like yours. Your smug claim that sinners of the past were “not Christians” is exactly the sort of attitude that led to the very action you condemn.

Again, you are taking my arguements out of contexts. I do not know every individual. But, to say that people who went out and killed others in the name of Christ when Jesus taught hatred as murder (Mat 5) and you would be in danger of Hell.

So Christians do not pray, do not worship together, do not read Scripture, do not have a relationship with God? All of these are facets of religion. Again, you’re defining words in a manner that serves no purpose except to insulate your false ideas from contact with reality.

There are different definitions for the word religion in the dictionary.

Some, that’s true. Increasingly so in the 13th century–the second century of the Crusades. Most of the people killed were no more Christian than Mormons (which is not to say that it was OK to kill them!). But it appears that a few were orthodox Christians by our standards.

Edwin

And this was done in disobidience to the Word of God.