The Stunning Biggotry on this Board

[FaithofAbraham]

That pic is of a brave crusader knight. The crusaders were the saviors of civilization.

Jesus is the savior of civilization. See that’s how Christians are deluded. So they are given Islam as a reward for ignoring Jesus and making up their own rules.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Jesus is the savior of civilization. See that’s how Christians are deluded. So they are given Islam as a reward for ignoring Jesus and making up their own rules.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

The crusaders were defending the kingdom Christ created.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Christ taught people to love their enemies. And while he did say that those who live by the sword die by the sword, only the suicidal would interpret that to mean a person should not defend himself or protect the innocent or defenseless. Rather Christ meant those who use violence to force the will on other or use coercion to get people to convert. (By the way, conversion by coercion is permitted in Islamic theology.)

The Crusading armies saved the world.

Yeah I see how it’s saved.

Jesus said STAY OUT FOR THE WORLD and Christians refuse to, waging needless wars and converting by force and everything else. So you get Muslims who play by the same rules. Don’t think you can suddenly get civilized and ease up on forced conversions and torture and slavery of blacks and things like that and not expect some payback and divine justice for disobeying Jesus.

You reap what you sow.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The crusaders were defending the kingdom Christ created.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

A sword for peaceful martyrs of Jesus.

Not in the hands of repackaged Romans laughing at what Jesus said about being harmless and putting your sword away, and instead doing what they wanted to build kingdoms of man. All of which will be as trash and destroyed in the end anyway when Jesus returns.

 

[rpp]

Yeah I see how it’s saved.

Jesus said STAY OUT FOR THE WORLD and Christians refuse to, waging needless wars and converting by force and everything else. So you get Muslims who play by the same rules. Don’t think you can suddenly get civilized and ease up on forced conversions and torture and slavery of blacks and things like that and not expect some payback and divine justice for disobeying Jesus.

You reap what you sow.

It has always been against Christian teaching to convert by force. So your assertion that this was done is is incorrect. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can make such false historical claims. There are many people on this forum who are experts in history and have the ability to cite many legitimate sources.

On the other, you have made an assertion. You are the one who needs to back it up with some citations. Links to legitimate sources of information please.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

It has always been against Christian teaching to convert by force. So your assertion that this was done is is incorrect. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can make such false historical claims. There are many people on this forum who are experts in history and have the ability to cite many legitimate sources.

On the other, you have made an assertion. You are the one who needs to back it up with some citations. Links to legitimate sources of information please.

I’ve backed it up with sources before, as recently as the 1800s Native Americans in my own town were forced to convert and work at the mission here, as they were up and down California. They were exposed to awful European diseases and tried to run away and the fathers would order the Spanish militia to hunt them down and bring them back to be imprisoned.

Everyone knows this recent history. And in other cases, African slaves were NOT allowed to convert because their Christian owners could not rightly keep them as slaves if they became Christian brothers. Example:


The planters who opposed the conversion of their slaves feared the possibilities of a Christianized slave, and resented the idea of sharing their religion with a heathen. During the era of the slave trade, many whites claimed that slaves were not capable of understanding Christianity.

This situation is even worse, Christian greed wouldn’t allow conversion. So Christian sins are many and entirely comparable to Muslim behaviors, and sometimes worse.

 

[rpp]

I’ve backed it up with sources before, as recently as the 1800s Native Americans in my own town were forced to convert and work at the mission here, as they were up and down California. They were exposed to awful European diseases and tried to run away and the fathers would order the Spanish militia to hunt them down and bring them back to be imprisoned.

Everyone knows this recent history. And in other cases, African slaves were NOT allowed to convert because their Christian owners could not rightly keep them as slaves if they became Christian brothers. Example:


The planters who opposed the conversion of their slaves feared the possibilities of a Christianized slave, and resented the idea of sharing their religion with a heathen. During the era of the slave trade, many whites claimed that slaves were not capable of understanding Christianity.

This situation is even worse, Christian greed wouldn’t allow conversion. So Christian sins are many and entirely comparable to Muslim behaviors, and sometimes worse.

I asked for credible sources. You have made additional unsubstantiated assertions and provided only one a link to a single article by an author who has been repeatedly repudiated.

And the stories about those in California have so often been repudiated that to reference them is enough to call into question the cedibility of those who fall back on them.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I asked for credible sources. You have made additional unsubstantiated assertions and provided only one a link to a single article by an author who has been repeatedly repudiated.

And the stories about those in California have so often been repudiated that to reference them is enough to call into question the cedibility of those who fall back on them.

Repudiated where? Give me some links now.

Edit, here’s more:

Serra died at his mission in 1784 and, despite modern controversy over the Franciscans’ treatment of Native Americans, was beatified in 1988.He dedicated his life to the conversion of the Native Americans. Mission life was very harsh on the natives, some of whom were converted to Christianity forcibly. Once a member of a mission, Native Americans were completely under the control of the monks and were often beaten or imprisoned.

 

[rpp]

Yes, there is much bigotry on this board. We see it here where people take the actions of one individual, distort it, then apply to broadly to all Catholics.

Such posts server to utterly and unequivocally destroy the person’s credibility.

 

[rpp]

Repudiated where? Give me some links now.

Edit, here’s more:


Born in 1713 to religious parents who worked as laborers on the island of Mallorca off the coast of Spain, Father Junipero Serra (1713-1784) joined the Franciscan order and became a monk in 1730, when he was just seventeen years old. He worked as a professor of theology before joining a group of missionaries to Mexico. He worked in missions in Mexico for fifteen years before he was sent to northern California, where he founded nine missions between San Diego and San Francisco Bay. Serra eventually settled at the mission in Monterey, California, where he became quite influential in the Spanish colonial policies toward the region. He dedicated his life to the conversion of the Native Americans. Mission life was very harsh on the natives, some of whom were converted to Christianity forcibly. Once a member of a mission, Native Americans were completely under the control of the monks and were often beaten or imprisoned. Serra died at his mission in 1784 and, despite modern controversy over the Franciscans’ treatment of Native Americans, was beatified in 1988.

Using link from known anti-Catholic sources, like PBS, does not help your cause. PBS has repeatedly presented incorrect information and has failed to correct it when errors have been pointed out. This very link is a prime example. These false allegations were repudiated prior to his beatification.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2D6123AF935A1575AC0A96E948260
americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1431
catholic-church.org/serra-beth/serra-4.htm

But I am done with you on this subject. You have proved the OP’s point and the title of this thread, however. Thank you for that.

 

[seekerz]

Did Blessed Pope Urban II use “charitable language” when condemning the Islamic menace? Did Pope Innocent III use “charitable language” when he denounced the savage Mohammedans? Did Pope St. Pius V use “charitable language” when he rallied the Europeans against the Turkish pirates?

I have no chairty left to give towards Islam, a creed responsible for more butchery than any other force on earth.

It’s unreasonable to take language used by anyone out of it’s historical and cultural context. If we had to do so across time, we would probably find some very uncharitable things said by Catholics against those other faiths and by those of other faiths against us.

As for butchery, by what yardstick does one measure that?

Seems to me that there’s nothing to be gained by insulting someone else’s religion. Such language will not bring them to conversion, and since we are already Christians, has no relevance to us. To me that’s just mean spiritedness for it’s own sake.

 

[Righteousone]

It’s unreasonable to take language used by anyone out of it’s historical and cultural context. If we had to do so across time, we would probably find some very uncharitable things said by Catholics against those other faiths and by those of other faiths against us.

As for butchery, by what yardstick does one measure that?

Seems to me that there’s nothing to be gained by insulting someone else’s religion. Such language will not bring them to conversion, and since we are already Christians, has no relevance to us. To me that’s just mean spiritedness for it’s own sake.

My how people forget 911…

 

[rpp]

It’s unreasonable to take language used by anyone out of it’s historical and cultural context. If we had to do so across time, we would probably find some very uncharitable things said by Catholics against those other faiths and by those of other faiths against us.

As for butchery, by what yardstick does one measure that?

Seems to me that there’s nothing to be gained by insulting someone else’s religion. Such language will not bring them to conversion, and since we are already Christians, has no relevance to us. To me that’s just mean spiritedness for it’s own sake.

I think the butchery that the Holy Father is referring to is the murder of between 10 an 30 million Christians and the forced conversion of millions more between approximately 650 AD and 1050 AD by Muslim conquerers.

There is an important difference between insulting someone’s religion and making a legitimate warning about a very real danger. Sadly, this concept appears to have been lost on most modern writers.

 

[seekerz]

My how people forget 911…

What does 911 have to do with hurling insults? If I allow someone else’s barbaric acts to turn me into a barbarian, then what have I gained?

Being prudent in matters of security and wise in relating to those of other faiths, does not preclude common decency/charity in speech.

 

[seekerz]

There is an important difference between insulting someone’s religion and making a legitimate warning about a very real danger. Sadly, this concept appears to have been lost on most modern writers.

If the by danger, you refer to a security threat, then as a nation we have clearly proved ourselves more than capable of an adequate response. If by danger you mean spiritual, I ask what’s for Christians to fear? We already ** know **God! Verbal insults are hardly likely to win over converts (though good discipleship may)…So the question remains: to what point, this ‘legitimate warning’?

 

[rpp]

If the by danger, you refer to a security threat, then as a nation we have clearly proved ourselves more than capable of an adequate response. If by danger you mean spiritual, I ask what’s for Christians to fear? We already ** know **God! Verbal insults are hardly likely to win over converts (though good discipleship may)…So the question remains: to what point, this ‘legitimate warning’?

I think there is great physical and spiritual danger and the dangers have not been properly addressed.

The physical danger is obvious. We have been hit by extremists (which is a relative term.) and I fear it is invetable we will be hit again. I do not see that the current efforts result in significantly improved physical security.

The spiritual danger is associated with the physical one. The claims that Islam is a “religion of peace” and similar disarming statements lull people into the idea that religions are somehow equal, or that one is not better than the other. This is not a position an faithful Christian can have. Islam is built on the Christian heresy of Gnosticism. It is, and has for its entire existence been a clear and immediate threat to people around the world. Look at the human rights records of Islamic countries.

Some of these countries have higher standards of living than the USA, but there are classes of people that treated like cattle. In some of these countries, slavery is still practiced. There is no compelling reason for these countries to change.

 

[Righteousone]

What does 911 have to do with hurling insults? If I allow someone else’s barbaric acts to turn me into a barbarian, then what have I gained?

Being prudent in matters of security and wise in relating to those of other faiths, does not preclude common decency/charity in speech.

How can you be charitable toward those who want us converted or dead??? If a fanatical Muslim came knocking at your door and asked if you are Christian, what would you say? Would you be charitable when looking at his sword? Because I believe we will be in a holy war someday which we are now in anyway, and this is exactly what will happen. It happened in the Phillipines and Africa.

 

[RomanCrusader]

It’s unreasonable to take language used by anyone out of it’s historical and cultural context. If we had to do so across time, we would probably find some very uncharitable things said by Catholics against those other faiths and by those of other faiths against us.

As for butchery, by what yardstick does one measure that?

Seems to me that there’s nothing to be gained by insulting someone else’s religion. Such language will not bring them to conversion, and since we are already Christians, has no relevance to us. To me that’s just mean spiritedness for it’s own sake.

By your logic we should not insult Nazism (even which is sadly more civilized than Islam). After all, Nazism is a belief of some people.

 

[rpp]

How can you be charitable toward those who want us converted or dead??? If a fanatical Muslim came knocking at your door and asked if you are Christian, what would you say? Would you be charitable when looking at his sword? Because I believe we will be in a holy war someday which we are now in anyway, and this is exactly what will happen. It happened in the Phillipines and Africa.

We MUST be charitable to Muslims and other groups who hate Christians. As Christians, we are called to love our enemies. But that does not mean that we should allow ourselves to be dominated by them.

Bigotry has no place in Christianity.

Neither does mass suicide.

 

[seekerz]

I think there is great physical and spiritual danger and the dangers have not been properly addressed.

The physical danger is obvious. We have been hit by extremists (which is a relative term.) and I fear it is invetable we will be hit again. I do not see that the current efforts result in significantly improved physical security.

The spiritual danger is associated with the physical one. The claims that Islam is a “religion of peace” and similar disarming statements lull people into the idea that religions are somehow equal, or that one is not better than the other. This is not a position an faithful Christian can have. Islam is built on the Christian heresy of Gnosticism. It is, and has for its entire existence been a clear and immediate threat to people around the world. Look at the human rights records of Islamic countries.

Some of these countries have higher standards of living than the USA, but there are classes of people that treated like cattle. In some of these countries, slavery is still practiced. There is no compelling reason for these countries to change.

It’s quite a stretch to go from believing that Islam is a religion of peace (note, I’m not saying this is true) to equating it with Christianity.

I still believe that for those whose faith is well founded, Islam holds no spiritual danger. For those whose faith is weak/shaky, then what they need is catechesis. With proper catechesis, they will learn to avoid the pitfalls of non-Christian religions as well as the prevalent ‘religion’ of godlessness.