Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

[pro_universal]

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

There ya go.

As for my statement about converting muslims or going to war, it is pretty much the same. It’s just that I’m fed up, and I want to have it out and settle it now and forever. So, yes, you got me there, but I wasn’t trying to hide it (obviously), I just worded it so it looked stupid. My fault.

This is my last post on this forum. I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear that. I just wanted to respond to the last two questions as I felt they deserved an answer.

Goodbye to all those true Christians and Catholics who I have enjoyed so much conversation with.

Moderater: Please cancel my account immediatly.

Question: If someone could prove to you that the Church teaches that we should befriend and understand Muslims, and not advocate war against them, would you leave the Church after leaving this forum?

Seems to me you’re angry because you have not embraced part of the mission of peace the Church has laid out for you. If you stay and read, I hope you’ll come around to the Christian way of relating to other peoples, and leave this “let’s kill them all or convert them!” view in the dumpster where it belongs.

 

[SPH1]

pro:

This notion that muslims are about to conquer the US would be funny if it weren’t driving a push for “pre-emptive strikes” within so many minds.

Can you please explain to me how a unified islam (one that doesn’t exist, right now) poses a real threat to Europe and America? What muslim army is there capable of invading either? Terror attacks are evil, but do not even come close to the level of wiping out our civilization. Only we can do that by responding to terrorism with barbarism.

You will, of course, note that I didn’t yet push for pre-emptive strikes or that the “war” is imminent. But I do believe it is coming. The West/Christianity has pretty much been at war with Islam since Islam’s begining.

We have at least two present threats:

1. The Trojan Horse of Islamic immigration into the West and US.
2. Iran or such radical Islamic countries getting “the bomb.”

Outside of the US and Europe Islam is already in shooting wars with their neighbors.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

You will, of course, note that I didn’t yet push for pre-emptive strikes or that the “war” is imminent. But I do believe it is coming. The West/Christianity has pretty much been at war with Islam since Islam’s begining.

We have at least two present threats:

1. The Trojan Horse of Islamic immigration into the West and US.
2. Iran or such radical Islamic countries getting “the bomb.”

Outside of the US and Europe Islam is already in shooting wars with their neighbors.

Alright, as for the point about Christianity being at war with Islam since its beginning:

This is not true. There have been periods of both war and peace, just like between different Christian states.

1. How is a “trojan horse” of immigration going to produce an invasion and conquest? Can you provide a halfway believable scenario for this?
2. How does Iran having the bomb make it capable of invading Europe or the US?

Outside of the US and Europe, which countries are you naming as representing “Islam” generally that are in shooting wars with their neighbors? If you would be specific, I can examine that claim too…seems odd, because looking at a list, I can’t think of a single Islamic country that’s in a shooting war with a neighbor right now, except for arguably Chechnya.

 

[SPH1]

pira:

I see that you are Episcopalean. It’s no surprise then that you have a problem with the Crusades. The Crusades are one of the popular points of contention between Catholics and most other Protestants.

You make a good point. I don’t know about Edwin, but Protestants do seem to use the Crusades to bash the Catholic Church. It’s because there were no Protestants around for those wars, so it’s an easy anti-Catholic target. Better for Protestants to harangue on the Crusades than talk about all of the wars - including religious wars - Protestants were involved in.

It seems as if the whole world - Liberals, PC kooks, Protestants, Muslims, etc. - have taken the Islamic/OBL view of the Crusades: Muslims are the victims, the Catholics the guilty.

Interesting: It seems that the Holy Catholic Church has been the major force standing up to the Sword of Islam throughout history.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

Alright, as for the point about Christianity being at war with Islam since its beginning:

This is not true. There have been periods of both war and peace, just like between different Christian states.

1. How is a “trojan horse” of immigration going to produce an invasion and conquest? Can you provide a halfway believable scenario for this?
2. How does Iran having the bomb make it capable of invading Europe or the US?

Outside of the US and Europe, which countries are you naming as representing “Islam” generally that are in shooting wars with their neighbors? If you would be specific, I can examine that claim too…seems odd, because looking at a list, I can’t think of a single Islamic country that’s in a shooting war with a neighbor right now, except for arguably Chechnya.

Pro, I see your game in the bold above and here: "Islamic country"

The rest isn’t worth my replying to.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

Pro, I see your game in the bod above.

The rest isn’t worth my replying to.

Uh, my game? You claimed that “Islam” is in a bunch of shooting wars with its neighbors. I asked which countries represent Islam to you, and which of those are actually embroiled in wars. How is that a “game” like response to your claim?

The rest is a direct response to your claims. If it’s not worth replying to, I can only assume that’s because you don’t really have a response that adds to or defends your point.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

Uh, my game? You claimed that “Islam” is in a bunch of shooting wars with its neighbors. I asked which countries represent Islam to you, and which of those are actually embroiled in wars. How is that a “game” like response to your claim?

The rest is a direct response to your claims. If it’s not worth replying to, I can only assume that’s because you don’t really have a response that adds to or defends your point.

Pro, are such taunts also part of your game?

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

Pro, are such taunts also part of your game?

No game here. Just a genuine interest in helping you to view history in such a way that you will not be hateful of other people, and so I challenge your views. You’re clearly free to expect a response from me if you present claims, and if I ask for the same, it’s so that I can help you to learn.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

No game here. Just a genuine interest in helping you to view history in such a way that you will not be hateful of other people, and so I challenge your views. You’re clearly free to expect a response from me if you present claims, and if I ask for the same, it’s so that I can help you to learn.

Yes, a game I’m afraid. The same game anti-Catholics use, actually. Toss out an accusation without support, then leave it to the Catholics to debunk in detail.

I gave my opinions and did not need to give detailed explanation in support.

And all you’re doing is simply stating “I don’t see this or that”.

Why don’t you show in detail why my opinions re the Trojan Horse of Islamic immigration into the West and Iran having “the bomb” are invalid? Here’s your opportunity to teach me something.

And focusing on “Islamic countries” is a game and sleight-of-hand. Of course, you’re aware of that.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

Yes, a game I’m afraid. The same game anti-Catholics use, actually. Toss out an accusation without support, then leave it to the Catholics to debunk in detail.

I gave my opinions and did not need to give detailed explanation in support.

And all you’re doing is simply stating “I don’t see this or that”.

Why don’t you show in detail why my opinions re the Trojan Horse of Islamic immigration into the West and Iran having “the bomb” are invalid?

Alright, glad to be back on the substance. If something I say is unclear, feel free to ask again.

I am stating, based on some knowledge of the history involved, that your conclusions about Islam and war with Christianity are wrong. I’m also stating that your view of the “threat” posed is wrong.

Since you want more specificity, here’s the list again:

1. Islamic immigration into the west does not constitute an army. It’s a percent of America’s population, and in Europe there is absolutely no evidence of a political/military organization forming that is capable of dominating European society for some nefarious purpose. Hence, I stand by my question: Do you have even one believable scenario for this being a problem? Given the facts I presented, I don’t see how you could.
2. Iran having a nuclear weapon does not mean Iran automatically can invade the US and take it. Russia has nuclear weapons too; I don’t think anyone will argue that Russia is capable of sending an army to the United States/Europe and conquering both right now. The geopolitics of the current situation all point to Iran’s interest being inherently local. They have given no indication that they are interested in Europe or anywhere else, except insofar as those places have the power to affect Iranian interests. They barely had enough popular support to make war on Saddam Hussein, a brutal torturer of their brothers in religion, and the idea that the Iranians will muster the spirit to try a guaranteed-fruitless war against Europe and the US is silly in light of that.

In sum, your claims about immigration and Iran are not supported by any available facts.

Edited to respond to your edit:

Uh, how is asking which islamic countries are in shooting wars a “sleight of hand”? I truly have no idea what you are trying to get at here, as the natural question when you make a claim like “Islam is in shooting wars with all its neighbors!” would be: Which countries/shooting wars are you referring to?

 

[cestusdei]

They don’t need to invade. With a nuke they can kill millions of us. When they do pro will suggest it’s our fault and that we should give them what they want. They can win without invading. In Europe they may well invade demographically. They wear shirts claiming that in 2030 Europe will be theirs. Nice.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

They don’t need to invade. With a nuke they can kill millions of us. When they do pro will suggest it’s our fault and that we should give them what they want. They can win without invading. In Europe they may well invade demographically. They wear shirts claiming that in 2030 Europe will be theirs. Nice.

Note 1: You didn’t even try to defend your stance on nuclear attacks on muslim holy cities. I will take that as further admission that it is an evil teaching which has no basis in Church or even rational authority.

Note 2: Even a nuke cannot destroy western civilization. We, however, are perfectly capable of destroying everything good by reacting with barbarism.

Note 3: A t-shirt claiming Europe will belong to muslims does not a real threat make. That should be so obvious to you that I’m puzzled at your inclusion of this point as somehow supporting SPH1’s claims above.

 

[cestusdei]

pro_universal:

Note 1: You didn’t even try to defend your stance on nuclear attacks on muslim holy cities. I will take that as further admission that it is an evil teaching which has no basis in Church or even rational authority.

Note 2: Even a nuke cannot destroy western civilization. We, however, are perfectly capable of destroying everything good by reacting with barbarism.

Note 3: A t-shirt claiming Europe will belong to muslims does not a real threat make. That should be so obvious to you that I’m puzzled at your inclusion of this point as somehow supporting SPH1’s claims above.

1. You defend Islamic terrorism at every turn. Rather like the activists who refused to answer questions that might lead to the terrorists capture. It is evil to support terrorism.
2. A nuke can kill around 10 million folks. Guess that doesn’t really bother you much. After all they’re just Americans. It’s okay if our civilization is destroyed. That’s what they, and you, seem to actually want.
3. The t-shirt shows the mindset. Even the Europeans feel fear. They know in their hearts what’s coming, but don’t want to face it. Neither do you. The muslims have every intention of conquest by force or fear. They have been doing it since day one.

 

[pro_universal]

1. You defend Islamic terrorism at every turn. Rather like the activists who refused to answer questions that might lead to the terrorists capture. It is evil to support terrorism.

I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again: Please provide the quotes of mine that support terror. Your failure to do this each time I ask only makes it more clear that you’re deliberately slandering me because you do not have a rational response.

2. A nuke can kill around 10 million folks. Guess that doesn’t really bother you much. After all they’re just Americans. It’s okay if our civilization is destroyed. That’s what they, and you, seem to actually want.

This is not a civilization ender, as horrific a crime as it is. The end will be in how we respond, by either rebuilding and taking Jesus’s instructions for dealing with hardship, or in doing something else…the something else being the wrong answer.

3. The t-shirt shows the mindset. Even the Europeans feel fear. They know in their hearts what’s coming, but don’t want to face it. Neither do you. The muslims have every intention of conquest by force or fear. They have been doing it since day one.

Intention or not, a stated goal does not mean a realistic goal. This is hype until you provide some evidence of organizations which actually have the potential to do this. Otherwise you’re postulating about generations from now, which is pointless.

Again, you cannot defend your evil teachings cestus, and you respond by lying about me. This is not behavior fit for your office, and you know it.

 

[SPH1]

Pro:

Uh, how is asking which islamic countries are in shooting wars a “sleight of hand”? I truly have no idea what you are trying to get at here, as the natural question when you make a claim like “Islam is in shooting wars with all its neighbors!” would be: Which countries/shooting wars are you referring to?

Don’t be dense! You changed it from “Islam” to “Islamic countries.” (And if the threat were just Islamic countries we’d have something tangible to smash when the time came, in a way, less of a threat.)

Just noticed your reply to cestus above. You’re one who likes to continue arguing for it’s own sake, huh?

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

Don’t be dense! You changed it from “Islam” to “Islamic countries.” (And if the threat were just Islamic countries we’d have something tangible to smash when the time came, in a way, less of a threat.)

Alright, now I understand…can you please explain how “Islam” makes shooting war without individuals/countries/armies to do the fighting?

If you don’t want to restrict it to countries, fine. Name a shooting war that “Islam” is involved in, and explain why that war represents all of Islam.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

Alright, now I understand…can you please explain how “Islam” makes shooting war without individuals/countries/armies to do the fighting?

If you don’t want to restrict it to countries, fine. Name a shooting war that “Islam” is involved in, and explain why that war represents all of Islam.

See my edit above re you and cestus. I’m not going to be sucked down into your bottomless pit of inane argument for its own sake.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

See my edit above re you and cestus. I’m not going to be sucked down into your bottomless pit of inane argument for its own sake.

I suspect you’re angry because you realize that any attempt at justification you give will look silly.

That’s fine, but if it’s the case, why not just ignore the thread and move on instead of trying to turn it into a bottomless pit of name calling?

I’ll respond again, of course, if you have anything of substance to say on the just war issues at hand.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

I suspect you’re angry because you realize that any attempt at justification you give will look silly.

Taunts, your game plan again. Your suspicion is wrong.

That’s fine, but if it’s the case, why not just ignore the thread and move on instead of trying to turn it into a bottomless pit of name calling?

I’ve already pretty much ignored you, as shown by my replies trying to avoid being sucked into your bottomless spin. I don’t have to ignore the thread.

I’ll respond again, of course, if you have anything of substance to say on the just war issues at hand.

A final taunt.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1:

I’ve already pretty much ignored you, as shown by my replies trying to avoid being sucked into you bottomless spin. I don’t have to ignore the thread.

Look what’s missing: Anything addressing the just war issues at hand.

Apparently you’ve ignored me so well that you’ll respond only to me personally, and not to any of the issues on the thread?

Interesting way of ignoring me…it means you only call me names, and do not say a word about the just war questions that are right there in front of you.

To actually get this back on topic, the above rants and name calling are support for the notion that those who believe in general war against all muslims are not acting out of true concern for the teachings of Jesus, but rather out of deeply bitter emotions and hostility.

I hope any Muslims especially who read this thread will recognize, after cestusdei’s and SPH1’s rants, that there is no defense for their violent positions in our Church. There is only love for Muslims here, and I hope our faiths will be able to work together against the common enemies of ignorance and warfare.