Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

[pro_universal]

chb03c:

I think he is, you however seem to not have a problem with a certain group of people hurting civilians. I think it is safe to see the vast majority of the people on this thread and forum do not think that civilians should be harmed in anyway shape or form, no matter what there beliefs are. Cestusdei just wants to point out that all people that commit these acts are not just people no matter what there beliefs. And the people committing these acts seem to be of certain groups. Keep in mind we are talking about current events.

Sure, I bet the vast majority do believe that civilians should not be harmed…but stillasmallvoice and cestusdei have both specifically stated that it’s permissible to intentionally target civilians.

I do not believe that cestusdei wants to point out that these acts are unjust no matter what, because he advocates using nuclear weapons on muslim holy cities as a response to terrorist attacks.

The implication that only muslims or primarily muslims are causing unjust attacks today is simply wrong. Every continent and faith has criminals, and that’s why it is doubly important for we who still have some humanity to set the right example.

 

[Contarini]

pro_universal:

The implication that only muslims or primarily muslims are causing unjust attacks today is simply wrong. Every continent and faith has criminals, and that’s why it is doubly important for we who still have some humanity to set the right example.

Every continent and faith does have its criminals–but right now Muslims are by far the worst offenders. That’s not a reason to scapegoat all Muslims. But it’s false to claim that all religions are equally prone to violence right now. Christians have been guilty of plenty in the past, and still sometimes are, but not on the same scale.

Edwin

 

[pro_universal]

Contarini:

Every continent and faith does have its criminals–but right now Muslims are by far the worst offenders. That’s not a reason to scapegoat all Muslims. But it’s false to claim that all religions are equally prone to violence right now. Christians have been guilty of plenty in the past, and still sometimes are, but not on the same scale.

Edwin

I would say this is true only in terms of international terror attacks. In terms of bodies, muslims are trailing the Serb/African combination by a healthy margin.

I do agree, of the major religions, it has the most problems with violent groups. I just do not believe that categorizing terrorist and other violent movements by religion is the proper way to compare them, because secular, “spiritual”, and nominally religious gangs rely on similar methods of recruitment and self-justification.

 

[cestusdei]

If one side violates the Geneva convention consistantly then the other side can also abandon it. The Muslims haven’t signed it at all and don’t abide by it. They even torture and kill peace activists.

If the US kills civilians pro screams murder.

If Muslims kill civilians pro says let’s not anger them by saying anything.

Am I alone in noticing this? The fact is that they target civilians on purpose. We don’t. Pro wants to play with theory. Well the fact is that they are the ones doing what he is suppossedly against. Yet we hear not a peep of protest. Ironically I, the mean guy, am the one who started the thread to help out Abdul. If I hadn’t does anyone thing pro would have? Who is the real meanie?

 

[pira114]

Contarini:

Sorry for the “rail against Islam” expression. Others have railed, and I was wrong to associate you with them. I wouldn’t like to be associated with everything pro_universal has said!

Edwin

Why wouldn’t a good Christian rally against islam? They are the enemy of us and God. The crusades were justified and necessary to Christian survival. If they were adequately supported back then, we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the muslims today.

The post was origionaly about the crusades. The only apology offered was for injustices commited during the crusades, not for the crusades themselves. Some muslim calling me a crusader is the highest compliment I could ask for.

 

[exoflare]

pira114:

The post was origionaly about the crusades. The only apology offered was for injustices commited during the crusades, not for the crusades themselves. Some muslim calling me a crusader is the highest compliment I could ask for.

Saint Santiago Matamoros, pray for us.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

If one side violates the Geneva convention consistantly then the other side can also abandon it. The Muslims haven’t signed it at all and don’t abide by it. They even torture and kill peace activists.

Uh, who are the “muslims” you’re speaking of who haven’t signed the geneva conventions?

In any case, there is no principle of Catholic teaching that supports your “if they do it to our kids, we can do it to their kids” reasoning. Legally speaking you’re flat out wrong on violations of the conventions in this regard (killing civilians is a pretty basic human rights violation), and in terms of the Catholic teaching you could not be more wrong if you tried.

So I’d like for you to try and defend the “if one side violates the geneva conventions, the other side can too”, at the very least so I can get an idea of what you’re relying on for this claim.

cestusdei:

If the US kills civilians pro screams murder.

If Muslims kill civilians pro says let’s not anger them by saying anything.

Wrong. I say: don’t blame a whole billion people for the actions of terrorists. That would be tantamount to blaming some child in Idaho for what the individuals at Abu Ghraib prison did. To do so is deeply immoral and illogical to boot.

cestusdei:

Am I alone in noticing this? The fact is that they target civilians on purpose. We don’t. Pro wants to play with theory. Well the fact is that they are the ones doing what he is suppossedly against. Yet we hear not a peep of protest. Ironically I, the mean guy, am the one who started the thread to help out Abdul. If I hadn’t does anyone thing pro would have? Who is the real meanie?

You are claiming that we should intentionally target civilians, and so is stillasmallvoice. That is what I am reacting to, your deeply immoral position that civilians should be killed by the million, because that’s the statement you’re tossing out to this board.

If someone comes here claiming that all Christians should be killed, I’ll do the same. For now though, you’re the one (and stillasmallvoice) posting that it’s permissible and even a good idea to intentionally target civilians.

Instead of trying to misrepresent what I’m claiming, why don’t you try to defend this claim so we can get a good idea of just what it is that has led you to conclude that killing unarmed people is permissible?

 

[pro_universal]

pira114:

Why wouldn’t a good Christian rally against islam? They are the enemy of us and God. The crusades were justified and necessary to Christian survival. If they were adequately supported back then, we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the muslims today.

The post was origionaly about the crusades. The only apology offered was for injustices commited during the crusades, not for the crusades themselves. Some muslim calling me a crusader is the highest compliment I could ask for.

1. The Crusades had nothing to do with Christian survival. If anything, the Muslims were stronger after the crusades and they were righteously incensed at the gross behavior of the crusaders.
2. If you like to be called a crusader, I’d like for you to name one of the crusader armies you’d have liked to be a member of, and to explain why you think that crusader army is an exemplar of Christian teaching.

Saint Santiago Matamoros, pray for us

As for this, anyone who thinks the spanish movement to expel the muslims was a good thing needs to reread the history books…they also wiped out Jews and Christians who had converted from islam and judaism. Not the spirit I’m after.

 

[exoflare]

pro_universal:

As for this, anyone who thinks the spanish movement to expel the muslims was a good thing needs to reread the history books…they also wiped out Jews and Christians who had converted from islam and judaism. Not the spirit I’m after.

Saint Desiderius of Vienne, pray for us…

 

[MugenOne]

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us…

 

[pira114]

1. The Crusades had nothing to do with Christian survival. If anything, the Muslims were stronger after the crusades and they were righteously incensed at the gross behavior of the crusaders.

1. If you like to be called a crusader, I’d like for you to name one of the crusader armies you’d have liked to be a member of, and to explain why you think that crusader army is an exemplar of Christian teaching.

As for this, anyone who thinks the spanish movement to expel the muslims was a good thing needs to reread the history books…they also wiped out Jews and Christians who had converted from islam and judaism. Not the spirit I’m after.

I’d have been happy to be part of any Crusader’s army. As long as they were fighting muslims in defense of Christianity. Which is what they were doing. Read any history book. Even secular scholars agree on this.

And, I’m sorry to say, the muslim movement may indeed have come out stronger. At least in conviction, definately not strength. But that doesn’t mean that they were right. If the Crusades were successful, we wouldn’t need to have discussions about innocent people being killed by muslims for thousands of years.

All the muslims have done for thousands of years is make war. Not just with Christians either. And they’re not even good at it. They have to resort to terrorism and hiding behind governments that deny thier affiliation. If they were good at it, they wouldn’t have been fighting for a thousand years. This is why anything but islam is illegal over there. They have to make the religion grow somehow.

 

[pro_universal]

pira114:

I’d have been happy to be part of any Crusader’s army. As long as they were fighting muslims in defense of Christianity. Which is what they were doing. Read any history book. Even secular scholars agree on this.

And, I’m sorry to say, the muslim movement may indeed have come out stronger. At least in conviction, definately not strength. But that doesn’t mean that they were right. If the Crusades were successful, we wouldn’t need to have discussions about innocent people being killed by muslims for thousands of years.

All the muslims have done for thousands of years is make war. Not just with Christians either. And they’re not even good at it. They have to resort to terrorism and hiding behind governments that deny thier affiliation. If they were good at it, they wouldn’t have been fighting for a thousand years. This is why anything but islam is illegal over there. They have to make the religion grow somehow.

Alright, there’s a lot there…so let’s start this way: Why don’t you name to me which history book I should read, and the one that supports your opinion on the crusades and the history of Islam.

 

[freedomm]

pira114:

I’d have been happy to be part of any Crusader’s army. As long as they were fighting muslims in defense of Christianity. Which is what they were doing. Read any history book. Even secular scholars agree on this.

And the funny thing is your ex-Pope couldn’t even save his own Rome from Christian Gays:

Pope John Paul has delivered a powerful condemnation of the gay rights march held in Rome on Saturday, describing it as an offence to Christian values.

“In the name of the Church of Rome, I must express sadness for the affront to the great jubilee of the year 2000 and the offence to Christian values of a city that is so dear to the heart of Catholics of the whole world.” — Pope John Paul

Details:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/825852.stm ]​

 

[Shadowcry]

MugenOne:

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us…

After Lepanto all the christian nations began fighting again.

 

[cestusdei]

Maybe, but they at least were still Christians and free. Not Islamic slaves. Muslims seem to have no problems finding fights and picking them.

 

[cestusdei]

pro,
I stand by what I said. When Jewish kids are blown up you say nothing, when American civilians are beheaded you say nothing, when a Christian is threatened with death for being a convert you say nothing. BUT if we respond in virtually any way other then surrender you scream that WE are being unjust. You would never have heard of Abdul if I hadn’t started a thread on him. You would never have thought to start a thread asking for support for him. You are to busy doing apologetics for the ones who are doing the real killing and who don’t obey the geneva convention (Osama hasn’t signed it). You are very selective as to which innocents you want to save. Ours are not included. You have chosen your side (al quaeda) and I have chosen mine (USA). If you really wanted to save innocent lives you would be with us fighting the terrorists.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

pro,
I stand by what I said. When Jewish kids are blown up you say nothing, when American civilians are beheaded you say nothing, when a Christian is threatened with death for being a convert you say nothing. BUT if we respond in virtually any way other then surrender you scream that WE are being unjust.

This is a pretty blatant strawman. There are many options for responding to terrorism besides nuclear weapons. That’s the only one you’ve specifically advocated so far, and if you think it’s morally permissible, I’m curious as to why you consistently find ways to avoid direct questions as to Church and rational justification for your view.

cestusdei:

You would never have heard of Abdul if I hadn’t started a thread on him. You would never have thought to start a thread asking for support for him. You are to busy doing apologetics for the ones who are doing the real killing and who don’t obey the geneva convention (Osama hasn’t signed it). You are very selective as to which innocents you want to save. Ours are not included. You have chosen your side (al quaeda) and I have chosen mine (USA). If you really wanted to save innocent lives you would be with us fighting the terrorists.

I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to demand that you produce some quotes of mine where I express support for Al Qaeda, the killing of religious converts from islam, and a desire to not save any innocents besides the muslims you say should be nuked out of existence.

If you cannot provide some substance for this claim, I would appreciate it if you would stop cluttering the thread with it. There’s a substantive issue about just warfare on the table here, and you pretending that I have supported some unjust killing of civilians is only obscuring real discussion.

 

[Contarini]

pira114:

Why wouldn’t a good Christian rally against islam?

I said “rail,” not “rally.”

The archangel Michael didn’t rail against Satan. Why should we rail against Islam?

They are the enemy of us and God.

If they are our enemies, then we are called to love them. I am unwilling to say that they are God’s enemies. I’m a lot more concerned with not becoming God’s enemy myself.

The crusades were justified and necessary to Christian survival.

I believe that the crusades were in principle justified, but they were carried out very badly. I’m not sure that they were necessary to Christian survival. How did they contribute to Christian survival, in your view?

If they were adequately supported back then, we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the muslims today.

I think this is simplistic at best and radically false at worst.

Edwin

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

I have a question:

Then, why did you ask two questions below?

pro_universal:

Do you feel that if the IDF goes rogue and kills some Palestinian children, that the Palestinians are justified in killing some Jewish children in reprisal?

The Torah (Old Testament) says Israeli army (called IDF today) is allowed to kill Palestinians. Remember, how Moses and Joshua two Israeli Generals utterly destroyed the Palestinians? This is because these Ishmaelites (or Arabs) are guilty for the murder of our Lord Jesus.

pro_universal:

If not, then why is it okay to bomb some german kids in reprisal attacks for their crimes against the Jewish people?

Those German kids were Ishmaelites, so they do not have the right to life. St Paul himself was an Israeli and he called the murderers of our Lord Jesus as “Ishmaelites”.

 

[murtad]

Shadowcry:

Yo you talk sll nonsense Murtad lol it is quite entertaining though.

Shadowcry, what type of a Christian are you? Are you a Catholic, a Protestant or neither? Please tell us as we are curious to know.