Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

As I said, I’m leaving you alone. Have a great day!

You too Charlemagne - have a great weekend.

 

[Amandil]

Actually, the word objective already has a definition. The definition of the word is as follows:…

Those are synonyms, not definitions.

Objective: “independent of the knower and his consciousness.”

1. Objective in the phrase “objective truth” does not refer to an unemotional, detached, impersonal attitude. Truth is not an attitude. Truth is not how we know but what we know.
2. Objective does not mean “known by all” or “believed by all.” Even if everyone believes a lie , it is still a lie. “You don’t find truth by counting noses.”
3. Objective does not mean “publically proved.” And objective truth could be privately known-for example the location of a hidden treasure. It can also be known without being proved; to know is one thing, to give good proofs or reasons for your knowledge is another.

“I don’t what to be unselfish” is a subjective truth; “I ought to be unselfish whether I want to be or not” is an objective truth.

If you love Christ, then your are emotionally entangled with him, and emotional entanglement with a belief makes you ineligible to be entirely objective.

Don’t be absurd.

I do not have my own definition of words that already have a definition.

Another objective statement from the subjectivist contradicting his subjectivism.

I think that you will find the phrase “my opinion” “I would offer the idea…” scattered throughout my posts on this subject. That is far from positing what I believe as objective truth. I have also stated that much of what I believe is subjective. The first person to bring the word objective into this thread was you. Go to the start of our discussion and perform a “control f” on your keyboard, and type in the word objective and your computer will take you to the first use of the word. You will find that it was you. You will also find that any time I have used the word, it was simply in response to your use of the word, which is a veritable unending loop.

If that’s true, then why do you continue to argue? If you were a consistent subjectivist, you’d agree to disagree and leave it as such.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Sheldrake, I have no problem making declarative objective statements. That’s not the issue.

You’re arguing that religious truth, if not all truth, is subjective. That is an objective statement regarding truth. It undercuts everything you say in regards to your philosophy. You may think its true, or feel that its true, maybe even demonstrably true, but it can only be “true for you”(i.e. subjective), but not true for me.

The very fact that you’re arguing your position presupposes your belief that what your saying is objectively true, that this “belief” of yours is the way the world really is.

You are saying that your way is the way the world is objectively.

There you go with that word again. Let me share something with you. Every time you use the word objective, I envision you wearing a lab coat…etc.

That says more about you than about me.

The source is manifest in all living things.

So if “the source is manifest in all living things”, do you worship plants? Animals? Do you worship monkeys?

What about the Eucharist? Are the host and what’s in the chalice living?

All things are bound each to each. A drop of water is not separate from the wave in which it rides. A wave is not separate from the ocean. They are one thing expressed as many.

I notice how you keep fudging distinctions and supplying superfluous comments.

There may not be a ontological or metaphysical difference between a drop of water and a wave. But there is a huge ontological difference between a person and a drop of water or a wave, or an ocean.

Just as well I am ontologically distinct from you in that I am an individual being separate from you with my own mind and will. If all truth was subjective, then I wouldn’t be me. There would be no “me” at all, I’d be “in you”; a figment of your imagination. And as such you’d should, in theory, have no problem getting me to conform to your “truth”.

Conversely if I was really the “subjectivist” as you claim, In theory I should have no problem getting you to accept “my truth”. Yet you continue to resist as well , which means again that truth cannot be subjective.

I have never claimed to be apart from God. I have never claimed to be “a god.”

Not explicitly, no. Implicitly? That’s another matter.

The overriding message of the Christian faith (once you remove all the chatter) is to become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father. It points to an existential reality that already exists. You don’t actually become something other than what you already are. You simply come to a realization of what you are.

The point of being “one with Christ” is relational, covenantal, by being conformed into the image of the Son by grace. We are “in Christ” by participation in that grace through the sacraments of the Church.

And, according to the Scripture, we do become something other than what we currently are.

Therefore, it is not beyond the reach of the imagination that the Second Coming may well be the point at which you resurrect the Christ within you rather than some sort of global or ubiquitous event.

Not only is this absurd, and contradict history, but it is absolutely heretical.

How is an objective person independent of consciousness? Isn’t objective thought an epiphenomenon of consciousness?

See above.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil;11827548]Those are synonyms, not definitions.

Objective: “independent of the knower and his consciousness.”

1. Objective in the phrase “objective truth” does not refer to an unemotional, detached, impersonal attitude. Truth is not an attitude. Truth is not how we know but what we know.
2. Objective does not mean “known by all” or “believed by all.” Even if everyone believes a lie , it is still a lie. “You don’t find truth by counting noses.”
3. Objective does not mean “publically proved.” And objective truth could be privately known-for example the location of a hidden treasure. It can also be known without being proved; to know is one thing, to give good proofs or reasons for your knowledge is another.

The primary definition is “based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings. philosophy.” That is the standard definition. My position on this matter has been and remains that what we believe in regards to our religious convictions are not based on verifiable facts rather than feelings or opinions, and not uninfluenced by feelings. philosophy.

Don’t be absurd.

Now you are drifting off point. Do you have a counterpoint?

Another objective statement from the subjectivist contradicting his subjectivism.

Again, off point. Do you have a counterpoint?

If that’s true, then why do you continue to argue? If you were a consistent subjectivist, you’d agree to disagree and leave it as such.

I have never labelled myself as a subjectivist. I have simply said that some of our religious beliefs are subjective. I continue to argue because I am patient.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Sheldrake, I have no problem making declarative objective statements. That’s not the issue.

You’re arguing that religious truth, if not all truth, is subjective.

No. I have said that some of what we believe in regards to religious truth is subjective. I have not said that all truth, whether religious truth or not is subjective. The subjectivity in this matter is manifest in the wide variety of beliefs out there. This fact in and of itself makes the subjectivity of the matter plain.

That is an objective statement regarding truth. It undercuts everything you say in regards to your philosophy. You may think its true, or feel that its true, maybe even demonstrably true, but it can only be “true for you”(i.e. subjective), but not true for me.

Again, you are confused. I have never said that all things are subjective. I have said that some of what we believe in regards to religion is subjective. My sense is that you are always looking for absolutes, and I do understand the psychological need for certainty that is born of existential anxiety. It leads to a level of desperation that brings people to a point where they insist that what they believe on matters such as God as being absolute objective truths, when in truth they are actually hopes, which we in turn kindly label as faith.

The very fact that you’re arguing your position presupposes your belief that what your saying is objectively true, that this “belief” of yours is the way the world really is

.

No, it is what I have reasoned, and I have said this before. I am open to other lines of thought and very willing to consider other possibilities, but they have to be plausible. Did you have something plausible to share? If so, I am genuinely happy to consider it.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You are saying that your way is the way the world is objectively.

No. I am saying my way is the way I see it. I am aware that others see it in other ways.

So if “the source is manifest in all living things”, do you worship plants? Animals? Do you worship monkeys?

I love all living things. If I have used the word worship in this thread it has only been to provide a common basis of understanding for the sake of conversation. My relationship with God and the world around me and within me is a matter of love and adoration. The word worship falls short.

What about the Eucharist? Are the host and what’s in the chalice living?

I believe that, yes. I am very sure of it. However, I cannot prove it.

I notice how you keep fudging distinctions and supplying superfluous comments.

Again, off point. Do you have a counterpoint?

There may not be a ontological or metaphysical difference between a drop of water and a wave. But there is a huge ontological difference between a person and a drop of water or a wave, or an ocean.

You are absolutely right, but only if you consider such things on a very limited scale.

Just as well I am ontologically distinct from you in that I am an individual being separate from you with my own mind and will. If all truth was subjective, then I wouldn’t be me. There would be no “me” at all, I’d be “in you”; a figment of your imagination. .

I am not wondering if you are figment of my imagination. I’m wondering if you are a figment of your own imagination. That said, would you be agreeable in discussing who and what you suppose yourself to be?

Conversely if I was really the “subjectivist” as you claim, In theory I should have no problem getting you to accept “my truth”. Yet you continue to resist as well , which means again that truth cannot be subjective.

I do accept your truth. I accept it as your truth. I am really fine with you believing what you believe. The thread has become rather drawn out because you objected to the idea that some of what you believe might be subjective.

The point of being “one with Christ” is relational, covenantal, by being conformed into the image of the Son by grace. We are “in Christ” by participation in that grace through the sacraments of the Church.

The sacraments are simply steps. The existential reality of your connection with God is directly, clearly and unquestionably pointed out by Christ many times. They just happen to be passages that don’t get discussed a lot in churches. This is quite natural though, because institutions don’t have a lot of interest in promoting ideas that feature the primacy of your own relationship with God. Their bread and butter is your need of a middle man. Jesus often chose wording that was rather ambiguous. I don’t know why, but this is one reason why there are so many different Churches. Perhaps it was because the Gospels were written so long after He died, or as believed by many well credentialed bible scholars, because they weren’t written by anyone who actually met Him. I don’t really know the reason. But on the matter of the nature of our relation to God, he was laser sharp, crisp, and direct.

And, according to the Scripture, we do become something other than what we currently are.

You become something other than what you think you are.

Not only is this absurd, and contradict history, but it is absolutely heretical.

Please stay on point. What part of history does it contradict? The part that hasn’t happened yet?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

PS:
My sin is being arrogant enough to post my last post where young Catholics may see it;
So please forgive me;
And Moderator please remove my post #153 if you think it’s inappropriate here;
However, that is a disadvantage in these forums, that is, not feeling free to speak one’s mind.

rex

There is nothing wrong with being honest about how you feel TaurusRex. If you repress it and avoid discussing it, you will never come to terms with it. I think it’s a healthy part of the growth process to ask questions and honestly discuss how you feel.

 

[TaurusRex]

This is a link to a movie documentary of part #1 of The First Crusade which I watched last night:

youtube.com/watch?v=4MwTrdfxAB8

You can find a link to part #2 in the list on the right inside when you open the link above.

Anyway, on first observation it seems that our Christian ancestors were no less guilty than the genocidal maniacs of the land of Canaan;
However, there are a few differences like for example the Pope did believe the Saracens were a threat to Christian Europe with their ongoing invasion of Christian lands;

And the emperor of Byzantium believing an invasion of Constantinople was imminent did ask the Pope for help;
While the Saracens did already seize Jerusalem considered the most holy city in the world.

Unfortunately though, individual crusaders did commit vile atrocities from rape, genocide and pillaging to cannibalism of children …
it was an arduous campaign though where lack of food and water were a constant threat to success of the crusade.
Finally one of the narrators does seem to be Muslim so the truth of the source may be exaggerated.

rex

 

[JamesCaruso]

I asked him, but he pleaded the fifth commandment.

 

[Amandil]

Unfortunately though, individual crusaders did commit vile atrocities from rape, genocide and pillaging to cannibalism of children …
it was an arduous campaign though where lack of food and water were a constant threat to success of the crusade.

And their “proof” of this is what, exactly?

It’s rather interesting that they supposedly did all these “atrocities” when they didn’t even have enough men to surround the city and didn’t bring with them the equipment to lay seige anyway.

When French ships arrived with seige engines the army was already six-to-eight months into the seige and they lost a quarter of the men they arrived with.

Did the historical revisionists ever bother to consider that, maybe, just maybe, that the population of the city just left for safety through another gate?

No.

That’s the thing about propaganda, the more salacious the accusation, the quicker people will believe it.

Finally one of the narrators does seem to be Muslim so the truth of the source may be exaggerated.

You think?

rex

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

And their “proof” of this is what, exactly?

It’s rather interesting that they supposedly did all these “atrocities” when they didn’t even have enough men to surround the city and didn’t bring with them the equipment to lay seige anyway.

When French ships arrived with seige engines the army was already six-to-eight months into the seige and they lost a quarter of the men they arrived with.

Did the historical revisionists ever bother to consider that, maybe, just maybe, that the population of the city just left for safety through another gate?

No.

That’s the thing about propaganda, the more salacious the accusation, the quicker people will believe it.

You think?

rex

Good evening Amandil: If we are going to give an account of the history of an event, we should take care to be forthcoming about all of the information. In this case, history gives clear accounts of atrocities committed by both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. It also gives an account of victims who were both Christians and Muslims. There was not a side that held the moral high ground. Religion doesn’t tip the balance of good and evil in the world. It simply gives good people a venue to do what good people do, and equally provides a venue for the bad to do what bad people do. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Jews, the burning of witches and the like are not a product of religion. They were the product of religious institutions, kings and governing bodies when the least among us rise to the top of them. Fortunately, the best among us sometimes rise as well. But for either side to paint a one sided account of these events greatly diminishes our credibility. It’s best to take ownership and move on. The history of Christianity is still being written, so we should do our best to present ourselves as the honest, well-intentioned folk we profess to be. The Crusaders and the people who sent them were far from saintly in their actions. Any true saint would know that to conquer the holy land inside of you is far greater an enterprise than arresting one’s attention on a holy land made of real estate.

Now, Amandil, if I know you correctly, I expect the word objective will pop up soon, so I thought I would provide a listing of published works by scholars on the matter for you to sort through before you, lest we venture to rewrite history:

Asbridge, Thomas (2011). The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. Ecco. ISBN 978-0-06-078729-5.
Asbridge, Thomas (2005). The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518905-6.
Barber, Malcolm (1992). The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050–1320. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09682-0.
Bernard of Clairvaux (2000). In Praise of the New Knighthood. Cistercian Publications. ISBN 978-0879071202.
Brand, Charles M. (April 1962). “The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185–1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade”. Speculum 37 (2): 167–181. doi:10.2307/2849946. JSTOR 2849946.
Bréhier, Louis (1908). “Crusades”. Catholic Encyclopedia 4.
Bull, Marcus (1999). “Origins”. In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–34. ISBN 0-19-280312-3.
Cohn, Norman (1970). The pursuit of the Millennium.
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe. Longman Group Limited. ISBN 0-582-78088-8.
Davies, Norman (1997). Europe – A History. Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6633-8.
Dickson, Gary (2008). The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory. Palgrave Macmillan.
Edington, Susan B. and Lambert, Sarah (2002). Gendering the Crusades. New York: Columbia University Press.
Esposito, John L. What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam.
Findley, Carter Vaughan (2005). The Turks in World History. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516770-8.
Heng, Geraldine (2004). Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12527-7 Check |isbn= value (help).
Hillenbrand, Carole (1999). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hindley, Geoffrey. The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy. New York: Carrol & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1344-5.
Hodgson, Natasha (2007). Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative. Boydell.
Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil: Some more sources:

Holt, P. M. (1983). “Saladin and His Admirers: A Biographical Reassessment”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 46 (2): 235–239. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00078824. JSTOR 615389.
Housley, Norman (2006). Contesting the Crusades. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-1189-5.
Jackson, Peter (2007). The Seventh Crusade, 1244–1254.
Kahf, Mohja (1999). Western Representations of the Muslim Women: From Termagant to Odalisque. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-74337-3.
Kolbaba, T. M. (2000). The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. University of Illinois.
Lewis, Richard D. (2005). Finland: Cultural Lone Wolf. Intercultural Press. ISBN 978-1-931930-49-9.
Lock, Peter (2006). Routledge Companion to the Crusades. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39312-4.
Madden, Thomas F. (2005). The New Concise History of the Crusades. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-3822-1.
Marshall, Christopher (1994). Warfare in the Latin East, 1192-1291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521477420.
Mayer, Hans Eberhard (1988). The Crusades (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-873097-7.
Munro, Dana Carleton (January 1906). “The Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095”. American Historical Review 11 (2): 231–242. doi:10.2307/1834642. JSTOR 1834642.
Nelson, Laura N. The Byzantine Perspective of the First Crusade.
Nicholson, Helen (1997). “Women on the Third Crusade”. Journal of Medieval History 23 (4): 335. doi:10.1016/S0304-4181(97)00013-4.
Nicolle, David (2007). Crusader Warfare Volume II: Muslims, Mongols and the Struggle against the Crusades.
Nicolle, David (2003). The First Crusade 1066–99: Conquest of the Holy Land. Campaign. Wellingborough, UK: Osprey. ISBN 1-84176-515-5.
Nicolle, David (2011). The Fourth Crusade 1202–04: The Betrayal of Byzantium. Osprey Publishing.
Pringle, Denys (1999). “Architecture in Latin East”. In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 155–175. ISBN 0-19-280312-3.
Owen, Roy Douglas Davis (1993). Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Retso, Jan (2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7007-1679-1.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1973). The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Hamden: Archon Books. ISBN 9780208013484.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1990). The Atlas of the Crusades. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 0-8160-2186-4.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2005). The Crusades: A Short History (Second ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10128-7.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1997). The First Crusaders 1096–1131. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, Karen (2009) “The Order of the Knights Templar”
Runciman, Steven (1951). A History of the Crusades: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (reprinted 1987 ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, Andrew (1995). Jerusalem: The Endless Crusade. New York: Crown Publishers.
Strayer, Joseph Reese (1992). The Albigensian Crusades. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-06476-2.
Strayer, Joseph R. (1969). “The Crusades of Louis IX”. In Wolff, R. L. and Hazard, H. W. The Later Crusades, 1189–1311. pp. 487–521.
Tolan, John Victor Norman (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12333-4.
Tolan, John; Veinstein, Gilles and Henry Laurens (2013). Europe and the Islamic World: A History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14705-5.
Tyerman, Christopher (1988). England and the Crusades, 1095–1588. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-82013-0.
Tyerman, Christopher (2006). God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02387-1.
Vasilʹev, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (1952). History of the Byzantine Empire: 324–1453. University of Wisconsin Press.
Villegas-Aristizábal, L. (2009). “Anglo-Norman involvement in the conquest of Tortosa and Settlement of Tortosa, 1148–1180”. Crusades (8): 63–129.
Wickham, Chris (2009). The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400–1000. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-311742-1.
Zacour, Norman P. (1969). “The Children’s Crusade”. In Wolff, R. L. and Hazard, H. W. The Later Crusades, 1189–1311. pp. 325–342.
Thanks,
Gary

 

[TaurusRex]

And their “proof” of this is what, exactly?

It’s rather interesting that they supposedly did all these “atrocities” when they didn’t even have enough men to surround the city and didn’t bring with them the equipment to lay seige anyway.

When French ships arrived with seige engines the army was already six-to-eight months into the seige and they lost a quarter of the men they arrived with.

Did the historical revisionists ever bother to consider that, maybe, just maybe, that the population of the city just left for safety through another gate?

No.

That’s the thing about propaganda, the more salacious the accusation, the quicker people will believe it.

You think?

rex

Yes Amandil,
my words in my last post were just a mild summary of words I heard in the video and now I realize why some of us don’t like videos, that is, because they can’t be directly quoted;
And actually I do wish the words I summarized from the video could be disproven because I did say that the source might be an exaggeration of the truth (so to speak);

However, because you’re calling me down again for my comments, I refer you to the two posts of Gary Sheldrake which precede this post (he certainly has provided plenty of sources for you to read );
But I did also find some words to quote to support my words and also yours if that will satisfy you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Crusade

Siege of Antioch

the Muslim peasants in the area refused to supply the crusaders with food. Thus, in December, after the Arab town of Ma’arrat al-Numan was captured following a siege, history describes the first occurrence of cannibalism among the crusaders …

they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled

Massacre

The massacre that followed the capture of Jerusalem has attained particular notoriety, as a “juxtaposition of extreme violence and anguished faith”.[97] The eyewitness accounts from the crusaders themselves leave little doubt that there was great slaughter in the aftermath of the siege. Nevertheless, some historians propose that the scale of the massacre has been exaggerated in later medieval sources, partly as a result of influence from Muslim sources, and partly as a result of the misinterpretation of the Crusaders’ resort to apocalyptic language to describe the scenes.[96] Although, some scholars believe that these later medieval sources were not meant to be taken seriously and that is the fault of modern people because they cannot tell the difference.[98] Contemporary Muslim reactions to the massacre were muted when compared to later polemics on the subject …

The slaughter continued for the rest of the day; Muslims were indiscriminately killed, and Jews who had taken refuge in their synagogue died when it was burnt down by the Crusaders. The following day, Tancred’s prisoners in the mosque were slaughtered.
Nevertheless, it is clear that some Muslims and Jews of the city survived the massacre, either escaping or being taken prisoner to be ransomed.[96] The Eastern Christian population of the city had been expelled before the siege by the governor, and thus escaped the massacre.

The first quote from Wiki above does support that atrocities were committed by the crusaders;
While the first paragraph of the second quote does support my opinion that the video may have been exaggerated and also Muslim slanted;

But finally although the last paragraph of the second quote continues to mention atrocities by the crusaders, it also makes mention of your opinion that some of the “population of the city just left for safety through another gate”.

rex

 

[Amandil]

Good evening Amandil: If we are going to give an account of the history of an event, we should take care to be forthcoming about all of the information. In this case, history gives clear accounts of atrocities committed by both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. It also gives an account of victims who were both Christians and Muslims. There was not a side that held the moral high ground. Religion doesn’t tip the balance of good and evil in the world. It simply gives good people a venue to do what good people do, and equally provides a venue for the bad to do what bad people do. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Jews, the burning of witches and the like are not a product of religion. They were the product of religious institutions, kings and governing bodies when the least among us rise to the top of them. Fortunately, the best among us sometimes rise as well. But for either side to paint a one sided account of these events greatly diminishes our credibility. It’s best to take ownership and move on. The history of Christianity is still being written, so we should do our best to present ourselves as the honest, well-intentioned folk we profess to be. The Crusaders and the people who sent them were far from saintly in their actions. Any true saint would know that to conquer the holy land inside of you is far greater an enterprise than arresting one’s attention on a holy land made of real estate.

Now, Amandil, if I know you correctly, I expect the word objective will pop up soon, so I thought I would provide a listing of published works by scholars on the matter for you to sort through before you, lest we venture to rewrite history:

Asbridge, Thomas (2011). The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. Ecco. ISBN 978-0-06-078729-5.
Asbridge, Thomas (2005). The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518905-6.
Barber, Malcolm (1992). The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050–1320. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09682-0.
Bernard of Clairvaux (2000). In Praise of the New Knighthood. Cistercian Publications. ISBN 978-0879071202.
Brand, Charles M. (April 1962). “The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185–1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade”. Speculum 37 (2): 167–181. doi:10.2307/2849946. JSTOR 2849946.
Bréhier, Louis (1908). “Crusades”. Catholic Encyclopedia 4.
Bull, Marcus (1999). “Origins”. In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–34. ISBN 0-19-280312-3.
Cohn, Norman (1970). The pursuit of the Millennium.
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe. Longman Group Limited. ISBN 0-582-78088-8.
Davies, Norman (1997). Europe – A History. Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6633-8.
Dickson, Gary (2008). The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory. Palgrave Macmillan.
Edington, Susan B. and Lambert, Sarah (2002). Gendering the Crusades. New York: Columbia University Press.
Esposito, John L. What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam.
Findley, Carter Vaughan (2005). The Turks in World History. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516770-8.
Heng, Geraldine (2004). Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12527-7 Check |isbn= value (help).
Hillenbrand, Carole (1999). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hindley, Geoffrey. The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy. New York: Carrol & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1344-5.
Hodgson, Natasha (2007). Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative. Boydell.
Thank you,
Gary

Gary, frankly, I really have no reason to discuss anything further with you, so I have no intention of following your rabbit trail. I was responding to rex’s false statement regarding the first crusade and the siege of Jerusalem.

Given that I only recognize maybe four credible names from your list, and that you leave off anything from Warren Carroll or Reza Aslam, and that historical revisionism involving the Crusades is a quite lucrative way for these “scholars” to make money, I doubt any such discussion would even be profitable much less an utter waste of time.

Besides, if what you say is true, precisely what could you or I gain from any of their words since they didn’t “experience” anything of the crusades themselves, their words are, according to you, “meaningless” to your “experience”, or mine.

 

[Amandil]

Yes Amandil,
my words in my last post were just a mild summary of words I heard in the video and now I realize why some of us don’t like videos, that is, because they can’t be directly quoted;
And actually I do wish the words I summarized from the video could be disproven because I did say that the source might be an exaggeration of the truth (so to speak);

However, because you’re calling me down again for my comments, I refer you to the two posts of Gary Sheldrake which precede this post (he certainly has provided plenty of sources for you to read );
But I did also find some words to quote to support my words and also yours if that will satisfy you:

The first quote from Wiki above does support that atrocities were committed by the crusaders;
While the first paragraph of the second quote does support my opinion that the video may have been exaggerated and also Muslim slanted;

But finally although the last paragraph of the second quote continues to mention atrocities by the crusaders, it also makes mention of your opinion that some of the “population of the city just left for safety through another gate”.

rex

Yes, and wikipedia can never be edited by anyone, I’m sure.

As far as Mr. Sheldrake and his interjection, I could really care less about most of his “sources”. Madden, Strayer, and of course Bernard of Clairvaux are the only ones I’d give any consideration to if I wasn’t already aware of them and have read those works.

The myth of the “atrocities” of the siege of Jerusalem is all it is; a myth. There has never been found any mass graves from the time of the first Crusade, which would certainly follow if such a mass “atrocity” took place because Christians didn’t burn bodies(cremation was illegal according to the Church, and it is literally impossible for blood to be “up to the knees” of the Crusaders as the popular calumny goes. Also lets ignore the character of the character alone of Godfrey de Bouillon(who was commanding the siege and was a man of near impeccable character who I sincerely doubt would never have permitted his men to do what these so-called “scholars” accuse him of allowing).

Going back to the fact that the Crusader army didn’t have sufficient men to surround the city to begin with, and that the only information that they use to account for the “atrocity” is the difference of the population before and after the siege, the “conclusion” these “scholars” draw is ultimately biased and prejudiced. I’d trust them as historical experts as I would trust Obama to be a fiscal policy expert.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From: Amandil: Given that I only recognize maybe four credible names from your list, and that you leave off anything from Warren Carroll or Reza Aslam, and that historical revisionism involving the Crusades is a quite lucrative way for these “scholars” to make money, I doubt any such discussion would even be profitable much less an utter waste of time.

Good morning Amandil: Again, let’s be careful to stay on point. I said that atrocities were committed by both sides of the Crusades. That is not revisionist history. The Holy Wars were not Holy because of their objectives or the means by which they were carried out. They are called holy wars because tradition has named them such. They were bloody sectarian conflicts over pride and real estate. I doubt if the events or the outcomes of these enterprises would be very agreeable to Christ.

Besides, if what you say is true, precisely what could you or I gain from any of their words since they didn’t “experience” anything of the crusades themselves, their words are, according to you, “meaningless” to your “experience”, or mine.

Historians, artifacts and records are the only source we have of history. That is not the same as trading one’s own direct experience of a God who is present in the here and now and accessible to us directly for writings that express someone else’s experience. The two things are easily distinguishable from one another. You cannot have your own direct experience of the crusades, but you can have your own direct experience of God.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[meltzerboy]

Good morning Mettzerboy - I hope all is well with you today. Actually, the sound produced by the falling tree requires both the tree and an instrument that converts vibrations in the atmosphere into sound, such as our ears or a recording device. It is the interaction between the tree and the observer that produces sound.

Moreover, I think the answer to this old philosophical question was settled on a much more complex level by Weaver’s Delayed Choice Experiment back in the 1970’s, I think it was. No potential reality actually collapses into a reality without an observer. The experiment can be found in most physics books published after 1980, or can be googled. It seems that the interplay between the observer and that which is observed produces the world around us. Moreover, nothing does anything independently of another thing, which is a rather simple concept, however, the necessity of the observer is much more profound and broad in its implications.

This is so interesting, Gary! IOW, sound as a sensation (as well as all of the other senses) is a product of the interaction between the perceiver and the percept (stimulus), and is not merely inherent in the stimulus. Otherwise, we’re talking only about frequency rather than sensation. And if this is true for sensation (sensory perception), imagine how much truer it must be with regard to cognitive perception, which involves a higher-order interpretation of the stimulus. Nothing objective about that. NONETHELESS, I still wonder whether all of this can be translated to the realm of G-d, the Supreme Being. Logically, perhaps; substantively, perhaps not.

 

[Amandil]

Historians, artifacts and records are the only source we have of history.

So the historical records of the Apostles called the Scriptures which describe events which they witnessed, which have been safeguarded by the Church, are less reliable than these “historians” and the records they rely upon?

Or is that you have a bias and prejudice against the Bible because it includes records of miracles which you and your demythologizing “scholars” have prejudicially concluded are not possible?

That is not the same as trading one’s own direct experience of a God who is present in the here and now and accessible to us directly for writings that express someone else’s experience.

False dichotomy. The Church teaches that we learn who Christ is by both the objective witness of Scriptures AND the subjective experience of prayer. The Church has always held to the practice of lectio divina.

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”(Luke 10:16)

“We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.”(1 John 4:6)

Clearly you’re mistaken.

The two things are easily distinguishable from one another. You cannot have your own direct experience of the crusades, but you can have your own direct experience of God.

Thanks,
Gary

Whatever you say.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

This is so interesting, Gary! IOW, sound as a sensation (as well as all of the other senses) is a product of the interaction between the perceiver and the percept (stimulus), and is not merely inherent in the stimulus. Otherwise, we’re talking only about frequency rather than sensation. And if this is true for sensation (sensory perception), imagine how much truer it must be with regard to cognitive perception, which involves a higher-order interpretation of the stimulus. Nothing objective about that. NONETHELESS, I still wonder whether all of this can be translated to the realm of G-d, the Supreme Being. Logically, perhaps; substantively, perhaps not.

Good Evening Melzerboy: I’m glad that you think it’s interesting. I do think it points to a lot in the realm of God. Did you get a chance to check out Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment, or the link I provided to the Mandelbrot Set? The Mandelbrot set is mathematical, but the visual depiction I sent the link to gives what I think to be some very profound insight into the nature of God. You have to watch the whole thing to start getting “ideas”. The good new is it only takes five minutes to watch. There is no talking. in it.

youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A

It’s based on fractal geometry.

Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment in physics is even more profound, but talks some time to understand, but once you do, it has implications that are strangely Upanishadic.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil;So the historical records of the Apostles called the Scriptures which describe events which they witnessed, which have been safeguarded by the Church, are less reliable than these “historians” and the records they rely upon?

Good Evening Amandil: The problem with religious zealotry is that it sees affront where there is no affront. I have never discounted the accounts of the apostles. If you look again, you will see that I said that your own account is much better. The difference between what the apostles wrote about their encounter with God, and what history says about the crusades is that I will never have my own direct experience with the crusades. They’re over. I missed them (thank God). God is not over. I didn’t miss God. God is alive in the here and now. I can know God directly.

Or is that you have a bias and prejudice against the Bible because it includes records of miracles which you and your demythologizing “scholars” have prejudicially concluded are not possible?

I don’t recall saying that miracles aren’t possible. I just said that they are not universally accepted as being true. They are not provable wither way. They are not provable as false. They are not provable as true. I have seen things that appear to me miracles. I have seen things that appear to be magic. I am open to the idea that they were miracles, and that the magic was magic. But I really don’t know for sure what they were, but whatever the case, I cannot say for certain. I have this deep and troubling inking about miracles though, and here’s what think: I think God isn’t really all that interested in playing parlor tricks for us. Anyway, I saw this incorruptible saint in a church once. The tour guide said it was a miracle. It looked rather well preserved. But it also looked rather rotted too. I thought to myself “hmm, this is a rather troubling miracle.” Then I thought about the genocide that was happening in Rwanda at the time, and I thought “what a great venue for a miracle!” No miracle happened in Rwanda. I was left with the miracle in front of me, which somehow didn’t seem entirely right.

False dichotomy. The Church teaches that we learn who Christ is by both the objective witness of Scriptures AND the subjective experience of prayer. The Church has always held to the practice of lectio divina.

That is indeed true - the Church teaches that.

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”(Luke 10:16)

Yes, well this is all good reason to accept him by getting to know him yourself. I highly recommend it. You probably see God everyday, but I’m wondering if you’ve noticed him. I wonder how many people curse the treasure chest (having tripped on it) because they’re busy reading the map that tells where the treasure is.

 

[Amandil]

Good Evening Amandil: The problem with religious zealotry is that it sees affront where there is no affront. I have never discounted the accounts of the apostles.

If someone belittles your family members or says that they’re “myopic” or inconsequential, even though its said with “good intentions”, it still doesn’t negate the fact that they are saying that my family is irrelevant.

You said that their accounts were irrelevant to anyone else’s “experience” of Jesus.

You are necessarily discriminating between your personal “experience” and their’s.

Thus you are discriminating against their “account” of Christ as well: the Bible. Which God through His providence ordained to be as a record of His deeds among men.

You are thus saying that God’s providence is irrelevant to your “experience” of God as well.

If you look again, you will see that I said that your own account is much better.

Which again only proves my point. Is it your contention that your “experience”(which given your previous statements it even begs the question if your “experiences” are even true).

The difference between what the apostles wrote about their encounter with God, and what history says about the crusades is that I will never have my own direct experience with the crusades. They’re over. I missed them (thank God). God is not over. I didn’t miss God. God is alive in the here and now. I can know God directly.

Which given what you write begs the question.

I don’t recall saying that miracles aren’t possible. I just said that they are not universally accepted as being true. They are not provable wither way. They are not provable as false. They are not provable as true.

“Objective” doesn’t mean “publically proven.” We’ve already covered this.

And are you claiming that the Resurrection is not an objective fact?

I have seen things that appear to me miracles. I have seen things that appear to be magic. I am open to the idea that they were miracles, and that the magic was magic. But I really don’t know for sure what they were, but whatever the case, I cannot say for certain.

Which doesn’t prove anything except the limits of subjectivism to answer anything.

Miracles themselves are miraculous based on the authority of the person of God who by definition cannot lie(the objective Source of reality, not the being which you have created in your mind).

Yes, well this is all good reason to accept him by getting to know him yourself. I highly recommend it. You probably see God everyday, but I’m wondering if you’ve noticed him. I wonder how many people curse the treasure chest (having tripped on it) because they’re busy reading the map that tells where the treasure is.

Who says that I don’t? You?

Whatever you say…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil;11833157]If someone belittles your family members or says that they’re “myopic” or inconsequential, even though its said with “good intentions”, it still doesn’t negate the fact that they are saying that my family is irrelevant.

If you are still seeing such things as “your family” and “my family,” “my nation” and “their nation,” then I think you have missed the point altogether.

You said that their accounts were irrelevant to anyone else’s “experience” of Jesus.

No, I only said that your account should be the primary account.

You are necessarily discriminating between your personal “experience” and their’s.

Yes.

Thus you are discriminating against their “account” of Christ as well: the Bible. Which God through His providence ordained to be as a record of His deeds among men.

I never marginalized anyone’s account. I have recommended your own account as being best.

You are thus saying that God’s providence is irrelevant to your “experience” of God as well.

My experience of God has no bearing on God’s providence. It’s simply my experience.

Which again only proves my point. Is it your contention that your “experience”(which given your previous statements it even begs the question if your “experiences” are even true).

See for yourself, and we can compare notes.

“Objective” doesn’t mean “publically proven.” We’ve already covered this.

Yes, you’re right - we have already covered this.

And are you claiming that the Resurrection is not an objective fact?

It’s a belief. I share that belief, however, it’s a belief nonetheless.

Miracles themselves are miraculous based on the authority of the person of God who by definition cannot lie(the objective Source of reality, not the being which you have created in your mind).

Yes, but people can mistake things for miracles, and this has nothing to do with the authority of God.