Christian Fundamentalism

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 pm

xyz;843103 wrote: Funny, so did I.

Where? Since I asked :-

Bryn Mawr;842522 wrote: Might I ask which particular sect make up the few true Christians?

you've been ducking and weaving trying to avoid answering.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:27 pm

Bryn Mawr;843109 wrote: you've been ducking and weaving trying to avoid answering.
Does that mean I'm not a Christian?

BHughesNC · Post by **BHughesNC** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:46 pm

xyz;842488 wrote: Denominations are non-Christian, and most of those in them are non-Christians. Almost all in the USA who claim to be Christians are not Christians.

" They were called Christians first in Antioch "

Christians are followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Do you know all the teachings of Christ so that you can judge a person whether they are a Christian or not?

If I claim to be a Christian Fundamentalist to me that means I follow the teachings of Christ not what someone that does not know Christ has added or taken away from His teachings

Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Bobby

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:12 pm

BHughesNC;843161 wrote:

Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Bibles in modern English are available.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:16 pm

xyz;843148 wrote: Does that mean I'm not a Christian?

I have no idea what you are but if you will not answer a simple question why should I waste my time with you?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:25 pm

Bryn Mawr;843177 wrote: I have no idea what you are
Ok.

There is no such thing as Christian fundamentalism. One is either a Christian, or one is not. Those who take a political stance and say that they have backing from Christian precepts are misguided or lying. Those who say that belief in creation in six days is essential, are misguided, or lying.

The Christian is one who is justified before God by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross. Those who are justified are changed in their motivation, and behave differently after conversion. That is because the convert hands over control of his/her life to God. People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way. They will just put people under strains that they do not have the motivation to cope with.

The YECer (Young Earth Creationist) makes an issue out of a non-issue. Christians can believe in 6-day creation or not, it does not matter at all- unless they are scientists!

If someone talks a lot about politics or against evolution, we can be quite sure that such a person is not a Christian.

BHughesNC · Post by **BHughesNC** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:43 pm

xyz;843176 wrote: Bibles in modern English are available.

" 4 real, wassup w/that?":-2

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:35 pm

xyz: You devalued the credibility of your faction with ever dodge. Surely it isn't a sin to say, "Oh, I hadn't thought about that?"

Ah well, at least we're not burning witches any more.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:46 pm

Clodhopper;843283 wrote: xyz: You devalued the credibility of your faction with ever dodge.
That's all you people seem to have; ad hom. Debate seems utterly beyond you.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:07 pm

Accountable;842572 wrote: So no politician can ever claim to be a Christian?

I'm never comfortable declaring anyone "not a Christian" once they claim to be. I'm also wary of anyone so prideful as to make such a declaration. The best I can hope for is to live my own life in a reasonable facsimile of what I understand a Christian life should be.

xyz;842574 wrote: Not as part of the political 'package', no.

There cannot be a more unChristian comment than that, from anyone who has read Christ's words.Care to explain that one?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:08 pm

xyz;843284 wrote: That's all you people seem to have; ad hom. Debate seems utterly beyond you.
Anybody else smell somethin?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:11 pm

Accountable;843289 wrote: Care to explain that one?
Have you read the gospels?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:12 pm

I was just going, but (sniff, sniff) yeah, me too. Distinctly of the.....farmyard.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:15 pm

xyz;843292 wrote: Have you read the gospels?
Yes, but it's been some time. Take off the debate gloves a sec and teach me, please. How is it unChristian to accept a person at his word?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:17 pm

Accountable;843295 wrote: Yes, but it's been some time.
I thought so.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:23 pm

xyz;843296 wrote: I thought so.

Is this your idea of Christian behavior? I ask for information & your response is to snub? Thanks for showing your true colors so that we don't have to waste time on you.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:31 pm

Accountable;843297 wrote: Is this your idea of Christian behavior? I ask for information & your response is to snub? Thanks for showing your true colors so that we don't have to waste time on you.
:wah: Can't you think of your own lines?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:59 pm

xyz;843284 wrote: That's all you people seem to have; ad hom. Debate seems utterly beyond you.

Debate is, in part, about responding to questions. How is pointing out your refusal to answer questions an attack against you as a person? It is an observation about your lack of debating skills.

By referring to members of this forum as "you people" you reveal a lot about your attitude and your motivation. I would suggest that you either join up or stop playing games.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:07 am

Bryn Mawr;843412 wrote: Debate is, in part, about responding to questions.
Good! What do you think of #134? Let's get this debate started.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:28 am

xyz;842466 wrote: There is no such thing as Christian fundamentalism. One is either a Christian, or one is not. Those who take a political stance and say that they have backing from Christian precepts are misguided or lying. Those who say that belief in creation is six days is essential, are misguided, or lying.

The Christian is one who is justified before God by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross. Those who are justified are changed in their motivation, and behave differently after conversion. That is because the convert hands over control of his/her life to God. People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way. They will just put people under strains that they do not have the motivation to cope with.

The YECer (Young Earth Creationist) makes an issue out of a non-issue. Christians can believe in 6-day creation or not, it does not matter at all- unless they are scientists!

If someone talks a lot about politics or against evolution, we can be quite sure that such a person is not a Christian.

Actually there is such a thing whether you like or or not.

from the Oxford English dictionary

fundamentalism

• noun 1 a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.

— DERIVATIVES fundamentalist noun & adjective.

The pilgrim fathers were such and they got kicked out of england-because they were so obnoxious-and left for the colonies where they have been a destructive force ever since. There was even a fundamentalist christian government in england at one point the experience of which was so dreadful getting a king back seemed a good idea.

People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way.

very true, doesn't stop them trying though does it. I am holier (righter ) than thou therefore thou shouldst not argue with me.

If someone talks a lot about politics or against evolution, we can be quite sure that such a person is not a Christian.

Half agree with you, JC was very political not sure what he would hace said about evolution though-suppose he could always ask his dad-unless of course you favour the Unitarian version of Christianity-or is that one of the denominations that's not christian?

Who gave you the right to decide? There's a german visiting the US just now from italy on a world tour who might take issue with you on your right to decide who is christian. I'm not one by the way.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:19 am

gmc;843910 wrote: from the Oxford English dictionary
A very good dictionary, but even the best of dictionaries draw upon common usage, not necessarily expertise. So to cite a language dictionary is to use circular argument. One must deal with my facts and logic, or concede.

The pilgrim fathers were such
They were not Christians...

and they got kicked out of england
... any more than those who kicked them were Christians.

very true
Then there seems to be agreement that they are not Christians.

JC was very political
In what way?

not sure what he would hace said about evolution though
So is it the case that those who support evolution cannot be Christians?

Who gave you the right to decide?
Signatories of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There's a german visiting the US just now from italy on a world tour who might take issue with you on your right to decide who is christian.
Is he a Nazi, or a Stalinist? Mussolini and Hitler are both dead. In democracies, everyone has the right to decide. Inconvenient, ridiculous, at times, but worth it.

I'm not one by the way.
Not a Nazi or Stalinist?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:30 am

Since it is God alone who is the judge I wonder who gave anyone else the right to judge.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:22 pm

Rather than us the rather common dictionary that relies on common usage I've gone to the "New Dictionary of Theology", Ed by S. B Ferguson and D. F. Wright, and by J. I. Packer.

The definition is supplied by G. M. Marsden, B.A., B.D, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of the History of Christianity in America, the Divinity School, Duke University, Durham. North Carolina.

Since the definition is almost three pages long I will not bother to write it out. However it is there for anyone to check. pg 266-267.

I also checked the "Encyclopedia of Christianity" ed. by John Bowden former professor of theology at Nottingham University. Once again the definition is rather lengthy but is available to anyone who wants to check it. pg. 481-482.

This is from the specialists.

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:29 pm

posted by xyz

A very good dictionary, but even the best of dictionaries draw upon common usage, not necessarily expertise. So to cite a language dictionary is to use circular argument. One must deal with my facts and logic, or concede.

Words are how we communicate and have specific meaning which can sometimes change in usage. The word gay being a classic example of a word where usage has changed it's earlier meaning. Fundamentalist hasn't changed in meaning for about three hundred years since the term was first coined. That is a fact. The fact that you disagree with the definition is interesting and would be even more so if you came up with a logical reason but you don't. All you do is declaim your opinion and expect people to be impressed. If you came up with some facts or logic possibly I might agree with you-possibly I might not. As to linguistic expertise if yours is greater than the compilers of the Oxford English dictionary please do enlighten.

posted by xyz

Quote:

The pilgrim fathers were such

They were not Christians...

In your opinion. Indeed there were several wars to settle such agreements.

posted by xyz

Quote:

and they got kicked out of england

... any more than those who kicked them were Christians.

Again in your opinion. Although each believed they were in the right strongly enough to kill each other over the issue. There is something rather ironic about Christians killing each other over who is the better Christian. Much as sunni and shia kill each other over who is the better muslim.

posted by xyz

Quote:

very true

Then there seems to be agreement that they are not Christians.

No read it properly

Quote:

People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way.

very true, doesn't stop them trying though does it. I am holier (righter ) than thou therefore thou shouldst not argue with me. I was agreeing that trtyiong to impose laws would not help make christians

posted by xyz

Is he a Nazi, or a Stalinist? Mussolini and Hitler are both dead. In democracies, everyone has the right to decide. Inconvenient, ridiculous, at times, but worth it.

No he's the pope.

posted by xyz

Not a Nazi or Stalinist?

I would refer you to the whole paragraph

Who gave you the right to decide? There's a german visiting the US just now from italy on a world tour who might take issue with you on your right to decide who is christian. I'm not one by the way.

Either you have trouble with semantics, are being deliberately obtuse because you think it clever or English is not your first language.

posted by xyz

The Christian is one who is justified before God by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross. Those who are justified are changed in their motivation, and behave differently after conversion.

But are they justified and ancient?

:osorry couldn't resist.

kung moo version

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:43 pm

gmc;844274 wrote: The fact that you disagree with the definition is interesting and would be even more so if you came up with a logical reason but you don't.
You kindly did that for us.

No he's the pope.
He is 'the Father'? Is that in the dictionary, too?

But are they justified and ancient?
People can become Christians at any age, provided they understand the gospel.

Is it the case that those who support evolution cannot be Christians?

.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:49 pm

posted by xyz

Is it the case that those who support evolution cannot be Christians?

Rather depends on how you define what a christian is does it not?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:51 pm

gmc;844319 wrote: posted by xyz

Rather depends on how you define what a christian is does it not?
Use your own definition!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc View Post

posted by xyz

Rather depends on how you define what a christian is does it not?

Use your own definition!

You're the one claiming to know what a christian is.

xyz;842488 wrote: Denominations are non-Christian, and most of those in them are non-Christians. Almost all in the USA who claim to be Christians are not Christians.

The spectacle of christians arguing about what constitutes a proper christian is one of the sillier aspects of religion. You're coming across as one of those opinionated people that is not terribly practised at expressing yourself and can't yet quite come to terms with the reality that just because you believe something doesn't mean others will agree and be stunned in to respectful silence by your perspicacity. Either that or you are a troll which is another word, similar to gay, where usage had given new meaning. .

Personally I would define a christian as someone who believes in the divinity of jesus christ who then, judging from this and other threads and history , then spends endless time overlooking the common ground of that rather startling belief arguing about, and indeed occasionally going to war, over who has the correct way of worshipping completely ignoring the main point of his teaching, which comment is probably grossly unfair to many who do try to follow their own version of his teaching.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:06 am

gmc;844499 wrote: You're the one claiming to know what a christian is.
I reckon that an evolutionist can be a Christian (and indeed most Christians under 80 y-o are evolutionists, imv).

So is my definition lacking something? Is it you who really knows what a Christian is?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:03 am

xyz: Still answering questions with questions and refusing to repond to other people's posts except with denials, I see.

Hey ho, it puts Jester in a much better light. At least he argues his case, rather than playing juvenile semantic games!

I stuggle to see in what way you are a Christian at all, given the arrogance and offensiveness of your posts. Unless you are actually a precocious 14 year old (an increasing suspicion), in which case you are forgiven, but need to study more and be a smartarse less.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:35 pm

(Wiki)

Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism," seeing it as a pejorative term for historic Christian doctrine while to others it has become a banner of pride.

I see it as an attempt to rectify the historical doctrine of the Christian name by virtue of atonement...

One thing's for sure,..and that's I can't say I wholeheartedly believe in the "Holy Crusades" nor the acts preluding them...

I believe it was the 4th crusade from which the Pope himself did not initiate nor condone...

I've only read briefly on it but I have to say I find all acts of aggression to be wrong and immoral when it's not based upon 100% certainty of preemptive solution especially when it's primarily instigated by the arrogance of greed...

At the same time I'm not voicing my justification of the Jihad either...

I'm going to read more about it...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:35 am

K.Snyder;956533 wrote:

I believe it was the 4th crusade from which the Pope himself did not initiate nor condone...

I should clarify...

Pope Innocent III did initiate the 4th crusade but his intention was "to conquer Muslim Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt" from which he'd given specific orders in doing so "with a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states"...

Instead, in April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and conquered the Christian (Eastern Orthodox) city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire. This is seen as one of the final acts in the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church. It has been often described as one of the most profitable and disgraceful sacks of a city in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

From which he'd condemned the actions of the crusaders...Which alone should be enough to question all peoples within any religion if you can't question this...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:13 pm

Two points.

The Bible tells us not to judge. That is God's role alone.

It is not appropriate to judge the past on the basis of today. Any past society or activities of that society must be judged on the basis of their point in history.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:43 am

Ted;964552 wrote: Two points.

The Bible tells us not to judge. That is God's role alone.
That's one interpretation among many.

I believe the passage is 'judge not lest ye be judged' or something to that effect, which means (to me, of course) don't condemn someone for doing something you yourself are guilty of. In other words, don't be a hypocrite.

People who decide to follow the Bible's teachings do so after making the judgment that The Word is true and good. Most people use the 'don't judge' passage as a tool of judgment against people who they feel have been judgmental.

Everybody judges. Everybody must judge. Judgment is a tool, and any tool can be used, misused, and abused. It's the care we take in judging that is important - lest we be judged.

At least that's how I judge it.

ronin · Post by **ronin** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am

My favourite line in the bible is simply, let those without guilt throw the first stone.

Ok first off, I know this rules me out from ever even picking up a stone.

As to the fundimentalism question, i think all fundimentalists are dangerous. these are the people who will not listen to another persons point of view. they are the ones that kill on the premise that their religion is superior and that all others must die.

All religions have nut cases like this involved with them and if they took an honest look at themselves they would find that they are really upsetting whatever god they happened to believe in.

I true christian will listen to your arguements and if they are backed up by facts will agree that you are correct. they will also point to the bible and show you why they believe what they do.

I think a true christian will use what god has given them in the manner intended. I am talking primarily of the brain.

Personally I have a HUGE problem with religion but I respect other peoples points of view. does this make me a good athiest?

ronin · Post by **ronin** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:14 am

Ok my mistake, I didn't clarify. in my oppinion there are fundimentalists and devout believers.

the fundo's are the nut jobs.

however there are people of every faith who believe deeply in their religion and who do NOT cause harm to others, even if their faith is not open for debate.

I call these people believers. people who are concirned about their belief and how they can better serve their god and HELP the community.

I know some of each. I am no longer a christian because of fundos and their attitudes and lack of support for people other than temselves. I can give examples but wont give them here.

I also know a few devout believers. I GuyI know has talked to me about god and when I didn't respond favourably simply said, "somewhere down the track maybe you will chance your mind and he will be waiting"

I respect him because he respected me.

I hope that makes sense.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:38 pm

ronin:-6

Well put and yes it does make sense.

I've spent some 10 years on a few forums trying to get the same message across but the fundys do not want to listen. I've been saying the same thing. What happened to you is precisely my point. I had the same experiences but chose to remain in trust in God.

I have no problem with your position and I think, God, if S/He exists, and I believe in the reality of God, will have no problem with your position.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:17 am

Ted;964552 wrote: Two points.

The Bible tells us not to judge. That is God's role alone.

It is not appropriate to judge the past on the basis of today. Any past society or activities of that society must be judged on the basis of their point in history.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Are you referring to the word "judged" in the context of "Gods'" doing?...

I hope so...Otherwise this post is contradicting in the extreme...

On the same note I myself do not waste a minute in ignoring those to whom I feel are wrong whilst acting in the name of my God...Which ultimately means they're following a false God...

But I do so hate when people refer to "God" as "he"...

It undermines the entire concept of what real righteousness truly is...No face.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:22 am

Ted;964552 wrote: Two points.

The Bible tells us not to judge. That is God's role alone.

It is not appropriate to judge the past on the basis of today. Any past society or activities of that society must be judged on the basis of their point in history.

Shalom

Ted:-6

What's your take on the crusades Ted?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:20 pm

KS:-6

In hind sight the crusades were not appropriate. That being said my judgment is based on today's fund of knowledge. I do not know enough about society at that time to make a clear judgment on the crusades. The world of the day was primitive and wars and retaliations were part of the milieu. So many groups in those days found it acceptable to raid, pillage, take over other territories etc. The Crusades were simply an attempt to reclaim Jerusalem from the Muslims who had taken it earlier.

I do think that history if read carefully and with intelligence shows that all of our attempts to resolve these problems simply have not worked. Innocent folks end up dying. With that being said it is interesting to note that nothing has changed in 2000 years. The only thing we have learned from history is that we seem to learn nothing from history.

In terms of the use of the word judgment my view is that we are not to judge individuals or groups but we do look back over istory and make general judgments that have little to do with individuals but more with situations.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:19 pm

Ted;969594 wrote: KS:-6

In hind sight the crusades were not appropriate. That being said my judgment is based on today's fund of knowledge. I do not know enough about society at that time to make a clear judgment on the crusades. The world of the day was primitive and wars and retaliations were part of the milieu. So many groups in those days found it acceptable to raid, pillage, take over other territories etc. The Crusades were simply an attempt to reclaim Jerusalem from the Muslims who had taken it earlier.

I do think that history if read carefully and with intelligence shows that all of our attempts to resolve these problems simply have not worked. Innocent folks end up dying. With that being said it is interesting to note that nothing has changed in 2000 years. The only thing we have learned from history is that we seem to learn nothing from history.

In terms of the use of the word judgment my view is that we are not to judge individuals or groups but we do look back over istory and make general judgments that have little to do with individuals but more with situations.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Well I'd like to get a perspective from someone who considers themselves actively religious (Christianity -- I'd ask someone to whom were of the Muslim faith their take on the Jihad) as I believe the crusades shows just how political religion can be at times if not most...

But the parallel of it all is that the crusades actually can be credited as being the most important set of events that brought medieval Europe out of the dark ages...

Why human beings cannot resort to other tactics aside from war to prosper is beyond me...Greed is by far one of the most retched attributes associated with man kind and it shows.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:34 pm

KS:-6

The crusades were the result of the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem. Such an attitude was rampant in those days.

I think you are correct in the idea that greed is part of the problem. I would further suggest that exclusivity in religion is also a major part of the problem. When I am convinced I have the direct line upstairs I will do just about anything to make the point to others, including war and murder. Religion misused is a big part of the problem.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:55 am

Ted;971007 wrote: KS:-6

The crusades were the result of the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem. Such an attitude was rampant in those days.

I think you are correct in the idea that greed is part of the problem. I would further suggest that exclusivity in religion is also a major part of the problem. When I am convinced I have the direct line upstairs I will do just about anything to make the point to others, including war and murder. Religion misused is a big part of the problem.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I think the word "religion" is a huge problem...

By the entire concept of "religion" that means there is only one true God...One ultimate righteousness that loves all...Therefore if there is only one, there need not be a name for it because there's nothing else to define it...It is what it is in the mind of the likes of myself and I have my God...

What's needed is that everyone keep an open mind that others may have the very same God rather they just call God by a different name...

It amazes me the similarities I see in Islam as well as Christianity yet people find it to be so diverse...

To me the infrastructure is strikingly similar just in different contexts...

People need to wake up...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:07 pm

KS:-6

I am in agreement with you. You might find the book "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong very interesting. She shows how all of the great faiths grew out of the two tenets of justice and compassion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:36 pm

Ted;971840 wrote: KS:-6

I am in agreement with you. You might find the book "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong very interesting. She shows how all of the great faiths grew out of the two tenets of justice and compassion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Sounds interesting...Sort of like if helping those to whom needed it were profitable the entrepreneurs would be the first to give...Sad world we live in...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:19 pm

Ted;971007 wrote: KS:-6

In hind sight the crusades were not appropriate. That being said my judgment is based on today's fund of knowledge. I do not know enough about society at that time to make a clear judgment on the crusades. The world of the day was primitive and wars and retaliations were part of the milieu. So many groups in those days found it acceptable to raid, pillage, take over other territories etc.

The crusades were the result of the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem. Such an attitude was rampant in those days.

I think you are correct in the idea that greed is part of the problem. I would further suggest that exclusivity in religion is also a major part of the problem. When I am convinced I have the direct line upstairs I will do just about anything to make the point to others, including war and murder. Religion misused is a big part of the problem.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Only in part. It was also a chance for the pope to get one over on the Byzantine emperor who had asked for help in fending off the turks. Rather than sending just military aid it was seized uopon as an excuse to try and extend power eastward again. The pope was very much a temporal power as well as a spiritual one and the crusade would also be a diversion from the interminable warfare in europe. For any conflict you can always find economic reasons for the warfare usually over resources or control of trade routes or simple naked bids for power. religion is used as an incentive-kill a muslim and go to heaven, go on crusade and all crimes will be forgiven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

posted by ted

I am in agreement with you. You might find the book "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong very interesting. She shows how all of the great faiths grew out of the two tenets of justice and compassion.

Still haven't got round to reading any of her books. Thing that puts me off is she sounds like one of those writers that has a theory and just looks for what backs her theory up. The idea that you need religion to develop ideas of compassion and justice is total nonsense. Our ideas of equality before the law and all men having equal standing is not one you find in any of the monotheistic religions which by their very nature are discriminatory and do not give equal standing to those who are not religious. Religion may be misused but it not also a great flaw of religion that it appeals to those with the arrogance to think themselves better than their fellows by giving a moral justification?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:46 pm

gmc:-6

I can agree with your points about the misuse of religion over the centuries. However, not all religious folks take the attitude that theirs is the best or only way. It may only be a minority at the moment but that is changing.

Shalom

Ted:-6