quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 The Crusades were Christian military expeditions undertaken between the 11th and the 14th century to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The word crusade, which is derived from the Latin crux ("cross"), is a reference to the biblical injunction that Christians carry their cross (Matt. 10:38). Crusaders wore a red cloth cross sewn on their tunics to indicate that they had assumed the cross and were soldiers of Christ.

Dude, one sentence in that whole paragraph pertains to "land", the rest is about religion (i.e. "soldiers of christ")...I didn't say religion was the only reason for the crusades, but it is the main one. Even the land they were trying to "recapture" is referred to as "the holy land."

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ Dude, one sentence in that whole paragraph pertains to "land", the rest is about religion (i.e. "soldiers of christ")...I didn't say religion was the only reason for the crusades, but it is the main one. Even the land they were trying to "recapture" is referred to as "the holy land."

the damn point is to get more LAND, LAND LAND LAND... what do they profit from? land

it has nothing to do with anything else. hey look over there, we dont own it lets take it.

vs

hrm this here in the bible says we must go fight them, even though we dont really want to. damn it.

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer This argument is fallible. The crusades were done "in the name of God", as said by humans. However, you won't find evidence in the bible that supports genocide or wiping out non-believers.

You will find though that the bible suggests that those who do not accept Jesus as the son of God, blah blah blah will not be saved and will not reach Heaven.

And although the bible doesn't suggest genocide, wiping out non-believers you will see in history such things as the inquisition where non-christains were tracked down and killed.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ Dude, one sentence in that whole paragraph pertains to "land", the rest is about religion (i.e. "soldiers of christ")...I didn't say religion was the only reason for the crusades, but it is the main one. Even the land they were trying to "recapture" is referred to as "the holy land."

You are right, religion may have influenced the crusades, but God did not. I don't consider myself religious. Religious people go to Church and do things for tradition sake. I believe that I have a relationship with God, based on my faith in him. Religion, as a bureaucracy, has caused a lot of problems (indulgences, the crusades, and many religious wars), but that can't be blamed on God, or the bible. Those things cannot be justified based on scripture, and, therefore, does not represent God's will.

___________________
Old Norsk Sessions every 4th Monday from 4-6pm EST on Digitally Imported Radio (Progressive Station), and 7pm CET on Trance.fm every 1st Saturday

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 the damn point is to get more LAND, LAND LAND LAND... what do they profit from? land it has nothing to do with anything else. hey look over there, we dont own it lets take it. vs hrm this here in the bible says we must go fight them, even though we dont really want to. damn it.

I agree with you, the grand scheme of things was to get land. It's just that the Pope who started the crusades used religion to get people riled up and believe that they must go fight in the name of God.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ Dude, one sentence in that whole paragraph pertains to "land", the rest is about religion (i.e. "soldiers of christ")...I didn't say religion was the only reason for the crusades, but it is the main one. Even the land they were trying to "recapture" is referred to as "the holy land."

You both need to remember that there were multiple cursades that were separated by hundreds of years. The first cursades were mainly fought by the British, French and Germans in order to curry the favour of the Pope. The elites in all of these countries were engaged in internal power struggles and they needed the support of the church in order to either maintain or seize power. This is particullarly true of Richard 1 of Britain who was fighting with several powerful barrons who were challenging his claim to the crown.

The second set of cursades were mainly fought by peoples who were trying to amass power and fortune by recovering religious artifacts such as the Holy Grail (which was most likely not a cup but Mary Magdaline.... as the word Grail really means receiver of blood and thus could just as easily be the woman Jesus knocked up as the cup used to catch his blood... scripture refers to the Grail being at the foot of the cross... Mary was at the foot of the cross there is no mention of a cup), the spear, the true cross, etc.

The Third crusade was essentially a war to keep the muslims out of Europe.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer Those things cannot be justified based on scripture

Everything can be justified by scripture... if you isolate individual passages from the bible you can find support for damn near anything.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ I agree with you, the grand scheme of things was to get land. It's just that the Pope who started the crusades used religion to get people riled up and believe that they must go fight in the name of God.

Yea im not saying they didn't. But thats from who ever started the wars mouth, its not comming from a book or god or anything.

It originally came from 10 guys in a meeting that decided they needed bigger houses, and to use religion as an excuse .

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium This is simple. The religious people have the same rights as the non-religious of voicing their beliefs. They both do no harm with that. Some people actually manage to walk away when this voicing begins. It’s not that hard. Believing that you believe in a higher power is the same as believing that you don’t believe in it, whatever that “higher power” happens to be or not be. What is absurd, don’t quote me on any of this, is the fact that both sides defend something that they’re not completely informed about. And that will never change.

You hit it right on the head. So true, so true.

___________________
"We did not choose to become robots. There was an accident in our studio. We were working on our sampler, and at exactly 9:09 a.m. on September 9, 1999, it exploded. When we regained consciousness, we discovered that we had become robots."

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Everything can be justified by scripture... if you isolate individual passages from the bible you can find support for damn near anything.

Okay. Given context, you can't justify it with scripture. Now you're arguing semantics with me.

___________________
Old Norsk Sessions every 4th Monday from 4-6pm EST on Digitally Imported Radio (Progressive Station), and 7pm CET on Trance.fm every 1st Saturday

quote:

Originally posted by NiteMer You are right, religion may have influenced the crusades, but God did not. I don't consider myself religious. Religious people go to Church and do things for tradition sake.

It was more politics with a religious face (it seems to be that way with a lot of wars these days, doesn't it?) that influenced the Crusades, and while it was the Popes of the time that called people to battle, most of the Crusaders were anything but "holy." That actually was the match thrown into the powder keg, that caused the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, because Constantinople was plundered en route. And this was four hundred or so years before the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

quote:

I believe that I have a relationship with God, based on my faith in him. Religion, as a bureaucracy, has caused a lot of problems (indulgences, the crusades, and many religious wars), but that can't be blamed on God, or the bible. Those things cannot be justified based on scripture, and, therefore, does not represent God's will.

My pastor would like you so much.

Back to the original point of this thread. It is Biblical to worry when someone doesn't accept Christ. It is NOT Biblical to shove Christ in someone's face. That's where people like Jerry Falwell miss the point.

I went to Church when I was little because my grandmother would take me. Then I stopped going for a while. Then I started going again by my own volition. I never felt it was forced on me, something my dad did feel. Because trying to force anything on someone will only turn someone away from that thing. Whether it be belief, sex, drugs, alcohol, theories, whatever. My mother sometimes tries to force her opinions on me. That goes nowhere, obviously

So if your mother starts ordering your uncle around, she's in the wrong.

___________________
DC76