Were the Crusades a disrespect to the teachings of Christ?
Were the Crusades a disrespect to the teachings of Christ?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Yes, they fought in the name of a false religion (Romish popery)
Jesus wasn't a pacifist hippy
And I'm not a Catholic
Yes. They hurt other people.
Isa was for Ahimsa. The so called "christian channers" cannot understand that, because they are fake Christians.
Christianity isn’t pacifist. Read the bible.
You're speaking to a Muslim. Muslims believe the Bible is in error.
>if you're struck on one cheek, turn the other
>if you're sued for your shit, give them your shit and your cloak, too
The teachings of Christ are not only pacifistic, they are sacrificially pacifistic. Maybe you should consider what it means to be Christian and take the teachings of Christ more seriously.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Are you seriously expecting me to take the words of men over the words of Christ, which are explicit and law?
If you claim these men speak with the authority of God, you understand that you're 100% wrong, right? The Word is complete and there are no more prophets. This is explicitly in the Bible.
Maybe you should actually read it some time.
Jesus Himself resisted at the Temple and Peter and Paul resisted people. You're calling them hypocrites. Who says that there is no authority after Biblical times? You? God gave Peter the church.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
>Jesus Himself resisted at the Temple
Christ gave himself up without resistance.
>Peter and Paul
Were imperfect humans, so it's expected they didn't perfectly follow the commands. The apostles frequently struggled. That was the point of their stories.
>Who says that there is no authority after Biblical times? You?
No, Christ and the Word of God, because it's complete. There are no more prophets.
The Apostles were seen as the good guys in the stories though and both of them used the power of God to resist. God obviously approved.
That is a loophole because it means graven image doesn't mean any sort of statue but a statue of a false god you worship.
There's saints and doctors of the church. Christianity is ongoing. It didn't just end 2000 years ago.
As of 2022, the Catholic Church has named 37 Doctors of the Church. Of these, the 18 who died before the Great Schism of 1054 are also held in high esteem by the Eastern Orthodox Church, although it does not use the formal title "Doctor of the Church".
Among the 37 recognised Doctors, 28 are from the West and nine from the East; four women (three nuns, one consecrated virgin); 19 bishops, twelve priests, one deacon; 27 from Europe, three from Africa, and seven from Asia. More Doctors (twelve) lived in the 4th century than any other; eminent Christian writers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries are usually referred to as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The shortest period between death and nomination was that of Alphonsus Liguori, who died in 1787 and was named a Doctor in 1871 – a period of 84 years; the longest was that of Irenaeus, which took over eighteen centuries.
No, they were the purest expression of said teachings
crusades were a white supremacism
The whole christianity is a disrespect of Jesus.
If you are a christian, you are a follower of Paul, not Jesus. If you want to follow Jesus, then stop being a coward hidding in "his grace" and stop folowing your whims ad desires because "Jesus died for my sins teehee" and get circumcised, stop eating pork, fast 40 days in a row every year. Pick up Jesus cross too, and carry it.
It’s more in-between because of the contradictions and loopholes of the New Testament
> Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man. Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion's servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel. When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay.
> First, a man reading the Gospels would not find platitudes. . . . For instance, he would not find ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace.... But he would not find a word about all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws a particular light on Christ’s attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers. (Indeed it is another perplexity, speaking from the same external and human standpoint, that he seems to have got on much better with Romans than he did with israelites. But the question here is a certain tone to be appreciated by merely reading a certain text; and we might give any number of instances of it.)
No doubt biblical Jesus would have probably thought the crusaders were god-fearing because of their extreme devotion and submission to him like Cornelius. Not sure whether he would completely fully approve of their actions. I think he would at best reprove them, but still forgive them
>in the Word of God
Catholics are insane.
How is this insane? Devout soldiers and two separate centurions were highly praised in the New Testament. It was pretty pro Rome, probably a nod to the Catholic church in the future.
>immutable, undeniable, Truth of the Word of God
If you don't see how you'd have to be insane to think these two things can co-exist, then you are probably also insane.
Since Ecclesiastes says there is a time for everything under the sun I don't see why you couldn't analyze the Bible to see how certain situations were treated. The Bible also says not to make a graven image but we see Moses and Solomon making religious statues under God's direction. To see what is permissible or not we have to see if someone is the good guy or the bad guy in a story.
There's no possibility for the perfect Word of God to have a loophole in it. You either follow it or you don't.
>The Bible also says not to make a graven image but we see Moses and Solomon making religious statues under God's direction
>under God's direction
God can command a person to violate His Own Commandments. That's not a loophole. That's called being God.
>asking this in the same place where every sin is practiced
no one here will answer you correctly because no one here is actually christian
>do not resist an evildoer
>resist an evildoer
Christianity makes so little sense its followers are forced to disregard it if they want to survive.
Biblical scholars and translators say otherwise
> This verse opens with the standard "but I say unto you" phrase that heralds a reinterpretation of Mosaic Law. While the Old Testament quote in the previous verse was a reference to retributive punishment, here Jesus uses the word resist, which has been seen as far broader. This verse is often presented as advocating radical pacifism.
> R. T. France rejects this view. He notes that the word translated as resist, anthistemi, has a far more restricted meaning in the original Greek. The word translates more accurately as "do not resist by legal means". Schweizer notes that this is how the word is used in Deuteronomy 19:18 and Isaiah 50:8. To R.T. France, and many other scholars, this verse is just one part of a discussion of legal principles, similar to the previous and subsequent verses. The interpretation as a general rule of non-violent resistance is a misunderstanding of the original. For a full discussion of the debate and history of the phrase, see turn the other cheek.
Jesus resisted the people and animals in the temple, Peter resisted Ananias and Sapphira, Paul resisted the sorcerer, and all were considered good guys in the text.
Yes, because Isa ibn Maryam (PBUH) submitted his will to his creator and he is not an idolater. He will not be held accountable for the sins of the followers of Paul.
>mudslimes unironically believe that everyone got Christianity wrong for ~600 years before Muhammad got bored of fucking goats and decided to make up a religion that said he could have a bunch of wives including an actual child bride
doesn't prove Islam but your holy book is false
>random kraut decides he knows better about the Bible than anyone else and decides to undermine it
Where I have heard this one before
Muhammad should have just came up with his own entirely new religion instead of making a poorly retconned version of Christianity
This post was absolute garbage to read. You owe me 15 seconds of my life, asshole
Asalaamu alaykum, my dear brother in Islam and fellow believer of Abrahams religion (pbuh)
This thread is kind of helpful. Yes, the Roman Catholic wars throughout thousands of years , and crusades were mostly aggressive, some were self defense. Like, far more aggression than self defense, really.