Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: Taoism has nothing to do with Zen.

Do you really want to argue a point you are wrong on? I have degrees in both Eastern Philosophy and History to back me up. If you want to dance little man we can.

I have degrees in East Asian History and East Asian Studies myself and have been awarded several grants in those fields. (You might have noticed my username . . .) If you refer back to the post you've just quoted you may find something that will calm you down.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

I know. I love it as a piece of history, very interesting to say the least. (Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades. You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

In fact I regard Sulladin as a man of great cunning, integrity (sp?) and mercy (something one might call quite rare in those times ). Truly the Crusades were where Legends were born.

I am bursting to run into a discussion about this (and wouldn't mind seeing a thread maybe ) but that would mean SERIOUSLY dragging this OT. Something I wish to avoid.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

The Crusades are easily one of the most misunderstood events in history. As for the church you visited, I believe you meant that you visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is a beautiful church in Paris.

Yes, I double checked and I mixed them up. Whoops. (I've been to both )
Still, that silent testimony of that magnificent room in the Holy Lands...well, it's very imposing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religion) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

Humanity changes even as God does not.

No doubt our perception of him does though.

Manchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades?

I would recommend that you read God's War by Christopher Tyerman.

Really? I can't believe I've never heard of it before. Do you know where I might find it? Or do I have to resort to Amazon. *blegh*



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eastern History is very interesting in itself to. But I really don't know very much about it apart from the Middle Kingdoms of China and the Shogun Wars of Japan.

@EF: Tyerman is at Oxford so I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a copy of it in your neck of the . . . globe. In the States, this book is available at most popular booksellers.

Certainly, I'll sniff around at ABC. Sounds like an interesting read.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades.

There are many, many ways they did. But this isn't the thread for that evidence.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

Undoubtedly. The Crusades are incredibly complex, ranging from outright political ploys to a religious fervor that would make a Space Marine seem outright heretical.

Emperors Faithful wrote:In fact I regard Saladin was a man of great cunning, integrity and mercy (something one might call quite rare in those times ). Truly the Crusades were where Legends were born.

Saladin was...interesting. Even sifting through writings about him, it is hard to distinguish fact from myth. In a paper I wrote on the historiography of the 3rd Crusade, him and Richard were easily the most challenging parts of my argument to work through.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am bursting to run into a discussion about this (and wouldn't mind seeing a thread maybe ) but that would mean SERIOUSLY dragging this OT. Something I wish to avoid.

Well then start one, though I seriously doubt I will write much more on the subject tonight. It is growing far to late for me to be up and piddling away my time on Dakka.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No doubt our perception of him does though.

I will not argue with you on that. That is why we have things such as the Holy Bible and even such imperfect institution as the Church to help guide us and our understanding.

Though even OUR perception of this guidance changes over time. (Or perhaps the Bible itself changes, who knows?)

Anyway, If I don't see a Crusader thread up soon I'll make one myself. It will be interesting to see what people have to say about it. Not tonight though. It's about time I headed off.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Manchu: I agree with you fully on your declaration concerning both the Koran and the Book of Mormon. I constantly tell people that I have no doubt that both Mohammad and Joseph Smith saw and communicated with an angelic being of sorts, but I remind them that even Satan can masquerade as an angel of Light. St. Paul declares that it is not unlikely that someone will have visions, but he does assert that it is their responsibility to question the being and demand to know by what authority it speaks. I could not find in either account the questioning and testing of authority, and thus I find them to be lacking in any authority or power. Would you not agree with this idea?

To paraphrase scripture, this is an instance of by their fruits shall ye know them. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree bring forth good fruit.

Not everyone would agree that the tree planted by Joseph Smith has borne good fruit, Relapse.

Manchu wrote:This is my honest opinion: One thing that Protestantism and Islam seem to have in common is their political origin.

Manchu, you had to go there didn't you?

I have been purposely trying to avoid this, as I was trying to present a united front. But I get the feeling that you don't believe any one outside the Roman Church is a Christian. At the very least you seem to have this contemp for protestantism. Are you a Priest, a Jesuit? I have never personally dealt with a member of the Church of Rome that was so militaristic?

I'm going to just say that the Roman Church has many problems of it's own, as there is no perfect instittution since there are no pefect men. But the major difference between the Roman Church and the reformed Church is a theological one, and not a political one. Yes, of course, theere were politics involved, especially with Henry VIII. However the reformation was in full swing by the time Henry VIII was king so it was convenient for him. This doesn't automatically discount the reformation because a few kings could see that chnage was coming and took advantage of it.

The bottom line, the Roman Church has to discount the Bible in much the same way as mormon,Jehovas witness's do because if you atcually rely on "sola scriptura" over "sola eclesia" then your whole system of theology breaks down. When you rely on the Bible as your source of truth, instead of a few people in Rome, you find out that there is a priest hood of all believers, and that Bishops are allowed to marry, and that Mary isn't a demigod, and that selling indulgences is heresy, and that puragtory is a false teaching, and that Holy communion is a symbol of Christ's body and blood not the actual body and blood(talk about literalism?).

But no, the Roman Church wants to hold onto it's tradition's and you(Manchu) seem to want to denegrate any body that disagrees with you.

GG

@GG:

I have already explained to you that the way the Church has operated for nearly two thousand years with regard to the Deposit of the Faith is that there are two equally important parts: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is no "discounting" of the Bible. Actually, the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches (and some Lutheran communities) take the Bible so seriously that they do not like to see it twisted into any Joe-Off-The-Street's personal interpretation.

I do not believe that there is now or has ever been a Protestant exegete or theologian that can compete with the erudition of the thousands (and perhaps even millions) of brilliant minds that together have informed the development of Sacred Tradition. You yourself have cited one of the Church Fathers, Saint Irenaeus, at least twice in this thread. You also confess the Nicene Creed and yet nowhere in scripture will you find this formulation. That is because it was taught authoritatively by Catholic bishops in Council at Nicaea in 325 and not written down by any of the Evangelists or anywhere else in the New Testament.

I admit (have admitted to) a certain disdain of Protestantism. I am a Catholic, after all. I do think that Protestantism is at best a series of errors. I freely reassert that it is ridiculous on its face to believe that laymen have the ability to analyse and interpret a document like the Bible. I would not ask a layman to do this with the works of Plato. I would not ask a layman to do this with Imperial Chinese Legal Codes. Why should the Bible be any different? When Protestant scholars examine the Bible according to scientific principles of historical criticism, I pay attention. I do not agree with their conclusions insofar as they are theological but how can I disavow scientific findings? The answer is, I don't. I have no interest in non-scholarly opinions about the Bible, however, except to point out--when they are passed off as the truth about Christianity--that they are actually unfounded and in no way represent Christianity.

I also freely reassert that the Reformation seems as much if not more a political event than a theological one from all that I have studied (my Reformation History professor was a Lutheran pastor and most of my reading at that time and since was from texts by Protestant scholars. I have also read, of course, the writings of the major Reformers themselves). I do not deny that the Catholic Church has always been and continues to be a historical institution subject to contingency and conflict, the same as any other institution. I maintain that its origins are in no way political. Its origin is in the command of Christ, recorded in Sacred Scripture as consistently interpreted by two thousand years' of Tradition and consistently AND authoritatively taught from Peter down to Benedict XVI.

If you find that my faith denigrates you, I can make no other apology (explanation) than I already have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your description of Catholics thinking that Mary is some sort of a demi-god is a clear testament to anyone here with the slightest real understanding of Catholicism that you don't actually know the first thing about what you're criticizing.

Al of that can be summarized to this statement. I believe this or that because the Church of Rome said so.

That's fine and dandy, but when you start denigrating another Christian group because they disagree with you then you are showing the same kind of closemindedness that a "King James only" person would show.

I certainly believe the Roman Church has members that are in the body of Christ, the true catholic Church or universal Church. I also certainly believe that the Roman Church isn't the one and only Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is made up of Roman Church members,eastern orthodox members, and protestant members, yet not all members are true faith believers.

As I said, I happen to disagree with the Roman Church's theology because I think's it's rediculous to downplay a persons God given right to study scripture for themselves and use it as the measuring stick against any and all teaching. If you just rely on men to tell you what to believe and don't check what they say you are guilty of not being a good steward of God's word.

Anyway, I just wanted to give the other point of view, since you were really starting to usurp the conversation with protestant this and protestant that which was getting quite offensive. And I hope you view it as a gentle rebuke and not an attack.

GG

The Body of Christ includes all Christians. It also includes Jews, Mulsims, Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, and every one else. I have never claimed otherwise. I do not know of any God-given right for individuals to study or (more ominously) interpret Sacred Scripture for themselves. This seems extra-Biblical to me but I am not interested in trading verses with you as I see it as a completely invalid (and somewhat blasphemous) exercise.

The statement you "rebuked" was my reluctant answer to EF's direct question on this subject, not a sustained diatribe aimed at offending anyone or you particularly. I wonder if you saw the second part of that post in which, foreseeing exactly this sort of response, I included a certain quotation from Thomas Merton?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, the Catholic Church is not "the Roman Church."

generalgrog wrote:
But no, the Roman Church wants to hold onto it's tradition's and you(Manchu) seem to want to denegrate any body that disagrees with you.

I disagree. As much as I'd like to, he's been pretty fair even to us 'heathens'. No organization likes to give up tradition.

That said, it does seem to me that all religions put their members as superior to outsiders. Maybe is human nature to need to segregate into us versus them.
Not accepting *any* religious book as an authority, I'm apparently defaulted out of his conversation. Atheists aren't special enough.

There's a difference in the comfort that religion provides than Atheism. With Religion one must accept the fantastic exists and is at some level is inscrutable. One must accept that some people are inherently superior to others and the cues to that specialness are undetectable by man. The powers that be however love and cherish its members so long as they abide by certain (in many cases) sensible rules.

That mankind can't *yet* understand certain things leaves room for wonder and exploration. Mankind is free to explore, learn, and use the universe around him to its own (hopefully responsible) ends. No one is inherently more special, and succeeds or fails on their own merits and a little bit of luck. Yet the universe ultimately doesn't really care about the individual and there is no promise of consciousness continuing on. There's some compelling arguments to never having to fully come to grips with the end of ones consciousness. Death is scary.

Consider for a moment though that in all our discussion of 'god' and all the variant appendices there have been few concessions on the possibility that any one (or all) of them could be wrong. About books crafted by a flawed creature, institutions crafted by a flawed creature, in reverence of a downright scary proposed being and its creations. The books cited so far require a superbeing that can only be seen by those who accept it exists, and whose beloved creations still are allowed to suffer and torment each other. Still its ok, because they don't follow the right interpretation.

As a technical professional I make charged electricity and pulses of light carry zeroes and ones from here to there. Many people think what I do is some sort of extra special skill. Everything I do on a daily basis is confirmable, repeatable, and subject to third party experimentation. There is no magic in how an electron or photon travel through a medium, no one source where I must turn to for answers, and no infinite argument about what technologies are acceptable or not. I can question and challenge any principle, insufficient evidence is subject to as much scrutiny as is practical, and nothing is more special excepting the importance I place on it. My failings are ultimately my own fault rather than the plan of some questionable superbeing or its opposite number.

Just to be clear, Oldgrue, Christianity does not teach that I am any better than you because I am a Christian. If you read Saint Augustine, you'll find him talking about how a non-Christian may well be better off than a Christian in terms of grace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:That mankind can't *yet* understand certain things leaves room for wonder and exploration. Mankind is free to explore, learn, and use the universe around him to its own (hopefully responsible) ends. No one is inherently more special, and succeeds or fails on their own merits and a little bit of luck.

If you can find room for the concept of grace in there (and not as a replacement for luck, either) then you and I will be on the same page here.

Oldgrue wrote:There's some compelling arguments to never having to fully come to grips with the end of ones consciousness. Death is scary.

In my experience, it doesn't become less scary in the light of faith.

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear, Oldgrue, Christianity does not teach that I am any better than you because I am a Christian. If you read Saint Augustine, you'll find him talking about how a non-Christian may well be better off than a Christian in terms of grace.

One interpretation of Christianity doesn't, how many others do? What about all the other faiths that run around claiming to be the one true way?
Augustine postulated but Fresnel demonstrated. There's no demonstrating - this is one way trip except possibly for some super special folks.

If you can find room for the concept of grace in there (and not as a replacement for luck, either) then you and I will be on the same page here.

That would require some people to be more special than others.

As to explaining other "interpretations," I'm not in the business of defending what I consider to be error. You'll have to ask the other Christians to defend their own beliefs.

Oldgrue wrote:That would require some people to be more special than others.

I don't see why.

My knowledge of the crusades isnt fantastic i must admit, it just goes back to history class in high school and a few fiction books i read on the subject, but i agree with Jeb there, at least two of the crusades were certainly brought on by muslim actions, and they werent ENTIRELY one way aggression from the Crusaders, even though the modern PC lot dont like to talk about it! (Kingdom of Heaven?!)

But either its true or Mr Willis my old History teacher is a liar!

Manchu wrote:As to explaining other "interpretations," I'm not in the business of defending what I consider to be error. You'll have to ask the other Christians to defend their own beliefs.

Fair.

As for grace - that requires partaking of divine favor. I need no sprinkling of water, schrodinger's bread, or reconcilliation with something i question exists. I certainly don't want to be the conduit for a supernatural being. Additionally, I've violated cannon 1398 at least in spirit (as I understand paying for is as bad as performing or participating) so I'm right out excepting the 'but maybe not' thanks to catechism paragraph 1861. So do I go to hell, or do I have to wait for the jury to come back on whether or not I'm special enough to get a forgivness I'm not convinced exists?

If a person wants to do the work exemplified by the positive example of their choice does it have to be divine? Do I have to be a conduit for jesus to not be a blight on society? Do I have to channel Eli Whitney to advance manufacturing, or George Washington Carver to turn low cost crops into profitable goods? Why does a superbeing have to get involved when there's no guarantee its blessing will have any impact at all? If grace exists it expresses as luck - which seems to be nondenominational.

Manchu wrote:Not everyone would agree that the tree planted by Joseph Smith has borne good fruit, Relapse.

Very true, but the same could be said of the Catholic church, though, and even of Christ. The source and reasoning has to be considered.

Gwar! wrote:

Clthomps wrote:That first video is about 7 minutes to long...

When you call a video that is 6:59 "seven minutes too long", you know it has to be awful!

I thought it was ten minutes too long.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

I know. I love it as a piece of history, very interesting to say the least. (Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades. You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

Christians can deny the Crusades because they werre clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches about Christian behaviour. Straight up in print.

Its nothing about 'our' standards but about the original standards. Please remember that the average medieval person couldnt read, and couldn't read the Bible anyway as it was only provided in Latin. Priests said what they wanted irrespective of the Biblical event. A number of persons of the times did protest Catherine of Sienna and Francis of Assissi protested the militancy of the church.


The Moslems did not provoke the Crusades, the First and Second Crusades were pure adventurism, subsequent Crusades worked on reaction and counter-reaction. Remember the Fall of Jerusalem, which provoked the Third Crusade, wasnt remotely as bloodthirsty as the Fall of Jerusalem at the highlight of the First Crusade.

Relapse wrote:
Very true, but the same could be said of the Catholic church, though, and even of Christ. The source and reasoning has to be considered.

This is where claims of universal authority based on historicity frequently run into trouble. Its all too easy to claim correct speech by reference to written tradition, while forgetting that its entirely possible to reject a given set of logically possible conclusions due to a lack of belief with respect to them.

I was actually just referring to the hijacking and repackaging of Christianity.

Manchu wrote:I was actually just referring to the hijacking and repackaging of Christianity.

You can't claim that something has been hijacked without presupposing some kind of correct purpose.

A term like "correct" is too broad for what you mean given that all that I have implied is a historical subversion of content from established orthodoxy to a usage that far transcends heterodoxy.

@Orlanth: The point I was making is that beliefs change over time. I myself was not aware that Christianity had a zero-tolerance for violence policy. After all, Jesus himself did drive the merchants from the temple screaming all sorts of hulabaloo and swinging (was it a knotted?) rope.

BTW, about your theory concerning the provocation of the Crusades. I'd like to hear that in detail, would you post in the 'Holy Wars' thread? ")

@Manchu:

So you simply meant to imply that Mormons are not Christian. That's fine, and many people would agree with you. My point is that Mormons no more hijacked Christian content, than Christians hijacked Jewish content.

Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Eh?

*imagining Jesus hijaking a plane with the Star of David on the side*