Judge not??

[The Voice]

You might want to read some of the histroical documentation pertaining to the Crusades.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook1k.asp#The First Crusade

Here's a view from the other side no less credible in my eyes.

http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/god_wars.html

[Soundbear]

Here's a view from the other side no less credible in my eyes.

http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/god_wars.html

"The history of religion is actually a morbid horror story..."

Oh, that is authoritative, with clear references and research very obvious!!!

Quite the comparison with hobo's suggestion!!

[The Voice]

So then he sent a letter to the pope asking for help.

So then the Pope called for a Crusade(Holy War) to liberate the Holy Land.

But there was that one little problem the bible says Thou shalt not kill.

But the pope had a way around this.

He just declared that all that passage only applied to christian's.

Well the Germans where just overjoyed with this.

So before they headed out to the holy land they decided to have a little progrom after all they didn't have to go all the way to the middle east to kill non-christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._First_Crusade

Just going to ignore this one though right.

[Soundbear]

Just going to ignore this one though right.

Kill in 1611 language means murder.

[The Voice]

"The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem."

Blessed by the pope. Sent by the Pope?? Doesn't say.

The passions aroused in the Christian populace by Urban II’s call for the first crusade moved persecution of Jews into a new chapter in history where these previous constants no longer held.

Say's it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._First_Crusade

[The Voice]

"The crusaders comprised military units of Roman Catholics from all over western Europe, and were not under unified command"

What?? I thought they were all sent by the Pope??

Sent by the pope not led by the pope.

[The Voice]

Kill in 1611 language means murder.

Because its 1611 its ok to kill jews?? Hold on wasn't that after the reformation?

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

[Soundbear]

The passions aroused in the Christian populace by Urban II’s call for the first crusade moved persecution of Jews into a new chapter in history where these previous constants no longer held.

Say's it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._First_Crusade

It says it there, does it??

Do you actually READ those things you put up???

Sure doesn't look like it.

[Soundbear]

Because its 1611 its ok to kill jews?? Hold on wasn't that after the reformation?

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

Same problem, methinks!!!

[The Voice]

It says it there, does it??

Do you actually READ those things you put up???

Sure doesn't look like it.

I cut and pasted directly from the link????

So show me how it is not in there?

[The Voice]

Same problem, methinks!!!

And the problem is that it does not support the notion that the crusades were benevolent?

I don't see how it is even relevent to the first crusade that you were trying to pin me down on?

[The Voice]

My point is that the crusades caused widespead death and destruction no matter how the RCC tries to sugar coat them as a cultural exchange.

[Soundbear]

My point is that the crusades caused widespead death and destruction no matter how the RCC tries to sugar coat them as a cultural exchange.

As an aside, I find it quite amusing to be a protestant trying to get to the truth of the crusades.

One WIKI site mentioned above:

"Byzantine Emperor Alexius I in 1095 sent ambassadors to plead for military help from western Europeans at the Council of Piacenza. His empire was threatened by the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavour would receive immediate remission of their sins.[19]"

Another Wiki site mentioned above:
"The passions aroused in the Christian populace by Urban II’s call for the first crusade moved persecution of Jews into a new chapter in history where these previous constants no longer held."

Sounds pretty political to me, AND the crusade would not have started except for the request of the Emperor.

[Soundbear]

My point is that the crusades caused widespead death and destruction no matter how the RCC tries to sugar coat them as a cultural exchange.

I don't see where the RCC tries to sugar coat anything, except maybe i the opinion of the "critical thinking" guys.

And they were hardly benevolent.

But were they purely religious in nature, as the anti-church "thinkers" would have us all believe??

NO!!!!

[The Voice]

As an aside, I find it quite amusing to be a protestant trying to get to the truth of the crusades.

One WIKI site mentioned above:

"Byzantine Emperor Alexius I in 1095 sent ambassadors to plead for military help from western Europeans at the Council of Piacenza. His empire was threatened by the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavour would receive immediate remission of their sins.[19]"

Another Wiki site mentioned above:
"The passions aroused in the Christian populace by Urban II’s call for the first crusade moved persecution of Jews into a new chapter in history where these previous constants no longer held."

Sounds pretty political to me, AND the crusade would not have started except for the request of the Emperor.

Hmmmm????

So let me see the Head of the Eastern Orthodox Church asked the Head of the Western Catholic Church for help(In his War with The Muslims) and this is based on Politics not religion. OK?

Also the Jews were persecuted by Christians and that wasn't religious either.

I guess the easiest thing for me to do is just walk away because You and I don't even agree what religion is.

But first you will have to post a comment after this so you can have the last word in yet another religious thread.

[MagicFingers]

I guess what they might be trying to say is to seperate people from their actions. Actions can be judged but we as people can not judge another person because we don't know what is truely in their heart. An action may be "BAD" but the person may not be. There could be many reasons the person did what they did and not necessarily a choice they would make had they had different tools to make it. HOpe that makes sense. Its one of the basic things we as social workers have to really work on remembering to seperate the person from an action or choice and realizing that a bad choice doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.

So i would say yes you can judge a action or situation without judging a person.

[Soundbear]

I guess what they might be trying to say is to seperate people from their actions. Actions can be judged but we as people can not judge another person because we don't know what is truely in their heart. An action may be "BAD" but the person may not be. There could be many reasons the person did what they did and not necessarily a choice they would make had they had different tools to make it. HOpe that makes sense. Its one of the basic things we as social workers have to really work on remembering to seperate the person from an action or choice and realizing that a bad choice doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.

So i would say yes you can judge a action or situation without judging a person.

100 percent correct!!

[MagicFingers]

This is one of the reasons I never say to my child you are bad, just cause they did something wrong or bad doesn't make my child bad and don't want to make them take it personal and get a complex so my child learns what he does is appropriate or not and its not him its the action.