Don John of Austria Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 "not defining theology concerning muslim beliefs" read it agian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I always thought the Crusades were more of a defensive war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 "not defining theology concerning muslim beliefs" read it agian. I read it 3x and I'll still go with what the church teaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Can a Pope act in alter Christos (forgiveness of sins) in one sentence, and not be speaking infallably in the next? Can a theologian's word be taken over several councils and Popes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Actually yes. In the first sentence he is forgiving sins, in the third sentence he is saying it would be disgraceful for the muslims to win. We do not interpret the Church, the Church interprets for us. If the Church says we worship the same God, then we do. WE do not have the right of private interpretation any more than the protestants do. And will dogma does not change, understandings can deepen and develop over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetarplayer Posted October 21, 2003 Author Share Posted October 21, 2003 Cmom - I think tis is more likely infallable than the letter cited above Urban II was speaking as the Pope and addressing the whole Church. Geetarplayer-- There is really no point in discussing this with yo, your opionin shows a deep lack of understanding of the actual history of the world, and is also heresy. Crusades were called infalllably by infallable council, even above UrbanII called the Whole Church as the Pope to defend the Faith( all the marks of infallability) more than that he granted indulgences based on going to the Crusades, to say that they were evil or even not desired by God is sheer unadulterated heresy. The Byzantine Empire owned Palestine as the eastern Roman empire for 500years or so before the Muslims took it more than tht the Seljuk turks were murdering and robbing and enslaving Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land, The Emperor of Byzantium asked the Pope for aid, as he was the protector of Christians in the west and couldn't defeat the turks in open battle( In 1076 Manzikrit{ I think thats the proper spelling} finished any hope of that. So Urban was answering a Christian kings Call for help. How dare you say those men who went were anything but men trying to Honor GTod and defend Christiandom. If the Crusades had not have happened then all of us would likely be praying east 5 times a day. do some research before saying such heretical things. I appreciate you educating me on this topic, but you could have done it without personally insulting me. At any rate, the textbook from which I found my information is (for the most part) impartial, or atleast not a Catholic teaching of history. It gave me the impression that the Crusaders were arbitrarily campaigning their way into Jerusalem. My mistake. -Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 So in 1096 the Truth was that they worshiped demons and now the Truth is they worship the one God, sounds like Historisism to me, historisism is heresy. Truth does not change. UrbanII was clearly speaking as the Pope in the second sentence and explains the first and second sentences in the following sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetarplayer Posted October 21, 2003 Author Share Posted October 21, 2003 Although I might have been wrong in my belief of the causes and purposes of the Crusades, I still believe that Muslims worship our God, even if it is not as fully as we do. Call it a heretical state of mind, but I prefer to believe that the good-hearted and peaceful Muslims of the world are worshiping a single, good, master creator. It is hard for me to believe that there is any other single, good, master creator to worship. Of course, there are violent extremists out there who may very well be worshiping the demons that you speak of, Don John, in which case I agree with you. But many Muslims tend to go about their daily lives with nothing but love. Again, it is hard to think of a God who promotes love as a demon. -Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Geetar- I simply do not like all of this sanctimoniousness by those who say we do worship the same God, as I said origianaly I believe they worship a butchered God, however they venerate and serve demonic creatures read about their angels and ask yourself what these things are. Allah doesn't promote love, he is the mutilation f the Christian God by either a mad man, a liar, or a dupe of the devil( which is what I believe, I do think Mohammed saw an angel I just believe it was a fallen one), I studied the History of the Mohammedians( Muslim offends me) in a secular College as wellas a Catholic one, it was my secuar education devoid of any ecuminical spirit( just the Facts) which absolutely convinced me that Mohammedism is a faith of blood and terror, NOT of love. North Africa was athe bread basket of the Roman Empire, ENITRELY CHRISTIAN, and heavily populated by Italians and Germans when the Mohammedians invaded, where are those people now, well they don't exist any more, they are dead. Their peace loveing conquerers killed them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Geetarplayer, There is not a single Muslim country where Christians or Jews are allowed free worship. This is especially troublesome, since those communities are far older than the Muslim communities that now rule. The Coptic Christians in Egypt are one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and they face constant persecution, even from the average Muslim who supposedly is full of love. Either you just don't know enough about the religion, or you are willfully choosing to believe a lie. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 PedroX --Does this mean we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Don John, As Thomas Moore said in his trial for treason "silence must be counted as assent." Thanks for sharing your wisdom and showing true historical acumen. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Your welcome. Thank you for standing with the truth. Peace and blessings,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeodatus Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Yikes! I'd forgotten this thread and am horrified by what's been going on!!!! So here are some choice snippets for your delectation, mostly from our very own Austrian Don John. B) 1. "Geetar- I simply do not like all of this sanctimoniousness by those who say we do worship the same God...." Don, would that perchance be the sanctimoniousness of Pope Gregory VII? As that Pope said to a Muslim ruler in 1076: "We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship him daily as the Creator of all ages and the ruler of this world". 2. "So in 1096 the Truth was that they worshiped demons and now the Truth is they worship the one God, sounds like Historisism to me, historisism is heresy. Truth does not change." Ah, but in 1076 the Truth was that Muslims worship the same God as us. Would that be 'historisism' (I presume you mean 'historicism') on your part Don? Don't forget: (in your own words) "historisism is heresy". 3. "I studied the History of the Mohammedians( Muslim offends me) in a secular College as wellas a Catholic one..." You ought to know that the derogatory term you try to use is actually spelt as 'Mohammedans'. If you're going to be insulting you wouldn't want your insults to go to waste now, would you? We ought to call them what they call themselves: Muslims, plain and simple. It's not up to you to be offended or not by their designation for themselves. What if they got a bee in their bonnet too about calling us 'Christians'? It's a simple matter of human courtesy, and about showing the divine love of Christ. 4. "Allah doesn't promote love, he is the mutilation f the Christian God by either a mad man, a liar, or a dupe of the devil". 'Allah' is not a name exclusive to what you would probably call the 'Mohammedian God'. Catholic Arabs have been using 'Allah' as God's name for hundreds of years before Muhammad was born. In Arabic (modified via Syriac) it means 'God'. 5. "North Africa was athe bread basket of the Roman Empire, ENITRELY CHRISTIAN, and heavily populated by Italians and Germans when the Mohammedians invaded, where are those people now, well they don't exist any more, they are dead. Their peace loveing conquerers killed them all." Heavens above! Where to begin?!! North Africa heavily populated by Italians and Germans? There's an anachronism if I ever saw one!!!! North Africa was a Roman province, and later invaded by the Gothic tribe of Vandals---so in a loose and hardly true sense it was 'Italian' and 'German'. But the majority of its population was Berber (a Semitic race). When the Muslims invaded, over time the local population lost their language and religion. Traces of Latin were still spoken there till the 10th century (300 years after the Arab invasions). The locals were not wiped out; they just became Muslims over time-----just like Catholic England became Anglican in the space of a couple of generations. Amazing what state propaganda can achieve. 6. "Cmom - I think tis is more likely infallable than the letter cited above Urban II was speaking as the Pope and addressing the whole Church. " By the way Don. You do realise that the war rhetoric of Pope Urban hardly satisfies the conditions specified by Vatican I for infallible teaching, whether by ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, papal or conciliar. PedroX -- yes, 'silence betokens consent'. That's why I'm not keeping silent! :D Geetarplayer - your instincts are sound. As Scripture says, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God'. Muslims will only convert when they see the love of Christ radiating through us. It is always easier to revel in hate and self-righteousness, championing our own cherished version of Truth over Love. In God Love and Truth are not different from each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Man, this is gonna get good. Great post Adeodatus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now