UNBELIEVABLE
wow
i cant believe this.....
how do people say this crap...
?
wow

Meyve.... 3 of us have posted just now.. can you be more specific as to 'who's crap ? or do you mean all of us ?

Reason and Rancitas.

On the 'hypocrisy' thing. Read CLOSELy :) (reminder) 'As I become aware... I turn away'.....
But still, you are seeking to impose on scripture a view of personal holiness which is not there.
To become Christs, is not to BECOME Christ, but it is to become Christlike. In Christ we have a new centre of gravity.

Exposing falsehood, is not Un Christ like. Rather it is a fulfillment of our calling "Salt and Light".

Paul says 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

That is where we all should be, striving with Paul to be more Christ like.
I understand your explaination of how you relate to the cosmos, and I also know that nothing short of a 'damascus' road experience (perhaps a pruned down one) will change that view to the one I am sharing with you guys. Which is why I present the Gospel. It 'is' the power of God for salvation. Maybe not today, or tomorrow for you, but b4 you depart this world, I hope it becomes a reality in your own hearts.

I don't mind you blokes ripping into me, tends to focus the mind, Paul got much worse. When you pick up rocks to throw at me THEN...I'll worry :)

Well I'm late to this one but I'll offer a couple of viewpoints (as a secular humanist).

The Crusades were brutal and bloody, the norm for the time. The sack of Jerusalem was gruesome, but followed a long line of sackings, where the inhabitants were slaughtered if they resisted. This continued for many centuries, I recall reading it happening in India and in the Peninsular War (Spain) long after the Crusades and not religiously motivated. Simply poor discipline and soldiers going mad with bloodlust and greed for booty.

I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism. It's a joke to portray the Muslims as "victims" and indeed, discipline amongst Crusaders seems to be have been so poor that most of their victims were actually Christian.

Comparison between the 9/11 bombers and Crusaders is yet another example of the idiotic rot in the education system.

According to Kevin D. "Tolerance and respect for others, the rule of law, separation of powers and popular sovereignty are all essential aspects of Western civilisation and have strong links with the Christian faith." Sorry Kev, your history is as faulty as your reasoning, I'm glad YOU aren't setting the history curriculum. All of these things are either universal human values (though more often honoured in the breach than the observance) or products of the Enlightenment which were actively opposed by Christian churches. For example, Montesquieu, who invented the dooctrine of the separation of powers, had his books listed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the Catholic church's list of banned books). Other banned authors included Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Rene Descartes, David Hume, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau etc etc.

According to Kev "The fact is, the church cherished, preserved, studied and taught the works of the ancients." The fact is Kev, most of the ancient texts surviving were preserved by the Moslems and the works of Aristotle and Plato, for example, came to the West after the fall of Moslem Toledo (with its enormous library).

The churches have only grudgingly given up temporal power and for every Francis of Assissi or William Wilberforce there seems to have been a Torquemada. For every Christian martyr there has been a Galileo.

I cannot understand how OLO could publish such a ludicrously poor article. It relies on lazy thinking, no research and a pile of cliches. All of you who nodded along with Kev about "moral relativism" and "political correctness" get a big F, and need to try harder. We live in a secular society, and a bloody good thing too if you lot are a representative sample of "thinking Christians." You all need to go back to school.

Viking
Quote "I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism."
Actually mate there is NOTHING in the texts from this period that would justify that interpretation.
The only christian civilisation that felt threatened by the Turks [not the moslems by the way] was Byzantium.
The king of Byzantium sent a request to the pope for aid & the pope agreed but the pope had his own agenda. He wanted to create a power base in that area of the world, answerable only to him.

The crusaders came from all over Europe. Germany, Southern France & so on. Most had never seen or heard of the moslems. Indeed when you read their description you get the impression they expected people with horns & a pointy tail.

The religious bigotry of the crusaders is shown by two incidents.
1) before EVERY crusade [but most especially the 1st] the crusaders would start their crusade by killing jews. Did they threaten the western kingdoms as well?
2) by the time the crusaders reached Jerusalem the Turks had been kicked out by the Egyptians & they got on fine with the jews & christians of the city. The crusaders slaughtered them anyway.
3) After the crusades had been going on for several centuries the moslems actually contacted the crusaders & told them they could keep the levant if only the crusaders would leave them alone. What did the crusaders reply? "It is not proper that Christians make deals with unbelievers. We will make peace only over the bodies of your dead"

Viking wrote:

"I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism. It's a joke to portray the Muslims as "victims" and indeed, discipline amongst Crusaders seems to be have been so poor that most of their victims were actually Christian."

Interesting interpretation:

Of course the Crusades had nothing to do with Emperor Alexius Comnenus asking the pope for a bit of help dealing with the invading Turks on his eastern borders. What the emperor wanted was a thousand or so well armed and trained men to wok with his own army.

What the Pope saw was the chance to rid Europe for a while of the second and third sons of Lords, who, as the first son got the estate, the second son and subsequent sons were given a set of armour, a decent sword and a good horse, and sent on their way.

The result was a lot of second and third, and subsequent sons, making a living by brigandage, pillage and mercenary activities. The Pope probably also thought that it may be a good idea to create a Christian kingdom in Palestine.

But it wasn't just the second and subsequent sons that went, but firstly a load of peasants wanting to do 'Gods Will' who didn't have a clue about where they were going or why.

The next group was all those armoured adventurers out for glory / profit and land - all under the guise of 'God's work'.

The only actor on this middle ages stage whose motives seemed at all 'pure' was Ghengis Khan, whose Mongols didn't give a damn about the religion of those they killed. But at least the Mongols didn't kill for the sake of killing. If a town surrendered on approach it was spared the sword. It it resisted then it was destroyed.

Meanwhile, it didn't matter to the Crusaders if a town surrendered - the infidels were killed anyway.