/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Crusades were political motivated. It was barely religious.

The European "union" basically acted as an military state.

I dont think I would ever support another crusade, i personally think that whoever persecutes us and whoever is going to should do so.

>>5851

>christian world

sure declare non orthodox and catholics as non christian in nicene creed, then tell them they are christian when it is suit yourself, how hypocrite you're.

That's why many of those people converted to islam instead of trated heretic by you people.

Not to mention even orthodox's in anatolia was subjected to catholic's tyranny.

4th crusade only one of the example of that.

>What does /Christ/ thinks of the Crusades?

A product of their time and geopolitics

>Do we need another one?

No

>Are you against it?

We need to support our brothers in need in West Asia but this (God willing) can be achieved peacefully

- - -

Christians should be missionaries of peace.

>>5840

A response to Jihad. Since Jihad has resumed it would make sense to respond in kind, instead of allowing 300 years of defeat until something is done like the last time.

>>5922

Well, this escalated quickly.

>>5922

>sure declare non orthodox and catholics as non christian in nicene creed

If you are neither orthodox nor Catholic, then you are most likely a heretic, yes.

> then tell them they are christian when it is suit yourself, how hypocrite you're.

What? When did I tell the Orthodox that they are non-christians?

>That's why many of those people converted to islam instead of trated heretic by you people.

No, islamic warfare and threat of persecution was the reason.

>Not to mention even orthodox's in anatolia was subjected to catholic's tyranny.

Elaborate.

>4th crusade only one of the example of that.

Everyone that took part in ransacking constantinople was excommunicated.

>>5986

>What? When did I tell the Orthodox that they are non-christians?

I'm not talking about orthodox, I'm talking about, compics,assyrians etc

>No, islamic warfare and threat of persecution was the reason.

Islam claims they declared war, because christians forbid to let people what they believe.Of course there are warmongers like you in Islam.

>Elaborate.

Read about first crusade

>Everyone that took part in ransacking constantinople was excommunicated.

I just say that just one of the examples.

Also the pic you posted on here >>5851

is false according to you, because those conquered people, were mostly, assyrian, coptic,not orthodox or catholic. And by your logic they're not christians

>>6005

>And I said that they are not Christian?

If they're not christian why do you think you should declare crusade because of it?

>Take a look at these two maps please.

Sure christianity spread with peace, din du nuffin

>I in fact believe that anyone that belongs to an apostolic Church is a Christian if he's baptised .

The sects I mention, is not christian by nicene creed, pick one mate

>>6018

>If they're not christian why do you think you should declare crusade because of it?

There would need to be a crusade in defense of them. The Christians in the levante and in what Americans call middle east in general need help from their western Christian brothers.

Help against the menace that Islam is since 1500 years now.

>Sure christianity spread with peace, din du nuffin

Mostly, yes.

>The sects I mention, is not christian by nicene creed, pick one mate

They are apostolic and surely more Christian than your average protestant.

But I don't know about them in detail, if you do you are free to share.

>>6023

>The Christians in the levante

you said they're not christians

>call middle east in general need help from their western Christian brothers

so they're your political puppets?

>Mostly, yes

same for islam,protestanism,judaism

>They are apostolic and surely more Christian than your average protestant.

I already know you have harsh feelings about protestans, but no by teology it's not.

Protestanism accepts nicene creed, it's much more closer to the orthodoxs and catholics

also

> average protestant

people change teology does not,if it changes simply they divide and build another church

>>6028

>you said they're not christians

No.

>so they're your political puppets?

No

>same for islam,protestanism,judaism

No especially considering the maps I showed you. Islam is the religion of a power ungry warlord

>I already know you have harsh feelings about protestans, but no by teology it's not.

>Protestanism accepts nicene creed, it's much more closer to the orthodoxs and catholics

Apostolic succession makes them real part of the Church though. I do not really care for the creed here, what parts don't they agree with?

>people change teology does not,if it changes simply they divide and build another church

Impossible. There is only one Church, and while the apostolic branches are part of it, the protestant sects are not, regardless of how many changes they make or thousands of denominations they found.

>>6033

>no

>If you are neither orthodox nor Catholic, then you are most likely a heretic, yes.

>No

that seems otherwise

>No especially considering the maps I showed you. Islam is the religion of a power ungry warlord

Ok, let me cherrypick a map like you how christendom spread in america and africa. But I'm not you, I prefer not to become something I resist against.

>Apostolic succession makes them real part of the Church though.

Says who? I really want to learn it.

>I do not really care for the creed here, what parts don't they agree with?

You don't care the teology? If you don't know, some groups are mentioned dyophysite, monophysite.

> There is only one Church, and while the apostolic branches are part of it, the protestant sects are not, regardless of how many changes they make or thousands of denominations they found

That's just your opinion man.

>>6057

>that seems otherwise

I was just regarding numbers here. If you are neither a Catholic >a billion nor an orthodox like 300 million? and claim to be Christian, then you are most likely member of some protestant sect which is not part of the Church.

There are other valid apostolic Churches less than the eastern orthodox still of course but they are so few in numbers that we may disregard them for the bigger picture.

>Ok, let me cherrypick a map like you how christendom spread in america and africa. But I'm not you, I prefer not to become something I resist against.

Christendom spread in America mostly by colonisation and missions and in africa by missions.

Also it is not comparable at all. Jesus never forced a single man to believe in him and not only refused an offensive army, but also to be even protected here.

Mohammed, the man who made Islam up, was on the other hand by historical fact a warlord. His successors were too. And that's how Islam did spread.

That's why Christian missionaries are famous while like non-existent in the Islamic world.

>Says who? I really want to learn it.

The former patriarchs of the east have all been part of the Church once. Then after this or that council they seperated to my knowledge.

This means that they are in schism, which is one part of the Church being cut off of the rest of the body.

If you cut off your arm it is still your arm.

Heresy, however, is different. Heresy is a sin in which you willfully and knowingly reject the truth that is the Church and body of Jesus Christ and hold to a lie, your on opinion, instead.

This is a sin that excludes you from the communion with the Church.

That's why whole prottie denoms can never be part of the Church.

So, while the Coptics can come back, keep their traditions etcpp and become Coptic-Catholic again, American Baptism ie is lost. Even if they wanted to, there is no coming "back" to what you never have been part of.

>You don't care the teology?

What?

> If you don't know, some groups are mentioned dyophysite, monophysite.

What?

>That's just your opinion man.

See the difference between schism and heresy above.

>>6060

>There are other valid apostolic Churches less than the eastern orthodox still of course but they are so few in numbers that we may disregard them for the bigger picture

Valid? Says which authority? How valid are they?

>Christendom spread in America mostly by colonisation and missions and in africa by missions

Sure, no one died for their beliefs, dn du nuffi right?

>Mohammed, the man who made Islam up, was on the other hand by historical fact a warlord.

Is that why he says don't force someone to convert in Kuran? You need citiations buddy.

>Heresy, however, is different. Heresy is a sin in which you willfully and knowingly reject the truth that is the Church and body of Jesus Christ and hold to a lie

If you don't know dyophysiteand monophysite have different opinion about this

>What?

I say why you care theolgy when it suits you and don't(or act like you don't) when it does not suits you?

>What?

You don't know what they means?

>See the difference between schism and heresy above

Protestants claim otherwise.

>So, while the Coptics can come back, keep their traditions etcpp and become Coptic-Catholic again

Both side have their strong traditions, I don't think they'll change it.

>That's why Christian missionaries are famous while like non-existent in the Islamic world

They didn't colonize as much as christians, and have their own problems. They didn't butchered many people then send 'peaceful' missioneries.

>>6062

>Valid? Says which authority?

That's a rethoric question I'll disregard.

> How valid are they?

I already told you that I do not know a lot about them.

>Sure, no one died for their beliefs, dn du nuffi right?

Lots of people died for their beliefs, ie the martyrs, nothing wrong with that.

There were also people heathens killed for their beliefs and enslaved in the Americas, but we tried to evade that as good as we could.

That's why Latin America is populated by mestizos today with states like paraguy that are in fact mestizo-native states, while the Indians in te U.S. are kept in zoos.

>Is that why he says don't force someone to convert in Kuran?

He said to kill and subjugate them, to impose taxes on them and shun and insult them while proposing conversion to them. This is forcing others to convert, it's just a smart not a brute way.

>If you don't know dyophysiteand monophysite have different opinion about this

What?

>I say why you care theolgy when it suits you and don't(or act like you don't) when it does not suits you?

I do not understand?

>You don't know what they means?

What?

>Protestants claim otherwise.

Irrelevant. Protestantism in general is irrelevant. Ever since the great protestant leaders fell, foremost the German Kaiser and England and Sweden, but that's long ago .

Ever since then they are just a useless conglomerate of tiny sects that will change nothing.

>Both side have their strong traditions, I don't think they'll change it.

I was just talking about the possibility existing.

I think that the eastern patriarchs will return, I just think that I won't live to see it, nor my children or grandchildren ;^)

>They didn't colonize as much as christians, and have their own problems.

Their many problem was that people were rather opposed to being pillaged and ransacked.

> They didn't butchered many people then send 'peaceful' missioneries.

No. They just butchered them and oppressed them until they gave up.

Depends, majority of Holy Lands is in control of Israel which seem to be able to defend themselves just fine and let people go and come freely to their country regardless of their religion. Unless you mean to rescue the persecuted Christians but i'm not sure how you would go about that? ISIS is a threat to anyone who is non-Muslim so I don;t see how a crusade would be any different from regular military action and if the individual soldier happens to be christian then he can treat it as his personal holy war/crusade?