"For those who say Christians used war to spread their "religion", you need to look a little closer. It would be better said that Catholics used war (the crusades) to spread their "religion. Bible-believing, Born-again Christians were not a part of the Crusades, they were murdered during the Crusades. Please don't lump Christians together with Catholics.
If you don't believe me, do a little research for yourself"
40 comments
Catholics are Christians.
"Bible-believing, Born-again Christians were not a part of the Crusades..." mainly because they are a modern American phenomenon.
Fundies, of course, are Pharisees.
"If you don't believe me, do a little research for yourself"
Funny...when they make the argument from popularity, they always lump Catholics in...
"Christianity has ruled for 2,000 years" = Catholics for at least 1,600 years of that
"There are 2 billion Christians" = More than half of those are Catholic.
"80% of American's are Christian" = In reality, 30% of Americans are Catholic, giving "true Christians" half, at best.
Then they want to eat their cake too, but claiming that Catholics aren't really Christians.
Damn, if the Catholics are up for grabs, can we Atheists claim them too? That gets us to at least 40% right off the bat!!!
Um, the only Christian denominations at the time were Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various other branches of Eastern Christianity. Protestantism, which you're probably thinking of, didn't exist yet.
So yes, there were non-Catholic Christians around, and yes, Eastern Orthodox Christians were murdered during at least one of the Crusades (the Fourth Crusade during which Constantinople was sacked), but no Protestants were around at that time. And I doubt these fundies would approve of Eastern Orthodoxy given their stance on Catholicism.
There were no born against in the crusades. You didn't even exist until the 1800s as a spawn of the Millerites who though that William Miller predicted the date of the Rapture (which he also made-up). Oh, and the Advents are your cousins from the Millerites too, so yeah.
Least informed about one's own religion award.
^That should be "agains", even with the edit feature this site wouldn't let me use it anyway. (AOL uses a new ICP code each time I log on, so mine is sometimes identicle to other users and I have edit comment options on posts I didn't make.)
QEDQED beat me to it. In addition, I don't hear too many fundies saying, "Oh, we Truly SavedTM True ChristiansTM had nothing to do with the positive contributions to world civilization made by or on behalf of the Catholic Church."
"If you don't believe me, do a little research for yourself."
Great 2 irony meters fried in one evening.
If by Born-again Christians you mean Baptists they didn't exist at the time of the Crusades.
Who were these "Born Again Christians" persecuted by the Catholics? The Cathars and the Waldenses? The Paulicians? The Bogomils? Neither these nor any other of the early non-Catholic sects had beliefs that resemble any modern Christian sect, despite attempts by some lunatic-fringe Baptists to claim various unspecified non-Catholic cults as predecessors to their denomination.
#276116 beat me in. That'd be sad wouldn't it. Gnostic 'Christians' that only paid attention to the teachings of John.
Shame the crusaders killed 100 Catholics for every Cathar in Beziers - but that's OK, God will sort out his own.
Born agains did not even come into being for hundreds of years after the crusades... in America. Unless the catholics posses time travel, there is no way that born-agains were killed during the crusades. If you say they did, you are a liar, but we already knew that.
Somehow I don't think that Carthars, Coptic, or Eastern Orthodox Christians believed in the concept of "saved" or "born-again" since those are 19th century inventions. And believe me, if you are so stupid that you don't accept Roman Catholics as Christians, you surely wouldn't accept those three groups. I really think it is YOU who need to do a little research since appear to have no knowledge of the Crusades, early or mideval Christianity, or even the definition of what constitutes a Christian!
Inviting to do research is a trap into which I will not fall.
Whether or not the Catholics are proper Christians is completely immaterial. What matters is that the motivation behind the Crusades (that is, intolerance for otherness) is a quality shared by the historical Catholic Church (less so today, although who knows what could happen if Pope Benny gets his way) and "true" Christians.
Heh. The pope kicked off the Crusades because the petty nobility and homeless warriors were making Europe a lawless land. They were preventing trade and decimating resources where they were, so a bribe was offered: you fight for God, we'll pardon your eternal soul - as long as you do it way over there.
Before the Crusades, the idea of Christian Warriors was very rare, and not considered an important aspect of the church.
I'm hardly a theologian, so forgive me my ignorance on this matter, but weren't all Christians Catholic before the Reformation, or am I wrong on that?
Swede
Catholics are definitely Christian.
Yes, Christians murdered Christians during the Crusades.
What do you think Catholics are, you flaming idiot. Pastafarians?
They were Christians long before your bunch of insufferable morons arrived on the scene.
A little research shows the Catholics were not only the FIRST Christians but were, during the crusades the ONLY Christians, Gnostics being a very early branch of them.
It's called the Holy Roman Empire and it spread YOUR religion by force. Your religion is a result of the defanging of absolute Catholic rule, that and the resistance of a few kings and a few populace rebellions.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
