jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (68 posts)

Crusade or Jihad - The quest to learn who started the fire

  1. epus profile image61
    epusposted 4 years ago

    This is just  a good view for our enlightenment. We have many opinions about the classic war of the middle age. I am thinking if it is the religion that troubled us humans or is the SELFISH AND AMBITIOUS LEADERS THAT PERSUADE THE MINORITIES. What do you think?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Does it matter? Blame it on whatever you like, the result is/was the same. I tend to agree with you that some people abuse power and some people are easily led. Unfortunately, this means to me that religion needs to be exposed for the lies that it perpetuates.

      People will still find justification for war and violence. But, I think it is much more difficult to persuade masses of people to go against their conscience if you can't convince them there will be an eternal reward for doing it. I certainly hope so anyway.

      1. epus profile image61
        epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You have a very strong argument here. Good version of yours!

      2. 60
        LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Religion isn't it suppose to be a lifestyle and a belief?  I have found that within the Religion in one belief's could become something it was not attended for it to be so.  So, yes I agree that there are those that do abuse power whether it is of a religion aspect or not. Then there are those that does not..It is like you have the have nots and you have the haves.

    2. jellygator profile image94
      jellygatorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I believe people want to feel in control. Spirituality and religion existed long before Christianity or Judaism because it was a way that helped people make sense of their world. Sometimes it has been abused by people in order to manipulate the population, but these abuses are not defined by religion, but rather by the people who misuse it. The earliest examples of using religion to justify bloodshed that I know of were the Greeks and Romans, as reflected in mythology.

      1. 60
        LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yea I agree with that and see where  that is coming from...That is how the world is and me I know that God is still in control no matter what and I know that God is still good.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Of course it's about religion, there's nothing else it could have been about.

      The Crusades were an answer to the Islamic Conquests and the fact Muslims had been holding Jerusalem for 370 years. The Christians wanted it back because they considered it holy. The campaign was signed and sealed by the Pope and the Church of England.

      Those wars were a perfect example of how religions make good people do bad things.

      1. epus profile image61
        epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think the world learns the biggest lesson on Crusades and Jihad? or the WW1 and WW2? or the wars everywhere?

        I am wondering if the war today is not about battle anymore, it's about terrorist attack style like suicide bombings, some kind of a guerilla tactics.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure some people have learned, but the Christians and Muslims who continue their battles today haven't. History repeats itself.

        2. twosheds1 profile image61
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Crusdaes preceded the C of E. Imagine, though, what the world would be like if the church had said to the Muslims "Oh, you took Jerusalem? Well, it's holy to us, too, so why don't we share it?"

          @epus, low-intensity conflict (i.e. guerilla war) is the name of the game today because most industrialized nations have realized that conventional war is bad for business, and pre-industrial and emerging nations have also realized this, as well as realizing that taking on the US in a conventional war would be suicidal. Yet people still feel aggrieved, and so they fight back with whatever tactics they can. In other words, terrorism. I'm not saying that as a way to excuse terrorism, but as a way to understand it. Once we understand it, we can defeat it, except that in order to understand it, we (the US, that is) have to face some hard truths that are not very flattering.

          1. undermyhat profile image61
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Christianity and Judaism predates Islam - especially in "the Holy Land" - by centuries.  Muslims were busy killing both to conquer as much territory as possible.  Seems like a more reasonable question to ask what would the world be like if Muslims had just asked for pilgrimage rights to visit the hill where they believe Muhammed was taken to heaven.

      2. 60
        LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is still about the who has IT verses those that don't have IT.  People call it a religion. I call it a way to live to have peace and be happy. There will always be famine, wars, and everything that goes along with that. God took the peace and wisdom out of the world. That is why Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of us

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your faith based sermon.

      3. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Or, perhaps, a perfect example of how men use religions to make good people do bad things.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If that were the case, then those same men would have used religion to do other bad things, there would be a pattern. Why then would they focus entirely on Jerusalem? Why would they be fighting against Muslims to get access to this holy city?

  2. Sawfishlagoon profile image60
    Sawfishlagoonposted 4 years ago

    I suppose it is both. In my neighborhood, we have Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Agnostics. We all get along just fine. We live and let live and the kids have a great time. Maybe the rest of the world will follow suit.

  3. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Most everyone I know would attribute the Crusades/Jihad ideas to S/Paul.

    1. epus profile image61
      epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you think so?

      1. Sawfishlagoon profile image60
        Sawfishlagoonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because, he hates sound instruction.

      2. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, according to history, S/Paul, a devote Mithraic Jew, was essentially the Vice President of the most powerful Organized Religion at the time -Judaism, notably the Sanhedrin. He was extremely wealthy, politically connected -throughout the Empire and as far east as Asia- articulate, educated and beyond influencing. He had the power to right laws or nullify others. He was no doubt within range  when the head of The Baptizer was handed to one of his political friends wives. He knew of Moshiach and the events surrounding his murder.

        One of his esteemed acts, when given full authority, was to go from house to house, town to town, throughout the Empire, drag out the followers of this new sect called the Way, and watch them being beaten to death with stones, until their blood filled the streets. Thousands upon thousands of believers were killed at his command -in the name of Lawful jihad {struggle; resistance} and crusade {sovereign religious battle} against his own Hebrew brothers. Rome was behind him 100% -he was like mini-Herod...

        As he was heading to Syria, to seal the final deal of genocide against them, he has a change of heart (?) or did he come up with a better plan? A plan to take control of this Sect and put himself at the helm. It had given him extreme power from one end to the other. He began to dictate, to all the provinces of Rome, Europe, Asia, what was/was not Lawful and acceptable by sect followers. He, and he alone, established the mandates, rules, etc that became the foundation called Christianity. It was he who dragged Petra and John to Rome, to sway his politicos into making Christianity their own. Eventually it worked, as Constantine infused the Greco-Roman civilization, its beliefs, with those the Mithraic Saul established. It changed the face of history. It unified paganism with Judaism and this new teaching. Now Rome controlled the Hebrews, the Gentiles and everything between -on a spiritual level.

        It was also during this time, that Saul did a 360 and began to persecute non-believer Jews the same. His work continued for hundreds of years to come. He essentially mandated that only believers has sovereign authority over the world, even the air. Anyone who did not follow the way was considered the enemy of Christ. Letter after letter reveals this. His two-tone wording, riddled with messages of domination and 'love'. He was possibly the most brilliant politician of his day. He used the Gentiles. -an open market of people who did not know Judaic Law or its practices, where he blended their mysticism with his own version of Hebrew mysticism. Eventually it caught up to him and Rome had enough, in walks Nero and wipes out the entire lot of `em -Hebrew, Gentile, Believer or not.

        But, his ideas were written down and followed centuries later by Rome and by the Papacy, even even after the Reformation. By this, the Crusades were enabled and likewise by these same principles Islam adopted many techniques into their jihad {struggle} against their Hebrew cousins and eventually against Christianity itself. Ironically it was directly from Judaism and Christianity, that Islam got these points. Again, the area Saul was born is now considered the epicenter of Islam. A place where centuries earlier was engulfed in Babylonian ideology.

        James

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you are not convinced by Paul's conversion?

          I've never sat down to compare his teachings with those of Yahshua. There have been very many forum threads that do, and I guess it's easy to select passages from the bible to 'prove' whether he did or did not change Yashua's teachings. Which reminds me, how few the number of posters in this forum these days; it's as if many of the old faces have been raptured.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol. I think many have been perma-banned or banned for a few months at least.

            But, I was never fully convinced of Saul's conversion.
            Too many variables he himself wrote that are at odds with the Message, like forcing himself on the twelve and into the first council. Enforcement of the Law upon the Gentiles, and more. Too many questions come up. Was he the cornerstone of all modern evangelism? No doubt. Just look at the love-law split tongue used by them today. Same technique. He poses the lawless life yet imposes lawfulness to achieve that life, mixed with many mystical ideas of heaven-earth, rapture, etc. He turned Y`shua into a god -which the Romans ran with- and the rest is history. Those exact teachings are evident throughout the many today. Jesus being god, the Law enforced, afterlife, etc.

            My take is Petra and John -and no doubt the other Hebrew believers- were scared witless by him, so accepted him into the fold. They knew all too well what he had been doing days before his 'road show''.
            And as a direct publicizing of them both, led to their untimely demise. One as a salt-slave on Patmos, under an extremely ruthless man, the other crucified. James, and seven more, were safe in Jerusalem until Nero, while Tomas went to India as a tradesman. No one around to challenge him made a perfect scenario for Saul to take over command. Lastly, this Lucius fellow. He holds the keys to what happened and what did not. Who was he? Where did he get this information on so many events.

            James.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Paul does get a lot of bad press on this forum, but to me he did say a number of positive things. I find many of his sayings useful as a rebuttal to those who talk of rejecting Messiah is to got to hell. However, I recognise that I have not studied him as a man, or looked to see if or how his teachings evolved. I've no doubt that his teachings became the cornerstone of the Church, rather than those of Yashua, and when I look at the Church, I see something with some strange ideas.

              1. 60
                LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would like to thank the both of you for this confersation. I like what I have just learned. I can see what you are saying about Saul He was very cruel and then he had a change of heart. Then became Paul and all was very different after that. I agree as well Church has not been good for quite some time now.

            2. 60
              LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What do you mean about the afterlife? I did see where it talks about the afterlife in the Bible.

              1. 60
                LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                correction: I did NOT see where it talks about or is written in the Bible about "afterlife'.

                1. epus profile image61
                  epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It has been said by Jesus on the cross with one of the criminals there. The other one changed his heart and asked Jesus if He could remember him in His kingdom when they die. Jesus replied that they will be together in paradise. They knew that they will die from the cross.

              2. 60
                LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                correction: I did NOT see where it talks about or is written in the Bible about "afterlife'.

        2. epus profile image61
          epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This opinion should be taken well and must be studied by the scholars. I just want to point out that Saul became Paul by a miracle when he got blind from a talking light. The rest was the result from his conversion, meaning God's will.

  4. AshtonFirefly profile image82
    AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago

    Stupid, selfish, deranged, misled, corrupted people are the cause, at the most fundamental observation. If one attributes it to religion, then so be it. Because humans invented religion anyway. Works either way.

    1. 60
      LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It has been labeles that for so long over many, many, many years. People have forgotten what living a life is.

  5. epus profile image61
    epusposted 4 years ago

    Back to the topic of Crusade and Jihad...

  6. epus profile image61
    epusposted 4 years ago

    The irony is that both faith originated from the God of Abraham. Why did they have to fight?
    Did the diplomat and the negotiators in those days were that dumb to interpret their faith?

    1. 60
      LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. They were not actually. There will always be one that remain. There is always one leader not ever two leader because if there were it was always a conflict of who would be right.

  7. 0
    rickyliceaposted 4 years ago

    Jihad started first in the 7th century, the Crusades were much a later thing done to reconquer the "holy" land.
    Do religions cause some wars? Of course, but most of the times it's just used as an excuse to take other's people's stuff.
    Chimpanzees go to war, even ants do, I don't think as some Atheists do that getting rid of religion will cause an end to all wars.

    1. epus profile image61
      epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are a historian.

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, is there anything factually wrong with what I said?

        1. epus profile image61
          epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Appreciated your views, you know. I am just like watching History Channel.

          1. 0
            rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh I thought you were being sarcastic.  big_smile As I've been told I'm bad at detecting sarcasm over the internet.

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6954821.jpg

    2. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Reformation had more to do with powerful German Princes making the most of an opportunity to split from the Holy Roman Empire by latching on to Luther's reform movement.  This triggered most of the Reformation in Europe.  In England, Henry VIII in ability to father a child triggered that countries "reformation."  Time and again we see religion as a pretext not a cause.

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes that last example is hilarious, the whole country suddenly discovered the virtues of Protestantism when the King converted.
        That's why the opinion of the masses, is not to be trusted.

        1. epus profile image61
          epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But lots of that opinions could lead to factual circumstances. How do you explain that sir?

    3. Jerami profile image76
      Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think as some Atheists do that getting rid of religion will cause an end to all wars.

      =========================

      Imagine if you will ...  what would the world be like today if there had been no wars. Those billions of people had not died. If each of these people had not died in war but lived to have what was the average  number of Children for the time.      OR
      If 1/2 to 2/3s of the population of Europe and Asia had not died from the bubonic plague and they had the average number of children for their time.

      People would still be dieing from other causes.
      AND ...   What would the world be like if death by any cause ceased to be?

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        O.K???

    4. 60
      LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When Jesus Christ died on the cross. That was when Peace and Wisdom was taken from the world and given to the people who believes. You can analyze all history, question many things. YOU should read Job. This put me in the mind of the Book of Job where everyone was analyzing a catastophe.

  8. Cheeky Girl profile image85
    Cheeky Girlposted 4 years ago

    I don't think the re-arguing of ancient history will change the facts of where we are today. Modern religions will have to learn to get along with each others and be more tolerant.

    1. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If one looks carefully at all the conflicts around the world over the last 50 years the majority of conflicts in which religious secularism is cited as a cause Islam is typically the aggressor.  When a Dutch artist drew a picture of Mohammed  the Muslim world erupted in violence. An Irish nun praying in a North African church got her throat cut because she was not Muslim and Muslims were mad.  It isn't modern religions that are the problem it is religions that have failed to modernize and there is only one of those among the worlds dominant religions.

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I guess that's true, although it's probably intertwined with the tribal nature of many muslim societies.
        The Christian world is mostly in Europe and the Americas, which are pretty rich and educated compared to the rest of the world.
        While Muslims are mostly from the Middle East and Africa.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How long ago did Europeans colonize Africa?  America? How about Asia?  Indonesia seems to work reasonably well despite it being Muslim - perhaps the Modern abandonment of tribalism is the key.  Perhaps there is a vested interest in keeping Muslim populations stuck in tribalism and ignorance.  Remember, it is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam - what other religion is that true?

          1. 0
            rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Europeans colonized the Americas, but in Arica and Asia they just passed by, i.e. there are no white populations in Africa and Asia, except South Africa.
            I agree that it's holding them back, but it's not the only factor.

            1. mikelong profile image82
              mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How is this the case? European populations are throughout Asia and Africa, and have been for centuries.

              1. 0
                rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Like?

    2. epus profile image61
      epusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like this thought.

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "a face that could launch a thousand ships".

  10. 60
    LCJamesposted 4 years ago

    Well what exactly is a minority? If you look at all the african americans, look at all the hispanic and latinos, all the french, all the italians, and the asians, the muslims, and the rest of them. The caucasians just dont stand a chance do they?

  11. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    Let's see...

    We can start with the Boers, though they are not the first...we can then look at the English that followed them..

    The French in West Africa?

    In India, the Portuguese, Dutch, English, French and others settled down with the local populations.

    Shanghai International Settlement? 

    This short list can go on and on and on...

    1. 0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They mostly left mixed race descended for example the Portuguese in Cape Verde.

      There are no significant European descent Groups, like say 10% of the population anywhere in Africa of Asia.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Afri … n_ancestry

      Only Namibia is close 6% White.

      https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/wa.html

  12. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    The populations were/are significant.........and this extended to politics, economics, and social controls in a completely disproportionate fashion.

    Look at what a minority population in South Africa did.....and then extend that..  Look at the world created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement...look at the multitudes constrained by the will of a few Western European states....

    1. 0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      C'est la vie.

      1. 60
        LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Can you write this comment in English. And let me know what this says so that I can learn this?

        1. 0
          rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          et le google?

  13. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    No...that's not "life"...it is, rather, something that has happened. Life occurs regardless.

    1. 0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's the inescapable nature of things, it's always been like that and it will always be... for the few to rule over the many.

  14. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    And something that continues to take place.

    Until people wake up and see how self-fulfilling prophesies are created.and perpetuated in order to twist individual and social perceptions of "reality".

    http://lautenberg.senate.gov/documents/ … n_Iran.pdf
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134836,00.html
    http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0419/041_print.html


    Inescapable?

    I don't think so.

    1. 60
      LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am trruly sorry for some of my comments but I am not into stalking anyone and as for as my location. I have just started HubPages .com to see if I would like writing here and to learn about that. If I do not like this then I will not get on here no more. I really do not like the idea of being accused of stalking someone on line. I am just learning how to use what they call forums and learning actually what a computer is and I won't be on here no more I do not Know any of you personally and other wise I have never met anyof you at all So Hope you all have better life instead of trying to point figures at someone that just wants to learn...Truly I am just a beginner...I like learning...that is all...

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dude how old are you?

        1. 60
          LCJamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am just an uneducated hillbilly. someone that never had the opportunity to get a real education.  My age should not matter. I am not coming back here I would much rather unsubscribe..

 
working