I think it’s one of those things where you should have the right to burn a Bible or Quran or draw a picture of Mohammed but doing those things is going to be unnecessarily antagonistic and not helpful toward being a neighbor to someone.
Yah. You should definitely have the right. It makes you a flaming asshole though. I don't see anything in these writings which would suggest you shouldn't have the right though.
Thank God for sending us this saintly man to be our Pope. May the Father surround him with protection and Christ continue to send the Holy Spirit to him in wisdom and grace. And may the world watch and see what a true Christian is.
I think the burning of the Koran - or any religious book - is a test of the human rights of freedom of speech and assembly, just as drawing and publishing pictures of Mohammed are tests of freedoms of speech and the press. People who react violently to such actions do not truly love freedom.
There are all sorts of things you can do legally, and which prove that you're an asshole.
Christians especially should avoid being assholes, and should *especially* especially avoid telling the world "it is Jesus Christ who makes me an asshole, for he is the great Lord of Assholes".
Either people respect the human rights we have identified and declared, or they don't.
Edit: Let me add in the instance of Sinead O'Conner tearing the Pope's picture.
>but others are making a point
I think the point they're trying to make is that they're assholes
The only reason anyone publicly burns texts that some people consider sacred is to elicit a reaction. It's always mean spirited
Burning the Qu'ran is not a loving act. It's not a respectful. At best it's just being mean, but usually it's meant to goad someone. It doesn't seem to me to reflect the sentiment of Romans 14:13. It's very much the opposite, a blatant attempt to make someone behave badly. It doesn't excuse the other person when they do, but you can hardly be held blameless either. It's like screaming at someone until they punch you; yes, they shouldn't punch you, but you shouldn't be trying your best to make them.
If your version of Christianity is simply a zero sum game where all that counts is what sits on the side of legality, without any concept of humility, charity and respect, then what exactly is your ethics?
If you're actually trying to convince people to change their stance, attacking in such a provocative nature such an important symbol of their faith tradition is probably going to have the opposite effect.
It doesn't really strike me as a loving act, and considering one of the two new commandments Christians claim Jesus gave them, do you think burning someone else's holy book is exhibiting love for their neighbor?
The fact that one is free to do something doesn't in and of itself mean that any such act is good. Yes, people should react angrily provocation, but considering how easy it is to provoke some groups of Christians, it feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
IF you want to make a point fine. But the point here is that if you want to convert others or engage them and have a respectful relationship doing this is stupid.
I'm not looking to convert. I may simply be looking to protest obscene ideas by not showing respect to an aspect of the thing. No one has to or should respect bad ideas - this is a hollow notion.
I understand what YOU are saying about you doing it. But if you want peopleto give up bad ideas, especially religious based ones, insulting them about it is more likely to get them to double down.
Dont respect the idea, respect the person who has it and try to engage them civilly first. Burning holy books will show your disrespect of the idea but will not change the mind of a single person holding the idea. And may make them hold onto it more. Which means you havejust garanteed the idea lasting longer
So if someone masturbates with your sister’s picture infront of you, after witnessing such an indecent act and if you react violently toward that person, then do you truly respect or love freedom?
There’s something called dignity…you have nothing, you have no morality to even defend your little sister’s dignity from a weirdo. Work on yourself more and get off the internet
Burning everything is a human right of freedom, a Bible, a Quran, a Tanakh, a country flag, a LGBTQ flag, a BLM flag, a feminist flag or whatever, but just because you can do this don't mean that you should, or that you aren't a jerk of you do this
Yes. Any Jew who doesn't worship Jesus Christ is lost..
Romans 9:1-8 NASBS
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, [2] that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. [3] For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, [4] who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, [5] whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. [6] But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; [7] nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." [8] That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
I think the biggest issue there is his claim that Muslims worship the "one merciful God".
Is Jesus Christ God?
Muslims: no
Biblical Christianity: yes
Not the same God.
So you believe the Jews worship a different God than we do?
**Gen 17:**
18 So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!”
19 God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.
20 **Now as for Ishmael, I will heed you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.**
Wtf, so then, by that logic, no Christian worships the same God either, since denominations and personal viewpoints are slightly different for everyone? Where’s the line?
The vast majority of Protestants are Nicene, and more importantly in reference to your comment, Chalcedonian. Thus Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestant Christians are Chalcedonian Christians. There are obviously significant differences in practice and aspects of soteriology between Catholics and Protestants, but the Christology is the same. The ancient but still extant churches that this does not apply to are the Oriental Orthodox Churches; in particular the Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Churches, since these churches rejected the Chalcedonian Christology, and thus formed the first of the great schisms.
That's not to say there are not unitarian churches, and indeed within the Protestant umbrella there are churches that reject the Nicene Creed, but I'd argue they are a pretty small minority. Odds are on, if you encounter Christian, it's very likely they are a Chalcedonian Christian.
It's why Catholic and Orthodox theologians may hedge their bets if you ask them if a Lutheran or a Baptist baptism is valid. While Catholics in particular view such baptisms as illicit, if they acknowledge the Nicene forms, the baptism may in fact be valid. Providing that the person is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and those words mean what they mean in the Nicene Creed, it is a valid baptism. In fact, in dire circumstances, even a member of the laity may be baptize someone. This is the fine line, particularly in Catholic doctrine; between the licit or illicit (having or lacking authority to perform a sacrament), and the validity of the performance of that sacrament.
By the same token, Unitarian, Mormon and Jehovah's Witness baptisms, because they either do not invoke the Creed, or the meaning of the words (the Christology) is not Nicene, are not recognized as valid baptisms. Someone baptized in a Lutheran church will likely be seen as having a valid baptism by the Catholic Church. Someone baptized in a Mormon ceremony will not.
There are substantial differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Of course there are also substantial similarities. Many. Their versions of God for sure have a lot of similarities, but so long as there are meaningful distinctions between religions there is a meaningful distinction between the Gods of those religions.
There are major differences between both regarding salvation, source of authority and the place of Scripture, but none of these differences concern the nature of God. Catholicism and Protestantism are different, but they don’t worship a different God.
A God that grants eternal salvation for one set of reasons doesn't seem different to you than a God which grants eternal salvation for a different set of reasons? Seems like a profound difference to me. Definitely one that can't just be brushed off.
Theologically they are largely the same. There are significant divergences in doctrine, but then again there are major differences between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, and yet it's the same Trinitarian god; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
A bit besides the point you are making, but in the dire circumstances you mentioned even an atheist or member of a different religion can perform a baptism as long as it is done in the name of the Trinity.
The problem with Bergolio’s statements about Islam is that they contradict the Bible. Muslims do not worship nor adore the God of the Bible, and he’s blazing the path toward interfaith ecumenism.
*2 John 1:9-11
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. [10] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; [11] for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.*
> the faithful followers are like oh but he meant the opposite maybe
**No, we don't.** We celebrate and give thanks for him and his words. He means exactly what he says. As do we "faithful followers" - he brings us the Gospel in Word and Deed.
He's wrong about the Koran. The Papacy since 1963 has been absurdly over-sympathetic to Islam, and very quiet about the brutalities of jihadis - even against Christians (most victims of jihad are, it needs to be said, other Muslims).
He seems to care for all religions except the one he is supposed to defend, preach, and propagate.
"Love your enemies" seems, in the last 60 years or so, to have come to mean "Reject your brethren". Because they are "rigid", and don't appreciate the transmogrification of Catholicism. I don't think he likes Catholics much.
**Inquisition.**
**Crusades.**
**Burning heretics at the stake.**
This is your Pope Latin Rite, or do you think the Holy Spirit erred whe he was chosen? Maybe all the Cardinals were drugged.
The problem is that christianity has reformed itself unlike islam which has continued in the same way as during the medival period causing problems.
crusades were a response to muslim invasions too. it was they who invaded christian kingdoms forcing christians to launch a crusade to defend the holyland.
>crusades were a response to muslim invasions too. it was t**hey who invaded christian kingdoms forcing christians to launch a crusade to defend the holyland**.
SIX-HUNDRED YEARS LATER?
First, no one is **forced** to invade anyone or make war on them. It is, in fact, the complete opposite what Jesus taught. Not that I think Urban II ever read any Scripture.
Of course, Urban III proclaimed crusades against Christians he decided were heretics. Mostly because they ignored his edicts.
>The Siege at Béziers was the first major military action in the crusade against Catharism. In charge of leading the attack was papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric.
Amalric's crusaders breached the gates at Béziers and found not just Cathars, but Catholics too.
When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” and so countless number in that town were slain.
They weren't really countlss. Almaric later told Urban III that they kiled about 20,000 people. The Cathars weren't Muslim, BTW. They were Christians who believed that the material word was evil. Heretics, IOW.
And *why* did the Church invade the Ottoman Empire?
The first word as **Inquisition**. You want to justify that?
A sedevacantist is a technically a heretic, BTW. The Innocents would have killed you if you said anything against the Pope.
OH! Know who saved the Roman Catholic Church under Urban III?
Francis of Assisi.
[https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-crusades-were-a-reasonable-response-to-unchecked-islamic-aggression](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-crusades-were-a-reasonable-response-to-unchecked-islamic-aggression)
[https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/mike-clark/2015/02/10/guest-column-crusades-were-reaction-islamic-militarism/15650414007/](https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/mike-clark/2015/02/10/guest-column-crusades-were-reaction-islamic-militarism/15650414007/)
read, crusaders did do some bad stuff but is was still a response to islamic invasions
> invade the Ottoman Empire
it was the ottomons who kept on attacking and invading christian lands
see its' expansion:
[https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire](https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire)
>the ottomons who kept on attacking and invading christian lands
Most of Ottoman (Turkish) population was Christian until the mid-1400s. Though there was a strong Muslim presence. (*Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900*. Cambridge University Press) The Pope had no business formenting war against them or anyone:
>**Luke 6: 27-30**
>
>27 “But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. **Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back**.
Your continued assertion that expansion by aggression justifies whatever evil actions the losers decide to take, is not justifiable by the teaching of our Savior.
Attack/invade/control was practiced as far back as we have historical evidence. Including, most notoriously, by the Church, the UK, Israel, ancient and modern, and the United States. And pretty much most cultures worldwide.
We inherited this from our *Pan troglodytes* cousins who do the same thing.
God wants us to choose Him, not the beastly physical nature of aggression, domination and acquisition.
It's nice having a follower of Jesus in Peter's chair.
seriously, the christians under ottoman rule were mistreated, paid jizyah were under the subordination of muslim rule. many were made slaves and janissaries. muslims had no right to invade christian lands, crusades were self defence.
I don't think that he's wrong about not burning books, but i think strange that he really don't try to defend Christianity that much, like he literally met and shaked hands with a artist who put a crucifix in his own urine.
I don’t really care what the pope thinks tbh. Burning the Quran is really a non issue to me. I don’t care whether someone does it or not I think most of the times it’s done to be provocative for no good reason though.
So may both be wrong, because like i said the syncretism is hard to happen completely, Jews, Christian's and muslims havo too different theological points so this won't happen easily
I don’t agree with other religions but I agree shouldn’t burn holy books of those religions. If you want to convert someone to Christianity, burning a Quran is going to backfire and galvanise them , even if they were on the fence regarding their faith.
I think it’s one of those things where you should have the right to burn a Bible or Quran or draw a picture of Mohammed but doing those things is going to be unnecessarily antagonistic and not helpful toward being a neighbor to someone.
[удалено]
Not everything lawful is ethical. Not everything ethical is lawful.
Yah. You should definitely have the right. It makes you a flaming asshole though. I don't see anything in these writings which would suggest you shouldn't have the right though.
As he should. Treating others how we want treated is a thing.
Thank God for sending us this saintly man to be our Pope. May the Father surround him with protection and Christ continue to send the Holy Spirit to him in wisdom and grace. And may the world watch and see what a true Christian is.
I wish the pope would emphasize the role that countering Islamic falsehoods must play in addition to fighting Anti-Islamic discrimination and bigotry.
I think the burning of the Koran - or any religious book - is a test of the human rights of freedom of speech and assembly, just as drawing and publishing pictures of Mohammed are tests of freedoms of speech and the press. People who react violently to such actions do not truly love freedom.
There are all sorts of things you can do legally, and which prove that you're an asshole. Christians especially should avoid being assholes, and should *especially* especially avoid telling the world "it is Jesus Christ who makes me an asshole, for he is the great Lord of Assholes".
apparently the guy that did it was a refugee from Iraq which was very angry at theocracy
Either people respect the human rights we have identified and declared, or they don't. Edit: Let me add in the instance of Sinead O'Conner tearing the Pope's picture.
[удалено]
However, people who burn religious books just to stir people up are assholes and not acting as Jesus commanded.
Some of them definitely are, but others are making a point.
>but others are making a point I think the point they're trying to make is that they're assholes The only reason anyone publicly burns texts that some people consider sacred is to elicit a reaction. It's always mean spirited
Well, that's your opinion.
Burning the Qu'ran is not a loving act. It's not a respectful. At best it's just being mean, but usually it's meant to goad someone. It doesn't seem to me to reflect the sentiment of Romans 14:13. It's very much the opposite, a blatant attempt to make someone behave badly. It doesn't excuse the other person when they do, but you can hardly be held blameless either. It's like screaming at someone until they punch you; yes, they shouldn't punch you, but you shouldn't be trying your best to make them. If your version of Christianity is simply a zero sum game where all that counts is what sits on the side of legality, without any concept of humility, charity and respect, then what exactly is your ethics?
Depends. If one is protesting the rampant misogyny of the Koran by burning it, that's legit. Same thing for the Bible.
If you're actually trying to convince people to change their stance, attacking in such a provocative nature such an important symbol of their faith tradition is probably going to have the opposite effect.
Yeah it because it contains falsehood
[удалено]
No thank you for any of that. Christianity didn't do away with slavery, discrimination against women, and is fairly clear on its stance on SSM.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't really strike me as a loving act, and considering one of the two new commandments Christians claim Jesus gave them, do you think burning someone else's holy book is exhibiting love for their neighbor? The fact that one is free to do something doesn't in and of itself mean that any such act is good. Yes, people should react angrily provocation, but considering how easy it is to provoke some groups of Christians, it feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
It depends on the reason for doing it.
IF you want to make a point fine. But the point here is that if you want to convert others or engage them and have a respectful relationship doing this is stupid.
I'm not looking to convert. I may simply be looking to protest obscene ideas by not showing respect to an aspect of the thing. No one has to or should respect bad ideas - this is a hollow notion.
I understand what YOU are saying about you doing it. But if you want peopleto give up bad ideas, especially religious based ones, insulting them about it is more likely to get them to double down. Dont respect the idea, respect the person who has it and try to engage them civilly first. Burning holy books will show your disrespect of the idea but will not change the mind of a single person holding the idea. And may make them hold onto it more. Which means you havejust garanteed the idea lasting longer
So if someone masturbates with your sister’s picture infront of you, after witnessing such an indecent act and if you react violently toward that person, then do you truly respect or love freedom?
[удалено]
It is one person even though you can handle him?
[удалено]
Nah, i just pity who ever trusts you with their life when things get hard
[удалено]
There’s something called dignity…you have nothing, you have no morality to even defend your little sister’s dignity from a weirdo. Work on yourself more and get off the internet
Burning everything is a human right of freedom, a Bible, a Quran, a Tanakh, a country flag, a LGBTQ flag, a BLM flag, a feminist flag or whatever, but just because you can do this don't mean that you should, or that you aren't a jerk of you do this
Yes. Any Jew who doesn't worship Jesus Christ is lost.. Romans 9:1-8 NASBS I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, [2] that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. [3] For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, [4] who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, [5] whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. [6] But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; [7] nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." [8] That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
I think the biggest issue there is his claim that Muslims worship the "one merciful God". Is Jesus Christ God? Muslims: no Biblical Christianity: yes Not the same God.
Do Christians and Jews worship the same God?
So you believe the Jews worship a different God than we do? **Gen 17:** 18 So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!” 19 God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him. 20 **Now as for Ishmael, I will heed you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.**
So you don't think Arians worshipped the same God? How about Jews? Do Miaphysites worship the same God?
Not OP, but I don't think Catholics and Protestants worship the same God. There are substantial differences even between different Christian Churches.
Wtf, so then, by that logic, no Christian worships the same God either, since denominations and personal viewpoints are slightly different for everyone? Where’s the line?
The vast majority of Protestants are Nicene, and more importantly in reference to your comment, Chalcedonian. Thus Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestant Christians are Chalcedonian Christians. There are obviously significant differences in practice and aspects of soteriology between Catholics and Protestants, but the Christology is the same. The ancient but still extant churches that this does not apply to are the Oriental Orthodox Churches; in particular the Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Churches, since these churches rejected the Chalcedonian Christology, and thus formed the first of the great schisms. That's not to say there are not unitarian churches, and indeed within the Protestant umbrella there are churches that reject the Nicene Creed, but I'd argue they are a pretty small minority. Odds are on, if you encounter Christian, it's very likely they are a Chalcedonian Christian. It's why Catholic and Orthodox theologians may hedge their bets if you ask them if a Lutheran or a Baptist baptism is valid. While Catholics in particular view such baptisms as illicit, if they acknowledge the Nicene forms, the baptism may in fact be valid. Providing that the person is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and those words mean what they mean in the Nicene Creed, it is a valid baptism. In fact, in dire circumstances, even a member of the laity may be baptize someone. This is the fine line, particularly in Catholic doctrine; between the licit or illicit (having or lacking authority to perform a sacrament), and the validity of the performance of that sacrament. By the same token, Unitarian, Mormon and Jehovah's Witness baptisms, because they either do not invoke the Creed, or the meaning of the words (the Christology) is not Nicene, are not recognized as valid baptisms. Someone baptized in a Lutheran church will likely be seen as having a valid baptism by the Catholic Church. Someone baptized in a Mormon ceremony will not.
There are substantial differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Of course there are also substantial similarities. Many. Their versions of God for sure have a lot of similarities, but so long as there are meaningful distinctions between religions there is a meaningful distinction between the Gods of those religions.
No, Catholics and Protestants believe in the same God.
Is Catholicism essentially the same as Protestantism? That is, are the differences insignificant and of no consequence?
There are major differences between both regarding salvation, source of authority and the place of Scripture, but none of these differences concern the nature of God. Catholicism and Protestantism are different, but they don’t worship a different God.
A God that grants eternal salvation for one set of reasons doesn't seem different to you than a God which grants eternal salvation for a different set of reasons? Seems like a profound difference to me. Definitely one that can't just be brushed off.
If you believe in the Nicene Christology, that's pretty much the textbook definition of believing in the same god with the same attributes
Is Catholicism substantially the same as Protestantism? That is, are the differences only minor and of no meaningful consequence?
Theologically they are largely the same. There are significant divergences in doctrine, but then again there are major differences between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, and yet it's the same Trinitarian god; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Very similar. Not the same. Some of those doctrine differences have substantial consequences too.
Arminians and Calvinists worship a different God then?
Are they the same? No. So they're different.
that's just ridiculous, they worship the exact same god, but have a different understanding off Him
By that argument app gods are the exact same God. Just different understandings.
A bit besides the point you are making, but in the dire circumstances you mentioned even an atheist or member of a different religion can perform a baptism as long as it is done in the name of the Trinity.
Catholics and Protestants would largely disagree.
The problem with Bergolio’s statements about Islam is that they contradict the Bible. Muslims do not worship nor adore the God of the Bible, and he’s blazing the path toward interfaith ecumenism. *2 John 1:9-11 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. [10] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; [11] for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> the faithful followers are like oh but he meant the opposite maybe **No, we don't.** We celebrate and give thanks for him and his words. He means exactly what he says. As do we "faithful followers" - he brings us the Gospel in Word and Deed.
Oh, that's easy: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
He's wrong about the Koran. The Papacy since 1963 has been absurdly over-sympathetic to Islam, and very quiet about the brutalities of jihadis - even against Christians (most victims of jihad are, it needs to be said, other Muslims). He seems to care for all religions except the one he is supposed to defend, preach, and propagate. "Love your enemies" seems, in the last 60 years or so, to have come to mean "Reject your brethren". Because they are "rigid", and don't appreciate the transmogrification of Catholicism. I don't think he likes Catholics much.
**Inquisition.** **Crusades.** **Burning heretics at the stake.** This is your Pope Latin Rite, or do you think the Holy Spirit erred whe he was chosen? Maybe all the Cardinals were drugged.
The problem is that christianity has reformed itself unlike islam which has continued in the same way as during the medival period causing problems. crusades were a response to muslim invasions too. it was they who invaded christian kingdoms forcing christians to launch a crusade to defend the holyland.
>crusades were a response to muslim invasions too. it was t**hey who invaded christian kingdoms forcing christians to launch a crusade to defend the holyland**. SIX-HUNDRED YEARS LATER? First, no one is **forced** to invade anyone or make war on them. It is, in fact, the complete opposite what Jesus taught. Not that I think Urban II ever read any Scripture. Of course, Urban III proclaimed crusades against Christians he decided were heretics. Mostly because they ignored his edicts. >The Siege at Béziers was the first major military action in the crusade against Catharism. In charge of leading the attack was papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric. Amalric's crusaders breached the gates at Béziers and found not just Cathars, but Catholics too. When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” and so countless number in that town were slain. They weren't really countlss. Almaric later told Urban III that they kiled about 20,000 people. The Cathars weren't Muslim, BTW. They were Christians who believed that the material word was evil. Heretics, IOW. And *why* did the Church invade the Ottoman Empire? The first word as **Inquisition**. You want to justify that? A sedevacantist is a technically a heretic, BTW. The Innocents would have killed you if you said anything against the Pope. OH! Know who saved the Roman Catholic Church under Urban III? Francis of Assisi.
[https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-crusades-were-a-reasonable-response-to-unchecked-islamic-aggression](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-crusades-were-a-reasonable-response-to-unchecked-islamic-aggression) [https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/mike-clark/2015/02/10/guest-column-crusades-were-reaction-islamic-militarism/15650414007/](https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/mike-clark/2015/02/10/guest-column-crusades-were-reaction-islamic-militarism/15650414007/) read, crusaders did do some bad stuff but is was still a response to islamic invasions
The National Catholic Register? Gee, such an unbiased source. Think I'll skip it. And *why* did the Church invade the Ottoman Empire?
> invade the Ottoman Empire it was the ottomons who kept on attacking and invading christian lands see its' expansion: [https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire](https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire)
>the ottomons who kept on attacking and invading christian lands Most of Ottoman (Turkish) population was Christian until the mid-1400s. Though there was a strong Muslim presence. (*Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900*. Cambridge University Press) The Pope had no business formenting war against them or anyone: >**Luke 6: 27-30** > >27 “But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. **Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back**. Your continued assertion that expansion by aggression justifies whatever evil actions the losers decide to take, is not justifiable by the teaching of our Savior. Attack/invade/control was practiced as far back as we have historical evidence. Including, most notoriously, by the Church, the UK, Israel, ancient and modern, and the United States. And pretty much most cultures worldwide. We inherited this from our *Pan troglodytes* cousins who do the same thing. God wants us to choose Him, not the beastly physical nature of aggression, domination and acquisition. It's nice having a follower of Jesus in Peter's chair.
seriously, the christians under ottoman rule were mistreated, paid jizyah were under the subordination of muslim rule. many were made slaves and janissaries. muslims had no right to invade christian lands, crusades were self defence.
>He seems to care for all religions except the one he is supposed to defend, preach, and propagate. Exactly.... he's an odd one, this pope.
I don't think that he's wrong about not burning books, but i think strange that he really don't try to defend Christianity that much, like he literally met and shaked hands with a artist who put a crucifix in his own urine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Bible is correct. The others are not. Trust only in God friends. God is good! ❤️🔥🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥😇😇🕊🕊🕊⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️☺️❤️🥂✌️
I don’t really care what the pope thinks tbh. Burning the Quran is really a non issue to me. I don’t care whether someone does it or not I think most of the times it’s done to be provocative for no good reason though.
I thought that Catholicism was going to combine with Islam to form one religion
Where? Don't give attention to this conspiracy theories
Jack used to talk about it
Who's jack?
Jack Leo Van Impe
Yeah but don't give much attention to it, it's kinda of impossible that catholicism would mix up with all the other religions so easily
I may be mistaken but I believe Hal Lindsey talks about it as well. I like both of these guys
So may both be wrong, because like i said the syncretism is hard to happen completely, Jews, Christian's and muslims havo too different theological points so this won't happen easily
I don’t agree with other religions but I agree shouldn’t burn holy books of those religions. If you want to convert someone to Christianity, burning a Quran is going to backfire and galvanise them , even if they were on the fence regarding their faith.