• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Looking into the shadows of the history of Christianity

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Milla said:
Good gravy. This board makes my brain hurt. Please do look at a diagram of the political spectrum sometime; Marxist liberals would be liable to believe in the coming of the revolution; a Marxist radical would believe as you say.
Marx is Marx. Shall we stretch him upon a political spectrum as well in order to comply with those Marxists that are more squeamish about the role Marx's ideas playyed in history. When the Bolsheviks came to power, the first to go were their menshevik pawns.
For Marx, it was all about the revolution. For liberals, it was all about the removal of the ancien regime. Either way, what you are left with is removing evil of the old system in return for a blood bath, and a system that is usually worse than the one that it is replacing.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
People usually vote against something/somebody, as opposed to voting for them. Many people voted for Bush as the lesser of 2 evils. Likewise the average citizen in Russian were never true communists, they had just lost faith in the existing system. The common man may be the "gunpowder" but he is rarely the "spark."

Revolutions are a product of "disillusioned" intellectuals who can articulate their cause, not someone who is living day-to-day, just trying to survive. If the "ideology" is delivered in the right place at the right time and with a core of loyal followers, that may provide the "spark." Beyond the Bolshevik's, Communism was not the popular choice of the people, just the faint hope for a positive change in their lives

Based on Acts 4:32-37, the apostles, under the influence of the Holy Spirit-
-no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own but the shared everything they had
-therewere no needy persons among them.
-those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostle's feet
-it was distributed to anyone who had need.

That does not describe a capitalistic system. Acts 4:32-37 appears to portray a socialist/communist system based on Christian principles. There is no reason that such a state that would address people's basic needs would be just as viable as those based on greed and dictatorship. Unfortunately, our view of Communism was "tarnished" by a secular leadership with the same "vices" that it was supposed to eliminate. A Biblical "spark" could just possibly appeal to the common man, just as it did in the early church.
 
Upvote 0

Lifesaver

Fides et Ratio
Jan 8, 2004
6,855
288
40
São Paulo, Brazil
✟31,097.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Milla said:
You've hit upon an inadvertent truth: a religion. Russian Orthodoxy. Others were barely tolerated at the best of times and were generally actively supressed
If Catholicism was supressed, then it was probably legitimate to have a revolution under the tsar as well; but one towards an acceptance or even upheld of Catholicism by the government;
And not a socialist one, since socialism is inherently contrary to Christianity, in all of its forms (from the most radical to the blander).

I'm curious: what part of Russian culture was destroyed?
I'm curious to know about one single higher culture production by any socialist country.
The best any socialist nation has come up are some films by socialist directors in times when there was still some optimism about it all, and even these are nothing more than interesting.

Indeed, the so-called Orthodox churches have always been puppets of the ruling State.
But in this case many of its clergymen did not accept such a rule, and were dealt with brutally.

So it's okay to lead a revolution against Stalin, but not a leader who is killing the country through incompetence instead of cruelty?
A revolution is only legitimate if one or many of the population's fundamental natural rights are being violated.
An incompetent king does not violate any natural right of its people. However, if it is true that Roman Catholicism was outlawed, a revolution mgiht have been valid; but only towards something better.
Socialism is never acceptable; and thus any socialist revolution is never acceptable despite any circumstance.
Being a socialist is a sin? So the early Christian communes, they were inherently sinful organizations?
Which Christian "communes"? If you had the early Jerusalem community (of which we read in the book of Acts) in mind, be prepared to be disapointed.

Many Popes have spoken against socialism; in fact, the Catholic Church has been historically the greatest enemy of socialism.
The words of Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, sum it all up:
Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

Even under "benign" leaders as Kruschev it was still unnacceptable. State-imposed atheism and socialism are glaringly against the natural law.

In this case, what in the rest of socialist upheavels was anti-Catholicism, was translated into anti-Orthodoxy; though, as you point out, not all of the Orthodox estabilishment was against it.
It is very important for socialists to destroy the religious estabilishment, especially of that religion which can never make any kind of commitment with them: Catholicism.
From the beginning, in the French Revolution, the tortures and executions of Catholic clergymen and religious people are many and shocking.
Socialism, like many other atheistic philosophies, is but an expression of atheist hatred against the true Church of God, and of their twisted notion of justice, based around the "sacrossant" concept of equality.

Yes, there were not many Catholics in Russia and thus there wasn't much Catholic persecution there; so to call it anti-Catholic is a stretch; what is anti-Catholic is the ideology it is based on: socialism (or communism, however one prefers to call it).
 
Upvote 0

psalms 91

Legend
Dec 27, 2004
71,903
13,538
✟134,786.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
we must understand that no matter what god allows leaders to rule and uses what they decide for his purpooses. how can we have revelation come true without some evil leaders and a morally corrupt populace. i look around and am sad at what i see but am filled with hope and ecpectation because i know my lord is close.
 
Upvote 0

John16:2

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2004
1,232
7
71
Seattle, WA
✟1,439.00
Faith
Non-Denom
truthquestonline.info is extensive on this sort of subject. The Crusades were done in the name of "Christianity" but the mass murders were some of the first deceptions of what became modern Freemasonry. The Knights Templar were at the beginning of official Freemasonry. Jesuit history is that it has been outlawed at times by popes, and modern Freemasonry is said to have a Jesuit "Black Pope"-Hans Klovenbach. Google it. The Inquisition killed millions far & wide & long, and was run by the Jesuits, as it exterminated the Cathar religion & Bogomil Christianity and anyone they chose for any reason. The Crusades were the start of something terrible, that continues, and is really anti-Christian in action, but not propaganda.
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic

What on earth are you on?

Virtually every "fact" you have posted is wrong. You need to read something other than anti-catholic conspiracy novels and Jack chick tracts. Try some real history.

* The Crusades were a defensive war against Islamic attacks.

* Freemasonry has nothing to do with the Catholic Church - an least of all the Jesuits. Freemasonry is anti-catholic.

* The "Inquisition" was never run by Jesuits. The "Inquisition" you are thinking about was run by the Spanish Government - hence its name - the Spanish Inquisitions.

* Nor did the Spanish or any other Inquisition kill "Millions" of people. This is the drivel of anti-catholic black legend. The Inquisition in 500 years killed fewer people than Cromwell killed Catholics in two weeks in Ireland.

* Neither the Cathars or the Bogomils were Christians, since they believed the world was made by an evil God - who was also the God of the Jews.
 
Upvote 0

Swart

ÜberChristian
Mar 22, 2004
6,527
204
58
Melbourne
Visit site
✟32,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
*cough cough*

Just where do you get your history from?

Of course, the Inquisition was very "misunderstood".
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Swart said:
*cough cough*

Just where do you get your history from?

Of course, the Inquisition was very "misunderstood".

It's no use posting a load of demonstrably puerile falsehoods, as you have done, and then try to defend your position by making a juvenile remark about "the inquisition" - a subject you clearly know extremely little about.

The junk you posted is so clearly and demonstrably false, that you only need to look the subject up in any reasonably competent encyclopaedia or history source to see how little it matches any sort of reality. I know that some people don't care about the truth of what they post, so long as it slanders christianity in general or catholicism in particular. But don't copy unchecked junk like you posted from some lunatic hate-site, and expect anyone to take you seriously.
 
Upvote 0

Dworkin

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2004
411
40
53
California
✟23,253.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Hello. Would you mind telling me where did you got this information?
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Dworkin said:
Hello. Would you mind telling me where did you got this information?

It comes from studying Genuine Academic History books.

A good book to start with would be Kamen's Spanish Inquisition, available from libraries.

You could also try the internet Wikipedia encyclopedia. Their inquisition article is here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition.

Their article on the Cathars is here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

For details of the Crusades, you can get a lot of detail from this site, which contains the full Church History of the Protestant (and not very friendly to Catholics) historian, Schaff...

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch07.htm
 
Upvote 0

Swart

ÜberChristian
Mar 22, 2004
6,527
204
58
Melbourne
Visit site
✟32,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Axion said:
It's no use posting a load of demonstrably puerile falsehoods,
*Another coughing fit*

What falsehoods have I posted? Please lsit them.
Axion said:
as you have done, and then try to defend your position by making a juvenile remark about "the inquisition" - a subject you clearly know extremely little about.
What makes you think I know very little about the Inquisition? Tomas de Torquemada is one of my favourite historical figures.

I'm more than happy to match my knowledge of the Inquisition(s) with you. In particular, the Albigensian heresy. Although I'm quite happy to limit it to the Spanish Inquisition, if you like.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

I think perhaps you are mxiing me up with someone else.

Time to go out and buy an indulgence.
 
Upvote 0

Swart

ÜberChristian
Mar 22, 2004
6,527
204
58
Melbourne
Visit site
✟32,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Axion said:
For details of the Crusades, you can get a lot of detail from this site, which contains the full Church History of the Protestant (and not very friendly to Catholics) historian, Schaff...
From your perspective, what did the 1st Inquisition accomplish? Did the 1st Inquisition impede or improve the ability of the Muslim conquerors to accomplish their conquest? What cities did the 1st Inquisition overthrow?
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Swart said:
*Another coughing fit*

What falsehoods have I posted? Please lsit them.

I think perhaps you are mxiing me up with someone else.

Yes. I'm sorry Swart. I think I did mix you up with John 16.2. I challenged the bogus anti-catholic information posted by him on the previous page. And since you were the only person who contradicted my reply to that post. I assumed you were either that poster, or else supported that catalogue of falsehoods. If this is not the case, I apologise.

What makes you think I know very little about the Inquisition?
The fact that you seemed to be supporting John 16.2's allegations.

Tomas de Torquemada is one of my favourite historical figures.
He's not really one of my faves.

I'm more than happy to match my knowledge of the Inquisition(s) with you. In particular, the Albigensian heresy. Although I'm quite happy to limit it to the Spanish Inquisition, if you like.
So what point do you wish to make on these matters?
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Swart said:
From your perspective, what did the 1st Inquisition accomplish? Did the 1st Inquisition impede or improve the ability of the Muslim conquerors to accomplish their conquest? What cities did the 1st Inquisition overthrow?
The 1st inquisition had nothing to do with the muslims. In fact none of the "inquisitions" had authority over Muslims. They only had authority to investigate Christians, or those passing themselves off as Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Swart

ÜberChristian
Mar 22, 2004
6,527
204
58
Melbourne
Visit site
✟32,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Axion said:
So what point do you wish to make on these matters?

Okay, I feel a little silly now I read John 16:2's post. I was mainly responding to yours, which seems bland by comparison.

My comments:

The 1st Crusade was raised because of a Muslim Invasion. However, somewhere along the way things got changed. Those IN the crusade were granted a pardon for any sin they committed up to then or during the course of the crusade. As a result, Christian towns and villages were sacked and burned, women were raped and men were killed. By the time the Crusade made it to Constantinople, word had preceeded them and access to the city was refused. The Inquisition laid seige to the city and toppled it in part, looting as they went. The invading Muslim army eventually took control of Constantinople because of its weakened defences.

There were several crusades that were targeted at Christian heretics such as the Albigensians and the Knights Templar. In many cases these were for political rather than belief based reasons.

The Spanish Inquisition was not run by the government although it was supported by the government. It's target was more the Jewish converts to Christianity than anyone else. It was a very popular movement at the time. The Inquisition never actually folded, it just modified its ways and objectives, changed its name and blended into the background.

There is a lot of evidence to show the Knights Templar re-established in Scotland and eventually became the Blue Lodge of Free Masonry.
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic

You do seem to have various different events mixed-up together here.

I would advise reading through the account of the protestant historian, Schaff, at CCEL, whose account of the Crusades (its long but worth it), I already posted a link to. Here it is again...

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch07.htm

You will see that the members of the First Crusade did not attack Constantinople or any Christian city.

Constantinople was attacked by the Fourth Crusade, over a hundred years later. Schaff's account shows that this was done in the face of a papal ecommunication, and as part of infighting within Constantinople. The nquisition played no part at all in the assault on Constantinople.

Nor were the killings of Jews in the Rhineland done by official Crusaders, but rather by mobs of locals before the first crusade set out. The local bishops in fact tried to protect the jews from these mobs.

Constantinople fell to the Muslims in 1453, 350 years after the first crusade.

There were several crusades that were targeted at Christian heretics such as the Albigensians and the Knights Templar. In many cases these were for political rather than belief based reasons.
There was a crusade against the Albigensians, which became a largely North-South civil war within France. The Knights Templar were destroyed by King Philip the Fair of France who had them all seized on the same day. This was not a crusade.

The Spanish Inquisition was established by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, under a license from the Pope. However the Spanish Government was in full control. In fact when Pope Sixtus demanded that Spanish Inquisition cease its more outrageous acts, he was told by King Ferdinand that it was none of his business. The Spanish Inquisition had been long defunct when it was finally wound up by the Spanish Kings in the 1830s.

There is a lot of evidence to show the Knights Templar re-established in Scotland and eventually became the Blue Lodge of Free Masonry.

Some knights may have survived in Scotland, but the connection with Freemasonry has no real evidence to back it up. Many groups claim to be descended from the Knights Templar. Some of their lands went to the Knights Hospitaller, who survived as the Knights of St John of Malta.
 
Upvote 0

Dogman

Active Member
Sep 20, 2004
120
25
New England
✟370.00
Faith
Methodist
Politics
US-Others

Congratulations on your escape from fundamentalism.
 
Upvote 0

TheMagi

Active Member
Jan 6, 2005
352
11
✟560.00
Faith
Protestant
Axion said:
The 1st inquisition had nothing to do with the muslims. In fact none of the "inquisitions" had authority over Muslims. They only had authority to investigate Christians, or those passing themselves off as Christians.

That's not strictly true. While they didn't have any authority over muslims, they did have authority over the 'conversos', those who had 'converted' to Christianity. This, of course, usually meant that someone had said 'convert or die' to them...
So they at least had authority over lots of less strong-willed muslims that thy thought were christians...
Magi
 
Upvote 0