Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are so wrong, it was not directed to you in any way.

Fair enough but as it was posted directly after my comment and pertained to the topic I had mentioned, I thought it might be.

So presumptuous as usual.

See above.

BTW Jesus Christ in His teaching never taught His followers to go on the crusades as you describe

It didn't stop Christians slaughtering their own [Constantinople 1204] and Jews and Muslims though, did it? Especially when those Christians were told by their spiritual leaders that to go and kill the infidel would speed them to heaven.

[Dan Zebiri]

That would be quite apt and appropriate, rogue06. Muslims are not averse at all to the use of force and the sword to conquer territories, lands and properties and even other 'infidels' (human beings).

Because these are all sanctioned AND enjoined in numerous suras and verses of the Koran eg. sura 33, sura 8, sura al-anfal etc, as well as in Hadith like :

The prophet (of Islam) said, ‘I have been given five things
which were not given to any of the prophets before me.

Among these are:

Allah has made me victorious by fear - by His striking fear
into my enemies, for a distance of one month’s journey,

The whole Earth has been made for me and my followers a mosque
– a place for worship and a means of purification.
Therefore my followers (ie. Muslims) can pray wherever the
time of prayer is due,

The booty (spoils of war and plunder) has been made halal
(lawful / legitimate) and was not made so for anyone else.

Sahih al-Bukhari, No.323.

Muhamed claimed possession of the whole earth and the world as a physical place of ownership for him and his followers the Muslims to exercise their islamic obligations by divine sanction.

And if we wanna craft our own definitions then all of the earlier jihads by Muslims count as crusades as well.

[Dan Zebiri]

That was unsanctioned by what Christ taught in the Gospels. You will be hard-pressed to find any call and sanction by the Christian Scriptures or by Christ, especially in the NT to violent warfare, would you?

Moreover, the actions called the 'crusades' were prompted by the original acts of conquest and hegemony conducted FIRST by hostile forces against the Christians. When they were able to, the Christians naturally, rose up in self-defence to take back what was originally theirs and to prevent further aggression against their territories to prevent the further wresting and conquest of their nations and lands.

Like the Reconquista in Spain and the victorious defence of Vienna twice, in 1529 and 1683. You didn't expect them to roll over, play dead & invite their enemies to overrun them, did you?

Fair enough but as it was posted directly after my comment and pertained to the topic I had mentioned, I thought it might be.

See above.

It didn't stop Christians slaughtering their own [Constantinople 1204] and Jews and Muslims though, did it? Especially when those Christians were told by their spiritual leaders that to go and kill the infidel would speed them to heaven.

[JimL]

That would be quite apt and appropriate, rogue06. Muslims are not averse at all to the use of force and the sword to conquer territories, lands and properties and even other 'infidels' (human beings).

Because these are all sanctioned AND enjoined in numerous suras and verses of the Koran eg. sura 33, sura 8, sura al-anfal etc, as well as in Hadith like :

The prophet (of Islam) said, ‘I have been given five things
which were not given to any of the prophets before me.

Among these are:

Allah has made me victorious by fear - by His striking fear
into my enemies, for a distance of one month’s journey,

The whole Earth has been made for me and my followers a mosque
– a place for worship and a means of purification.
Therefore my followers (ie. Muslims) can pray wherever the
time of prayer is due,

The booty (spoils of war and plunder) has been made halal
(lawful / legitimate) and was not made so for anyone else.

Sahih al-Bukhari, No.323.

Muhamed claimed possession of the whole earth and the world as a physical place of ownership for him and his followers the Muslims to exercise their islamic obligations by divine sanction.

Sounds like the Moses and the Israelites of the Old Testament.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

TV isn't the only place to conduct discussion.

The concern is, there isn't any sign he discussed/debated/whatever the points of his work. So, there's no evaluation available. That's the problem.

The concern appears to be that you cannot find any debate online between Cresswell and A N Other[s] that would provide you with a nice and easy resource that would save you the effort of reading.

Or do you obtain all your information from such sources?

[37818]

It didn't stop Christians slaughtering their own [Constantinople 1204] and <snip>? Especially when those Christians were told by their spiritual leaders that to go and kill the infidel would speed them to heaven.

So you suppose because it has been so reported in history. But what is being called Christianity has more counterfeits than any other belief system, beginning in the first century itself. And because of your unbelief, how can you even tell the difference between the genuine and any of the counterfeits? There is an original Christianity.

I have stated that the genuine Christians actually know God. I will further state those who do not believe the genuine Chritsian faith do not understand its teaching. Help me out here, how do you think one becomes a Christian? Only if I have a clue what you had believed, can I maybe provide you with something you need to hear.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you suppose because it has been so reported in history.

Well I generally rely on attested historical sources I find they tend to be a little more dependable than tea leaves or coffee grounds. How about you?

But what is being called Christianity has more counterfeits than any other belief system, beginning in the first century itself. And because of your unbelief, how can you even tell the difference between the genuine and any of the counterfeits? There is an original Christianity.

I have stated that the genuine Christians actually know God. I will further state those who do not believe the genuine Chritsian faith do not understand its teaching. Help me out here, how do you think one becomes a Christian? Only if I have a clue what you had believed, can I maybe provide you with something you need to hear.

That reads as if what you deem to be Christianity can only be considered to be the "true" Christianity, which is a rather arrogant presumption, and of course one that has led to Christians regularly killing other Christians.

[37818]

Well I generally rely on attested historical sources I find they tend to be a little more dependable than tea leaves or coffee grounds. How about you?

Why believe anything which one cannot understand to be true?

That reads as if what you deem to be Christianity can only be considered to be the "true" Christianity, which is a rather arrogant presumption, and of course one that has led to Christians regularly killing other Christians.

You are repeating your error.

How do you know that there are not "genuiine Christians" who by being such actually know God?

As to my question, How would you explain how one becomes what you would consider a "genuine Christian?"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why believe anything which one cannot understand to be true?

Pardon?

You are repeating your error.

I am pointing the implication of what you wrote.

How do you know that there are not "genuiine Christians" who by being such actually know God?

How do you know there are and how do you tell the difference?

[rogue06]

The first "crusade" as in a call to arms by the Church against an "infidel" was conducted in the early seventh century and led by the Emperor Heraclius. It took place some four hundred and fifty years before Pope Urban II made his famous call to arms for the expulsion of the (later) Islamic forces from the Holy Places of Christendom.

Crusades did not necessarily have to be against "infidels" as the Albigensian Crusade against heretics in southern France demonstrates, or for nakedly political reasons as the later Aragonese Crusade reveals.

You're like those who argue that the Napoleonic Wars or even the Queen Anne's War were really the first world wars so WWI is improperly named.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Crusades did not necessarily have to be against "infidels" as the Albigensian Crusade against heretics in southern France demonstrates, or for nakedly political reasons as the later Aragonese Crusade reveals.

I think you will find that Holy Mother Church considered the Albigensians to be a form of infidel i.e. one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity. They were certainly not "Christians" as the Catholic Church understood the term.

As for heresy it simply means to choose.

You're like those who argue that the Napoleonic Wars or even the Queen Anne's War were really the first world wars so WWI is improperly named.

Do tell us all what "the Queen Anne's War" might have been. It is a phrase I have not encountered until now.

[JonathanL]

Do tell us all what "the Queen Anne's War" might have been. It is a phrase I have not encountered until now.

You do realize google is a thing right?

[siam]

And if we wanna craft our own definitions then all of the earlier jihads by Muslims count as crusades as well.

No they cannot because---

Islam does not have the concept of the "Divine right of Kings". This allows the Christian kings and monarchs to "Divine authority" to legitimize their rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

Islam also does not have a Pope (representing Divine authority) who can declare war.

Islam has a Caliph---whose authority/legitimacy is derived from the people. (at least during the first 4 Caliphs---after that it became dynastic rule, but there was still no doctrine of Divine right.)
Islam also has Scholars and Jurists who formulate the rules/conduct of war but the actual (legal) declaration of war is a matter for the "State".


Rules of war:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...s%20prohibited.

Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[ War should be conducted in a disciplined way, to avoid injuring non-combatants, with the minimum necessary force, without anger and with humane treatment towards prisoners of war.

During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion and first Caliph, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well! Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.



Note:--not everyone is happy with these restrictions nor are they always meticulously followed.
IMO, some of these rules and restrictions have some similarities to the advice given by Sun Tzu (544-496 BCE) Art of War.

[rogue06]

No they cannot because---

Islam does not have the concept of the "Divine right of Kings". This allows the Christian kings and monarchs to "Divine authority" to legitimize their rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

We can stop right there since that has nothing whatsoever to do with crusades and the head of a Muslim state can declare a jihad.

[siam]

The start of the aggression was from the 7th centuries onwards. Hordes of Arabs poured out from the Arab peninsular under Arab Muslim armies targeting the Christian Egyptian, in North Africa as well as Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine empire in the east.

The sending of a military expedition to Egypt from the caliphal capital in Medina came in a second phase of the first Arab conquests. Until then, the conquests had been directed against lands on the northern borders of Arabia and were in the nature of raids for plunder; they had grown in scale and momentum as the Byzantine Empire and Persian Sāsānian dynasty—the two dominant political entities of the time—put up organized resistance. By 635 the Arabs had realized that in order to meet this resistance effectively they must begin the systematic occupation of enemy territory, especially Syria, where the Byzantine army was determined to halt the Arab forays. (From Britannica.com).

So, in less than just 5 short years after the traditional date of islam’s founder’s death. The Arab muslims targeted their neighbours both east and west to conquer. This expansionism and cultural hegemony practically wiped out the languages and culture of the conquered peoples of North Africa. It also wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia.

Muslims claim that they only attack others “in self-defence” when attacked. This was not the case in the muslims’ attack and hegemony over the Sassanid Persians and the Byzantine Christians to the East. Byzantium and Persia were warring against each other and were spent forces as military powers. They certainly were not able to attack the Arab Muslims to the south, and the Arabs saw the weakness of both Persia and the eastern Roman Empire as an opportunity to be exploited militarily and politically. When the muslims attacked these eastern nations it was certainly not in any self-defence but in obedience to koranic and religious injunctions to unilateral conquests and hegemony such as those in sura al-Ahzab 25-27.


From Britannica.com

Arabs targeting the Christian Egyptians---The Coptic Christians as wells as other Christianities and Jews and others in Egypt were unhappy with Heraclius/Byzantine. This is because Byzantine looted the Egyptian Churches of their gold and silver and used poll tax of its non-Christian populace (head tax/poll tax, a carry-over from the Roman tributum capitis = tax on people considered "non-citizens"/non-romans)
The Coptic Church favored a treaty with the Muslims (through General Amr ibn al-A'as) and entered into one despite Heraclius against any treaty and demanding war. Caliph Umar was not very keen on advancing on Egypt but Amr ibn al-A'as--a recent convert ---was enthusiastic. (eventually there was a falling out between Amr ibn al Aas and Caliph Umar)

Destroying Zoroastrianism---It was (Christian Byzantuim) Heraclius that destroyed Adur Gushnasp, the famous Zoroastrian fire temple at Takht-i-Suleiman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...02%E2%80%93628
According to interpretations by Muslim scholars and jurists, the Zoroastrians are a "protected people"/dimmi.

Syria---The initial reason for the war began when the Arab Christian Ghassanids killed a Muslim emissary---(Ghassanids were vassals of the Byzantines)

Apart from the wars with Persia, the Byzantines were troubled by raiding from the Avars (and slavs) and to stop it, they entered into a treaty with them with Byzantine paying tribute to the Avars. (Avars =Eurasian tribal groups, nomadic)