The Afterlife

[colonel_bob]

Originally Posted by Ged

While they do not want to see the non-violent solution to their problems, they are at least aware of it; whether they chose to pursue it or not is a different matter.
How many crusaders, while thinking they did the will of god, were really aware they could have a non-violent solution?

All of the ones that killed the innocent, helpless inhabitants of Jerusalem, or whatever city they pretty much obliterated.

[Nemmerle]

And? They were already at war then, no going back from there.

[El Hombre del Fuego]

I find it terrible that God loves some of his children more than the others, and condemns many of them to an eternity in hell. Wouldn't a good parent punish them for a while in the purgatory, and then forgive them?

*ahem*

No, no, no. God hates for his children to be cast down to hell. If you are a just person who does not accept Christ as your savior, you will go to purgotory as one of the unbaptised. You will serve some time there and make your way into heaven. Let me give you an example. Gandhi. He was not Christian, but he tought about peace and all that crap. God loves all his children, and would probably not let such an outstanding person rot in hell.

Hell is not ment for humans, rather for the fallen angel Lucifer and his minions. A particularly bad person, like Hitler, would go to Hell because God, as said before, hates sin, and would probably not want that Nazi freak to pollute anything better then the lake of fire & brimstone.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by USA1

*ahem*

Where is purgatory mentioned in the bible?

[El Hombre del Fuego]

It's in there somewhere. I havent had time to read it, I wish I did. I will start soon.


Oh, and I'm sorry I replied to something on the last page. I didnt relize we were talking about something else. My bad.

[colonel_bob]

Originally Posted by Ged

And? They were already at war then, no going back from there.

So now we can rape and kill innocent civilians, just because we are at war?

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by colonel_bob

So now we can rape and kill innocent civilians, just because we are at war?

Although the casualties during the crusades are estimated at some nine million souls, the question remains can we blame them?

In war there is a sort of organised madness.
When ordered to take a city, especially then, the consequences for disobedience were almost without variance, death.
Now we accept they had to take the city, this leads to the question why did they then have to slaughter some innocents? Now truly it is a shame these people died, there is no denying that. The question is one of choice and consideration; firstly choice, did the crusaders have a choice to spare these people? Considering the situations prevalent at the time the answer is most probably no. The second thing to look at is consideration, did the crusaders consider they had a choice, the answer to this also seems to be no; they thought they were doing gods will and this blinded them to the atrocities they committed until they couldn’t see how far their ideals had wrought awry.
Determining they had neither the choice in military terms nor the consideration of the choice in philosophical terms we come to the conclusion they were not really responsible.
They got caught up in the rush and flow, the wanting to be part of something bigger than themselves, coupled with unquestioning belief; children, marvelling in the beauty of a camp fire, unaware that the forest burns around them.

You must remember the crusades were done in the name of god. These people thought what they were doing was right

Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shoot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted ... in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.

See? The people did not see a terrible atrocity, they saw god’s work being done, as one soldier puts it, "A great cleansing." Their belief unquestioning as it was, blinded them to how far off the straight they were.
Even the most noble of aims, (which they certainly thought they had,) can be bent and twisted the minute a sword is picked up to argue them with. The minute word is cast aside in favour of gun, or spear; your ideals start to change, until they are no longer your ideals. But you still remember them in their full glory and that’s their power, their great and tempting lie.

[colonel_bob]

Originally Posted by Ged

The question is one of choice and consideration; firstly choice, did the crusaders have a choice to spare these people? Considering the situations prevalent at the time the answer is most probably no. The second thing to look at is consideration, did the crusaders consider they had a choice, the answer to this also seems to be no; they thought they were doing gods will and this blinded them to the atrocities they committed until they couldn’t see how far their ideals had wrought awry.

Hitler believed he was carrying out his duty to God and his country by systematically eliminating Jews, Jypsies, and political radicals. The people following his orders did, too. Should he also not be blamed for the mass murder of millions of people? He though that what he was doing was right. Does that make it so?

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by colonel_bob

Hitler believed he was carrying out his duty to God and his country by systematically eliminating Jews, Jypsies, and political radicals. The people following his orders did, too. Should he also not be blamed for the mass murder of millions of people? He though that what he was doing was right. Does that make it so?

Hitler became deluded by the myth of himself, he created this image that he was gods emissary on earth, and then spent the rest of his life trying to fill the image. Now this may or may not make him evil, I don’t know I wasn’t there and haven’t had time to read up on the relevant works.

Should we blame him for the mass murdering? He seems honestly to have thought he acted for the best, however the chance for peace was given, he must have considered it, and he cast it aside. Thus we can blame him, although I will not do so.
The people who followed his orders however for the most part had no choice in the matter, whether we should blame them? Well put yourself in their position and then answer that.

Whatever he thought however, about his work, it did not automatically make it right. With all men and all things, (even gods,) you must eventually judge against your own morals and capacity to forgive.

[D.Sporky!]

Originally Posted by USA1

It's in there somewhere. I havent had time to read it, I wish I did. I will start soon.

Nope, it's not in there anywhere.


The crusades were carried about by the most extreme extremists. But I don't want to but in your debate, it's quite interesting what you both are saying.