I have read some different version of this incident > " To raise an army of about 30000 man money was necessary and so called army was composed of rage tag poor individuals , so to get money the assault was encouraged on the wealthy wine producers ( Jews ) on the Reine hil, later the Pope disproved lthis action.
What grave sins Jews commited to deserve the Holocaust?
- Thread starter entelecheia
- Start date
I have read some different version of this incident > " To raise an army of about 30000 man money was necessary and so called army was composed of rage tag poor individuals , so to get money the assault was encouraged on the wealthy wine producers ( Jews ) on the Reine hil, later the Pope disproved lthis action.
You are not making sense.
How on earth can one endeavour to harm/violate another without the goal of doing so (and determining the success of a such a goal in lieu of follow-up action on the desire)?
There are heaps of methods and manners that bar the action of becoming rich (whether they be external elements such as having a bad credit rating/history of bankruptcy or internal elements such as appropriate perseverance or intelligence ) .... none of which so much as take away or do away with the desire to be rich in the slightest ...
Hence constraints of karma don't affect choice but rather determine whether that that choice is actionable (in fact a majority of descriptions for karma explain how choice that doesn't meet up with action - ie unfulfilled desire - is the sustaining force that binds one more strongly to the laws of karma)
There are some very good reference materials. I like the way the Catholic Encyclopedia is laid out; it's very rich in links and it seems to try to figure out which accounts are credible and authoritative. I do think the First Crusade was called irresponsibly with no central military authority and no plans for funding an army. One possible explanation is the Crusade was never actually called, but that it rose up out of a rumor that the Church had called it. Another possibility is that it was a careless remark, not planned. Eventually it did become the burden of the pope, and offered a way to unify the Holy Roman Empire which was divided: send them to war under a common cause, and put the infighting to an end.
I also think that there was no precedent for this, so a war to defend Christianity wouldn't arouse a public expectation that the Church should pay for it. I think the Church was at a low point then, having just recovered from a war in which the pope had to flee Rome. And during the war, the papal throne was seized by a pretender. So I doubt people expected the Church to fund them. Some of the art depicts sad-eyed mothers stitching a cross on their son's tunic. I suppose they furnished their own clothes and horse and whatever they could use for a weapon. That means they were likely starving by the first day's march and already expecting food from the villages they passed. No doubt they often had no advance training, leadership, or tactical strategy.
But then there were private financiers such as this man, Godfrey of Bouillon:
In 1095 Urban II, the new Pope, called for a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim forces and also to aid the Byzantine Empire which was under Muslim attack. Godfrey took out loans on most of his lands, or sold them, to the bishop of Liège and the bishop of Verdun. With this money he gathered thousands of knights to fight in the Holy Land. In this he was joined by his older brother, Eustace, and his younger brother, Baldwin, who had no lands in Europe. He was not the only major nobleman to gather such an army. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, also known as Raymond of Toulouse, created the largest army. At age fifty-five Raymond was also the oldest and perhaps the best known of the Crusader nobles. Because of his age and fame, Raymond expected to be the leader of the entire First Crusade. Adhemar, the papal legate and bishop of Le Puy, travelled with him. There was also the fiery Bohemond, a Norman knight from southern Italy, and a fourth group under Robert of Flanders.
Nevertheless, there were shocking, cruel attacks on Jewish towns along the way. Godfrey, for example swore this oath to God before accepting his "cross":
to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew,' thus assuaging his own burning wrath.
And even after the slaughter of Jews, a wealthy family such as Godfrey's would have its Bible cover decorated with a gruesome depiction of the murders. Imagine getting down on your knees in church and thanking God for allowing the Jews to be murdered, while the sound of Gregorian chant wafts across the sanctuary, extolling the greatness of God, and there you are gazing at this image:
I also think that there was no precedent for this, so a war to defend Christianity wouldn't arouse a public expectation that the Church should pay for it. I think the Church was at a low point then, having just recovered from a war in which the pope had to flee Rome. And during the war, the papal throne was seized by a pretender. So I doubt people expected the Church to fund them. Some of the art depicts sad-eyed mothers stitching a cross on their son's tunic. I suppose they furnished their own clothes and horse and whatever they could use for a weapon. That means they were likely starving by the first day's march and already expecting food from the villages they passed. No doubt they often had no advance training, leadership, or tactical strategy.
But then there were private financiers such as this man, Godfrey of Bouillon:
In 1095 Urban II, the new Pope, called for a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim forces and also to aid the Byzantine Empire which was under Muslim attack. Godfrey took out loans on most of his lands, or sold them, to the bishop of Liège and the bishop of Verdun. With this money he gathered thousands of knights to fight in the Holy Land. In this he was joined by his older brother, Eustace, and his younger brother, Baldwin, who had no lands in Europe. He was not the only major nobleman to gather such an army. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, also known as Raymond of Toulouse, created the largest army. At age fifty-five Raymond was also the oldest and perhaps the best known of the Crusader nobles. Because of his age and fame, Raymond expected to be the leader of the entire First Crusade. Adhemar, the papal legate and bishop of Le Puy, travelled with him. There was also the fiery Bohemond, a Norman knight from southern Italy, and a fourth group under Robert of Flanders.
Nevertheless, there were shocking, cruel attacks on Jewish towns along the way. Godfrey, for example swore this oath to God before accepting his "cross":
to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew,' thus assuaging his own burning wrath.
And even after the slaughter of Jews, a wealthy family such as Godfrey's would have its Bible cover decorated with a gruesome depiction of the murders. Imagine getting down on your knees in church and thanking God for allowing the Jews to be murdered, while the sound of Gregorian chant wafts across the sanctuary, extolling the greatness of God, and there you are gazing at this image:
And it is your straw man that these are unalterable states. Since they are not, these judgments are as fluid as their actions, or at most an average of actions. They are nothing more than convenient labels.
They are free to act in a particular manner, but that does not guarantee that those actions will always lead to gathering such wealth. They are free to take the action, but not guaranteed a certain result. How exactly do you expect the result to effect whether or not the action can be taken? It cannot. That would be reverse causation.
No, I am just not conflating desire with action. If you define free will solely by thoughts it is a meaningless distinction. Freedom can only ever be meaningful within some boundaries.
Really? You cannot comprehend how physical action can be limited by physical forces and the laws that govern them?
If you say that Peter is a good person, or that Thomas is a bad person, then you are talking about what you believe to be an unalterable state.
Convenient for what? Looks like you are trying to sweep the OP's problem under the rug.
If "these judgments are as fluid as their actions", then there is nothing that stands in the way of saying "This particular group of people deserved to be tortured and killed, because they are bad people."
The perception of victims as being good and innocent, is sometimes simply the result of the fact that they are victims of a crime or other hardship, not that they are actually good and innocent.
See LG's reply to you.
Complete strawman, failure to address my point.
Free will applies to actions.
There are three kinds of actions: mental, verbal and physical.
You can "endeavor" all you like, but that does not mean you will succeed. You equated achieving a goal with accomplishing an action. Get the difference yet? Saying an action, already performed, was not accomplished simply because its goal was not met is nonsense.
"Becoming rich" is a result of action, not an action itself. You are conflating "desire" with "free will". They are not the same. Free will may be an expression of desire, but the inability to attain a desire has nothing to do with whether you have free will.
"Unfulfilled desire" has nothing to do with whether any one action can be taken.
There are some very good reference materials. I like the way the Catholic Encyclopedia is laid out; it's very rich in links and it seems to try to figure out which accounts are credible and authoritative. I do think the First Crusade was called irresponsibly with no central military authority and no plans for funding an army. One possible explanation is the Crusade was never actually called, but that it rose up out of a rumor that the Church had called it. Another possibility is that it was a careless remark, not planned. Eventually it did become the burden of the pope, and offered a way to unify the Holy Roman Empire which was divided: send them to war under a common cause, and put the infighting to an end.
I also think that there was no precedent for this, so a war to defend Christianity wouldn't arouse a public expectation that the Church should pay for it. I think the Church was at a low point then, having just recovered from a war in which the pope had to flee Rome. And during the war, the papal throne was seized by a pretender. So I doubt people expected the Church to fund them. Some of the art depicts sad-eyed mothers stitching a cross on their son's tunic. I suppose they furnished their own clothes and horse and whatever they could use for a weapon. That means they were likely starving by the first day's march and already expecting food from the villages they passed. No doubt they often had no advance training, leadership, or tactical strategy.
But then there were private financiers such as this man, Godfrey of Bouillon:
In 1095 Urban II, the new Pope, called for a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim forces and also to aid the Byzantine Empire which was under Muslim attack. Godfrey took out loans on most of his lands, or sold them, to the bishop of Liège and the bishop of Verdun. With this money he gathered thousands of knights to fight in the Holy Land. In this he was joined by his older brother, Eustace, and his younger brother, Baldwin, who had no lands in Europe. He was not the only major nobleman to gather such an army. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, also known as Raymond of Toulouse, created the largest army. At age fifty-five Raymond was also the oldest and perhaps the best known of the Crusader nobles. Because of his age and fame, Raymond expected to be the leader of the entire First Crusade. Adhemar, the papal legate and bishop of Le Puy, travelled with him. There was also the fiery Bohemond, a Norman knight from southern Italy, and a fourth group under Robert of Flanders.
Nevertheless, there were shocking, cruel attacks on Jewish towns along the way. Godfrey, for example swore this oath to God before accepting his "cross":
to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew,' thus assuaging his own burning wrath.
And even after the slaughter of Jews, a wealthy family such as Godfrey's would have its Bible cover decorated with a gruesome depiction of the murders. Imagine getting down on your knees in church and thanking God for allowing the Jews to be murdered, while the sound of Gregorian chant wafts across the sanctuary, extolling the greatness of God, and there you are gazing at this image:
Then there was a a particular Crusader group mortgaged the land of the pilgrims who went to Jerusalem and Expropriated their land and possessions. So In the name of God the church did a lot of evil.
What a person may be now tells us nothing of what they may be latter. If you think people cannot change then go look up neuroplasticity. Just because you may pass eternal judgment on a person does not make it universal.
The OP is nonsense. Are you arguing that everyone who experiences misfortune deserves it?
Yes, you can make up whatever justification you like. That has no bearing on reality. The reality is that innocent people can suffer misfortune. Or can you prove otherwise?
And? These "kinds of action" are not equivalent to one another. Physical action has physical limitations. Verbal action has fewer limitations but possibly physical consequences. Mental action has neither limit nor consequence unless expressed. Just because free will is boundless in thought has nothing to do with free will expressed in physical action.
"The Church" is like a light cone. Sometimes it was run by evil men. Other times not. More specifically, individuals, whether popes, kings, knights, bishops or dirt farmers, deliberately attacked and killed innocent Jews in the pretext of the Crusades. Further, if bar Solomon is to be believed, the executioners at Mainz specifically told their victims they must die for belonging to the religion of the people who (in the Bible story) executed Jesus.
This demonstrates that anti-Semitism was thriving in Medieval Europe as a Christian vendetta against Jews, created in a story that causes the zealot (or extremist) to rationalize murder as an act favored by God, as interpreted from the combined facts of the Bible story itself, plus the beliefs that spontaneously arise in the mind of a person programmed to believe such a story.
I would suppose that the story is evil, moreso than the Church that handed it down, based on facts such as these. For the same reason that you would not give a gun to a lunatic, stories of bizarre and sadistic cruelty against human beings, cast as a divine and omnipotent mandate, should not be programmed into weak and vulnerable minds of the sheep.
Lets look from this point . the population was illiterate and the bible was in the hands of the church and some aristocrats . The poor artisan or peasant , wanted go to heaven , but there is no other way then the leading institution " tha church " So they obey what ever the church leaders tell them .... But then the question becomes What does the church and the leaders appointed by the church wants. In the process the church planted the seed of hatred into the people . So thank God for Guttenberg printing, man by learning become liberated from the church influence by reading and interpreting the bible and New Testament by himself . Then things started to change. Look at this way the Mass was given in Latin until 1955, I am not sure if in the Ortodox they have changed from Slavonic into native language
Innocent in who's view?
Their peers?
In yours?
In the person/s victimizing the other party?
In people persecuting the person/s doing the victimizing?
You are dodging the issue of inherent nature as such, inherent nature being that which, by definition, cannot change and which is given to a person by God. It's a big topic.
Do provide a theistic account of a situation where people who are innocent suffer misfortune.
Like I said earlier, in theistic accounts, it all goes back to the Original Fall (in a number of versions) - nobody is innocent, as all are guilty of falling away from God.
You mentioned Job earlier - but Job's being human is evidence that he was guilty of the original fall, and everything that comes from that.
It is also my personal opinion tha Job's faith looks more like faith in a demigod, not God.
It is only in a view like that of Rabbi Kushner, who promoted it in his book "Why do bad things happen to good people?" that good, innocent people can be met with bad things; and Kushner's explanation is that this is because God is good, but powerless.
We can look into why this view is so pernicious.
And if you think free will is boundless in thought, or that mental action has neither limit nor consequence unless expressed, then just don't think of pink elephants.
Interesting : Russia , because it hold a large piece of land smaller belligerent nation want to take away some of that land.
China : Is a expansionist kingdom even the surrounding culture do not speak the same language but the look are similar they take them over as a shield to protect their kingdom, Armenia : I don't know why the Turks busted you guys up, and made you disappear
Equivocating nonsense. Innocent of any of the justifications used to do them harm. Unless your justification is just "they must have sinned some time so they deserve whatever they get", which makes it sound like you think the Holocaust was perfectly justified. It was not, and this line of argument is only making you sound antisemitic.
If you insist on accepting Christianity at face value, i.e. "given to a person by God", then you must also accept that the bible teaches redemption is possible, i.e. people can change. You must adhere to the doctrine of specific denominations to assume people are fated to be redeemed or not.
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. -John 9
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. -John 9
This seems equivalent, although oddly worded, to the notion that true free will precludes arbitrary intervention. It is not that god is powerless, only that there is a greater reason to refrain from exercising such power.
I was talking about physical limits and consequences, as only outwardly expressed action can be evaluated as free will (ability to do otherwise) or not. "Do" is not equivalent to "think". You are also conflating the consequences of mental activity with the consequences on mental activity. Thinking of a pink elephant is an autonomic action, devoid of any opportunity for choice. By this argument, you would dismiss all free will simply because you cannot fully control your own heartbeat.
entelecheia
Registered Senior Member
Infantilism. The worst thing that can happen is to turn this thread into a political discussion.
If reasonable scientific evidence exist to support anti-semitism, i would like to know them. If not, i see no difference with anti-hinduism, anti-arianism, anti-chinesism, anti-japanesism,...
entelecheia
Registered Senior Member
Apart of anti-semitism, other hated nations/races exist under the label of anti?
If not. Anybody could explain me why the jewish nation was hated almost during all the ages of history? Why no other nation can inspire such intensity of hate?
uke:entelecheia
Registered Senior Member
I wanted to know the answers of christians believers or christians agnostics. Not of atheists like you.
If sometimes God decides not to interfere (allowing inmense sufferning, as in the Holocaust) in certain circumstances, ergo, it is clear to me the reasons are beyond human understanding.
It is fascinating to imagine that God lovely helped a judaic prayer, and the next day allowed the most diabolic annihilation of humans ever.
It tell us 'something' about the Personality of God?
Can you speculate how The Law of Atraction can have been working in the case of the Holocaust? Does jews attracted themselves the Holocaust?:booo:
On the contrary, you are ducking and weaving to avoid addressing critiques of your statements head on.
That's not what I asked.
I asked innocent in who's particular view.
Its impossible to talk of innocence/guilt divorced from some sort of judgmental authority/perspective.
That's why I am asking in who's particular view are you saying that they are innocent.
You are refusing to discuss the broader implications of your statements.
As previously linked, even jews, the victims of nazi persecution, are capable of discussing the concept that the holocaust was a consequence directed by god.
If you want to continue with this strawman sort of outlook (given in bold above) then I guess you must also think these jews are sounding antisemitic ...
:shrug:
Perhaps because throughout history, the Jews have claimed to be God's chosen people and have made a point not to blend in with the society they've lived in.
Making a point of claiming one is God's chosen person/nation generally doesn't go over well.