I feel it was only his death that saved him from excommunication, but you're right to say he was investigated and criticised rather than condemned.

Still, he's hardly flavour of the month in the Vatican. His experience seems to have outstripped the Roman theology. Christians are not usually encouraged to believe what he teaches and in my experience rarely know what it is.

I feel the battle is best revealed by the reaction of Christians to the book A Course in Miracles. Some respect it but most deem it wildly heretical. .

We seem to agree in many respects, but I feel the topic is too deep for a forum. .

You cannot build a perfectly consistent theological system: it is just impossible. — Angelo Cannata

I feel this is a vital observation. Orthodox theology simply does not make sense. Fortunately, this does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus but only certain interpretations. .

I think my point was just that the church wants nothing to do with mysticism, for this states that the God of monotheism is a misinterpretation of experience. As Plotinus notes, consistent with Eckhart, to think of The One as mind or God would be to think of it 'too meanly'. . . . .

I think the major problem with your thesis is that your putting your own beliefs and morals above Gods. God is a wrathful and judgmental God, he desired us to be loving because he will ultimately judge evil not us. God wages a Holy war, unto which we cannot do, so that we can receive rest from Evil. Some of the times we need to trust in God and know he's all-knowing.

I think the major problem with your thesis is that your putting your own beliefs and morals above Gods. God is a wrathful and judgmental God, he desired us to be loving because he will ultimately judge evil not us. God wages a Holy war, unto which we cannot do, so that we can receive rest from Evil. Some of the times we need to trust in God and know he's all-knowing. — Isaiasb

Many, most, of the people here on the forum believe that the Christian God, or any god for that matter, does not exist. Quoting scripture won't get you anywhere with them. Actually, no argument will get you anywhere other than providing them with solid, concrete proof of his existence. This is a battle that has been fought here and everywhere else where theists meet atheists.

Concrete evidence does exist, and when questioning a God why wouldn't you be able to fight for that God with that book. In order to prove science, we don't stop people from using data.

Concrete evidence does exist, and when questioning a God why wouldn't you be able to fight for that God with that book. In order to prove science, we don't stop people from using data. — Isaiasb

Actually, I agree with you. I consider the Bible to be evidence for the existence of God. If I were interested, we could discuss whether it is good evidence for God. But that wasn't my point. Whether or not it's fair, using the Bible or other similar religious text as evidence is not considered philosophy here.

But it's wrong to decide, " I'm just going to not take this one text because its religious'". Also the only time the bible is quoted is when I was speaking to Christians'. In my defense agianst nonbelievers I never sight scripture.

would you describe yourself as a duplicitous person?

I think it is a mistake to absolutize these statements. They are just rules of thumb and there are always exceptions: the iron behind the velvet. Sometimes even war is justified (eg The Battle of Britain).

It appears that at least one poster has argued that when Jesus instructs his followers to buy swords (in Luke 22), He is endorsing the use of force in self-defence. I believe that Jesus was not talking about self-defence in Luke 22. He tells us why the instruction for the swords was given - to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor. And having armed followers certainly would cause people to think Jesus was a transgressor.

What is your question? You seem to be asking all sorts of questions but the title of the discussion refers to "a question."

And are only Christians allowed to respond?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Avowed Christians have been ignoring the teachings of Jesus as stated in the Gospels as it suits them since they were written. But a little history:

Spartacus was not afraid of the roman legions and he lived only a few years before the Christians would burst onto the scene. — Average

He died in 71 B.C.E., most likely in the final battle which ended the revolt. That's at least 100 years before Jesus is said to have been crucified. Marcus Crassus, who lead the Roman army which defeated Spartacus' is said to have crucified 6,000 of the rebels along the Appian Way back to Rome. If Spartacus didn't fear the legions, he should have.

Christian theory and practice seems to have revolved around the persecution they faced in the world for their loyalty to an otherworldly master but they didn't embrace the idea of a Jihad like the muslims. I know of no documented cases where christians waged war against the roman emperors who so viciously attacked them. — Average

You might want to read up a bit on the Crusades.

The claims regarding the persecution of the early Christians by Imperial Rome prior to the reign of Constantine are largely mythical, as modern scholarship has shown. There's little or no evidence of the many martyrs claimed by Christianity, and persecution was localized and sporadic, though a more serious effort was made during the reigns of Decius and Diocletian, but by that time it was far too late to prevent Christian assimilation of the Roman state.

You might want to read up a bit on the Crusades. — Ciceronianus

Have you?

Indeed I have. The most popular if one can call it that, and successful of them, the Third Crusade, is of course a favorite as it featured Richard the Lionhearted, Philip Augustus, Frederick Barbarossa (who drowned in a river on the way) and Saladin. It has made for fun movies, and Romances. But after the Pontifex Maximus, Urban II, proclaimed Deus Vult! there followed two centuries of mayhem as various and sundry Europeans invaded and wrecked havoc in the Holy Land and beyond. They even sacked Constantinople, though it was a "Christian" city.

You claim the Crusades are somehow comparable to the jihad. That is a statement that only survives if one completely ignores the politics and history of the Middle Ages.

The Crusades were intended as defense against the Muslim aggression, an aggression that continues to this day against Christians.

Whether some bandits broke off from the intended purpose — and indirectly caused the second and last fall of the Roman Empire — is a completely different matter.

Urban II called for the freeing of the Holy Sepulchre from the infidels, and offered the remission of sins to those who died while partipating in the Crusades. That sounds rather like a holy war to me.

No doubt other factors played a part in fostering the crusades But if you think jihad is motivated solely by the desire to kill Christians, I think you're mistaken.

Not bandits, but the entire army of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople instead of proceeding to Jeusalem, together with the fleet of Venice. Those Crusaders backed a rival of the emperor ruling at that time, who it was hoped would be more cooperative and would pay a large sum to the Crusading army. It was also hoped that the Eastern Church would acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Christian Church. Payment wasn't forthcoming and there was no unification of the Churches.The sack was so violent and destructive Constantinople never recovered, and was eventually conquered by the Ottomans.

Urban II called for the freeing of the Holy Sepulchre from the infidels, and offered the remission of sins to those who died while partipating in the Crusades. That sounds rather like a holy war to me. — Ciceronianus

Yes, a holy war because of what? That is the issue with you bringing up the crusades as if they were any negative.
"Oh no, people want to defend themselves against foreign death cultists coming to enslave and kill infidels? What a bunch of Nazis."

No doubt other factors played a part in fostering the crusades But if you think jihad is motivated solely by the desire to kill Christians, I think you're mistaken. — Ciceronianus

No such claim was ever made.

Not bandits, but the entire army of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople instead of proceeding to Jeusalem, together with the fleet of Venice. Those Crusaders backed a rival of the emperor ruling at that time, who it was hoped would be more cooperative and would pay a large sum to the Crusading army. It was also hoped that the Eastern Church would acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Christian Church. Payment wasn't forthcoming and there was no unification of the Churches.The sack was so violent and destructive Constantinople never recovered, and was eventually conquered by the Ottomans. — Ciceronianus

I know the history of the Fourth Crusade, a tragedy. The corruption of an effort for political reasons has nothing to do with its original goal. The goal of the crusades is clear for anyone who has studied it. Your implication is that the Crusades are somehow comparable to the jihad. Jesus, the crusades were the DEFENSE against the jihad. The crusades were noble and good, at least supposed to be. Obviously, after 100 years of frustration, things don't stay the same. The jihad on the other hand is the direct effort of people to impose a worldview that justifies oppressing women and child marriage — it is an attack, not self-defense.

My point is simply that the Crusades were holy wars waged in the name of God, like jihad, and the crusaders were promised heaven if they died while waging war, as it seems jihadists are promised. I don't consider holy war, killing in the name of God, "noble and good", regardless of the God invoked, but you are of course free to do so. I think war fought for reasons of religion disturbing.

My point is simply that the Crusades were holy wars waged in the name of God, like jihad, and the crusaders were promised heaven if they died while waging war, as it seems jihadists are promised. — Ciceronianus

Your point is inaccurate, and you ignored everything I said. Here.

Not everything. Just the parts that are smug and parochial.