Should the Jews be Held Blameless

[volgadon]

Respectfully, Volgadon, I agree with pretty much everything you have said, and I would also suggest that BenSalem is at very least walking the thin line of anti-semitism.

That said, while I do understand the modern political state of Israel to be a 'Jewish state', is it your position that we are to consider the modern political entity that is Israel to be the same, and coextensive with, the gathering of Israel mentioned in Judeo-Christian eschatology? I ask this in part because, as I am sure you know, there is serious disagreement even among modern Jews as to whether this is the case. Conservative and modern-Orthodox Jews generally see the modern political entity of Israel as having religious-escatological significance, while the Hasidim and Haredim generally want nothing at all to do with it precisely because it has no religious-eschatological significance.

Just wondering what your position is on that.

My position is that the formation of the state of Israel is not THE gathering but rather part of it.

I will respond later at greater length to the excellent points you bring up.

[Blackmarch]

I was thinking of those in our time who deny the Anointed One of Israel. Will God treat them as enemies?

That will depend whether or not they ever repent of that, whether in this life or the next.

If not they cannot be saved.

My guess is that a great many of them will repent at somepoint whther it be before they taste the fires of hell or after.

[Bensalem]

There is a spiritual Israel, that is, the church, but there is also a physical Israel, whose home is in the Middle East country which you speak of so disparigingly.

The scriptures are pretty clear on this.

I don't deny the scriptures on this matter. I only doubt that the Israel of the Middle East is the Israel which God organized.

You say that the LDS church is the spiritual Israel, but you point to the Middle East as the physical Israel. The spirit of Israel is not separate from its physical reality any more than my spirit is separate from my physical body.

The LDS church is also the physical Israel.

[Bensalem]

My comment was a bit from a primary source countering your statement that Israel is not a Jewish state. The quote is fairly famous, it is by Theodore Herzl.

Was he a prophet of God?

[Bensalem]

Still Mr. Sam.

Because, just because God foretold that Mr. Doe's house will burn doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Sam still committed the transgression by throwing the cigarette butt onto Mr. Doe's bushes. Mr. Sam still caused Mr. Doe's house to catch fire. Not God, not Mr. Doe.

God did not command Mr. Sam to throw his cigarette onto Mr. Doe's bushes to punish Mr. Doe.

Juxtapose that with Laban being killed by Nephi by God's command. Nephi cannot be blamed for Laban's death.

Sure, in a secular sense Mr. Sam is at fault and would be held accountable by the law of the land, but in God's eyes Mr. Sam is held blameless.

How do you know that God did not command Mr. Sam to throw the cigarette onto Mr. Doe's bushes in fulfillment of prophecy? Perhaps he was "constrained by the Spirit" that he should.

Even so, he could still be held accountable by faithless men who do not believe that God fulfills his word.

[Bensalem]

Yes he can. Nephi was justified in killing Laban (because he was commanded) but that doesn't mean he can't be blamed. I know blame is a negatively charged word, one could change it to responsible if you prefer, but the fact that God tells us to do something doesn't remove our responsibility for our own actions. It's just that responsibility/blame (in God's eyes if not society) is to our benefit instead of our detriment.

Note I'm speaking of Laban and Nephi. I'm not trying to draw any parallels between the hypothetical example given nor the Jews (as in those who actually killed him not the entire people) killing Christ.

What about those who spiritually kill Christ? How will they be judged?

The NT teaches that Christ is the Word. The Catholic church and most Christian denominations teach that the Book of Revelation is the last word.

Isn't this a lance into the side of Christ?

[Bensalem]

Bensalem's posts are anti-Semitic. Indeed, his OP shows that he sees the Jews as collectively responsible for the death of Christ, although they are to be held "blameless". In other words, God made them do it. He then proceeds along the "true Israel" line of argumentation to deny modern jews any legitimacy, another classic feature of old anti-Semitism.

I'm from israel, I've done quite a bit of work on various forms of anti-Semitism throughought my highschool years, so I can pretty much claim that I know what I'm talking about as well.

My opening post consisted of three questions (repeated below):

A couple of threads here have discussed the role of the Jewish people and that of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus. Much hatred through history and to this day has been directed toward the Jewish people. Christ had to die on the cross in order to fulfill scripture. So shouldn't the Jews be held blameless?

In the same vain, God promised to make them "a hiss and a byword". Can a persecutor of the Jewish people find justification for their acts in these words?

What is the LDS perspective on histories treatment of the Jewish people and what is their ultimate fate in the eyes of God?

I don't see the Antisemitism.

Throughout the post I have been arguing that the Jewish people should be held blameless in the death of Jesus Christ since his death was in fulfillment of scripture.

Likewise, the concept of one Israel is also in fulfillment of scripture. Hence my stance on identifying one Israel in the LDS church and not recognizing the other nation calling itself Israel but lacking the spirit to see the fulfillment of the promises in Christ.

For the record, I love the Jewish people as much as God does. I love them so much as to point their faith toward fulfillment in God and Christ and away from fulfillment in statehood through the acts of men. The LORD has shown His arm and it leads to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a nation of prophets and apostles who own the truth and the judgement of the world.

[Bensalem]

"O Thou! who art from everlasting to everlasting, …wilt Thou not condescend, through thine infinite goodness and royal favor, to listen to the prayer of Thy servant which he this day offers up unto Thee in the name of Thy holy child Jesus, upon this land, where the Son of Righteousness set in blood, and thine Anointed One expired.

…

"O my Father in heaven! I now ask Thee in the name of Jesus to remember Zion, with all her Stakes, and with all her assemblies. She has been grievously afflicted and smitten; she has mourned; she has wept; her enemies have triumphed, and have said, `Ah, where is thy God?' Her Priests and Prophets have groaned in chains and fetters within the gloomy walls of prisons, while many were slain, and now sleep in the arms of death. How long, O Lord, shall iniquity triumph, and sin go unpunished?

"Do Thou arise in the majesty of Thy strength, and make bare Thine arm in behalf of Thy people. Redress their wrongs, and turn their sorrow into joy. Pour the spirit of light and knowledge, grace and wisdom, into the hearts of her Prophets, and clothe her Priests with salvation. Let light and knowledge march forth through the empire of darkness, and may the honest in heart flow to their standard, and join in the march to go forth to meet the Bridegroom.

"Let a peculiar blessing rest upon the Presidency of Thy Church, for at them are the arrows of the enemy directed. Be Thou to them a sun and a shield, their strong tower and hiding place; and in the time of distress or danger be Thou near to deliver. Also the quorum of the Twelve, do Thou be pleased to stand by them for Thou knowest the obstacles which they have to encounter, the temptations to which they are exposed, and the privations which they must suffer. Give us, [the Twelve] therefore, strength according to our day, and help us to bear a faithful testimony of Jesus and His Gospel, to finish with fidelity and honor the work which Thou hast given us to do, and then give us a place in Thy glorious kingdom. And let this blessing rest upon every faithful officer and member in Thy Church. And all the glory and honor will we ascribe unto God and the Lamb forever and ever. Amen."

Thank you for posting the entire prayer of the apostle and prophet in the LDS church who consecrated the land with the authority of the Holy Melchizedek priesthood for the gathering of Israel in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I said in an earlier post: Without the acknowledgement of this consecration as being the act of God that fulfills scripture, the Jewish people have a nation built by men, organized by mandate, and called together by popular media.

When the land is opened up to the saints and the word of God which they preach and souls are converted, I will know the people of Israel by their obedience.

[Bensalem]

Declaration of Israeli Independence

Issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 (5th of lyar, 5708)

(1) The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

…

(20) With trust in Almighty G-d we set our hand to this Declaration, at this Session of the Provisional State Council, in the city of Tel Aviv, on this Sabbath eve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May, 1948.

I too trust in Almighty God; I too was born of the word of God forged by the faithful who inhabited the land in former times. However, my guarantees on Israel do not rest with this declaration. Israel has been declared by God and Christ to be those whose faith brings them to the waters of baptism in the LDS Church.

The personal declaration of my roots in Israel came in my patriarchal blessing, which placed me at the “lions of Ephraim”. This in fulfillment of the promised that He would provide a Seer for the souls of the lost birthright: “These people searched in their ancestral registers but could not be located in them, so they were excluded from the priesthood as unclean, and His Excellency forbade them to eat the sacred foods until a priest could be found for the Urim and Thummim” (Nehemiah 7:64-65).

This promise was fulfilled in the prophet Joseph Smith and continues today through the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Book of Mormon prophet Moroni, the Son of Mormon, puts it this way… “And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled” (Moroni 10:31).

Such are the declarations of our Lord.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

A couple of threads here have discussed the role of the Jewish people and that of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus. Much hatred through history and to this day has been directed toward the Jewish people. Christ had to die on the cross in order to fulfill scripture. So shouldn't the Jews be held blameless?

In the same vain, God promised to make them "a hiss and a byword". Can a persecutor of the Jewish people find justification for their acts in these words?

What is the LDS perspective on histories treatment of the Jewish people and what is their ultimate fate in the eyes of God?

The LDS Church believes that a person is only held accountable for there own sins and not the sins of there ancestors.

Those who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ are held responsible for demanding his death, his death was foretold, and was needed for us to be saved.

This does not automatically forgive there action in demanding the execution of an innocent man. They made the choose to reject and murder the Son of God and they must be held responsible in my opinion.

The Jewish people though are not stained by Christ's blood like the many Churches have taught. Millions of Jews have been murdered because of this evil deception of Lucifer and it pains me to thing of all the poor souls who suffered at the hands of proclaimed "Christians" for a crime they never committed!

[NeuroTypical]

Millions of Jews have been murdered because of this evil deception of Lucifer and it pains me to thing of all the poor souls who suffered at the hands of proclaimed "Christians" for a crime they never committed!

Millions? I've read about persecutions and pogroms and whatnot, but I've never heard the claim millions. The holocaust at around five million, but it didn't have anything to do with Jews being blamed for Jesus' death...

[JohnnyRudick]

Millions? I've read about persecutions and pogroms and whatnot, but I've never heard the claim millions. The holocaust at around five million, but it didn't have anything to do with Jews being blamed for Jesus' death...

As far as I can tell it does not have to.

I blame no person of Jewish or Benjamenian (msp?) ancestry for the crucifixion.

Most of the time when leaders have power they tend to corrupt that power.

The people they rule get the leaders they deserve I believe but still I hold no Jew accountable for something that their ancestors did 2000 years ago ir 70 years ago for that matter,

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Millions? I've read about persecutions and pogroms and whatnot, but I've never heard the claim millions. The holocaust at around five million, but it didn't have anything to do with Jews being blamed for Jesus' death...

There where 13 Crusades during these "holy wars" millions of Jews were displaced, raped, and murdered by Crusaders told that they were automatically forgiven for any sin since it is the Holy War of God.

The Holocaust was child's play compared to the Crusades, the Crusades is the worst hate crime in recorded history. The Catholic Church murdered more people (Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, ect) over the course of the Crusades then Hitler did in the Holocaust from what I have seen. I don't have exact numbers but millions were murdered.

Hitler was a terrible man but at least his victims got justice served in Nuremberg and the German people have taken steps to ensure they never do such evil again. The Catholic Church murdered millions during there bloody reign over Europe in the middle ages, no one ever stood trial or was punished. The Roman Catholic Church have never admitted responsibility for these actions nor have they been punished for there direct involvement in the murders of the Crusades and the silent approval of the Holocaust.

[JohnnyRudick]

There where 13 Crusades during these "holy wars" millions of Jews were displaced, raped, and murdered by Crusaders told that they were automatically forgiven for any sin since it is the Holy War of God.

The Holocaust was child's play compared to the Crusades, the Crusades is the worst hate crime in recorded history. The Catholic Church murdered more people (Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, ect) over the course of the Crusades then Hitler did in the Holocaust from what I have seen. I don't have exact numbers but millions were murdered.

Hitler was a terrible man but at least his victims got justice served in Nuremberg and the German people have taken steps to ensure they never do such evil again. The Catholic Church murdered millions during there bloody reign over Europe in the middle ages, no one ever stood trial or was punished. The Roman Catholic Church have never admitted responsibility for these actions nor have they been punished for there direct involvement in the murders of the Crusades and the silent approval of the Holocaust.

Actually Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin continued the evil that Hitler was involved in.

Killing millions more yet he is never brought up as the boogeyman that Hitler was.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Actually Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin continued the evil that Hitler was involved in.

Killing millions more yet he is never brought up as the boogeyman that Hitler was.

I do give you that, Stalin/Hitler combined outweighs the Crusades but I'm not trying to make one worse than the other just stating that Christians did murder millions of Jews, Muslims, Gypsies in the name of Christ and the organization that did it still stands never brought to justice or ever accepting responsibility for there genocide.

[JohnnyRudick]

I do give you that, Stalin/Hitler combined outweighs the Crusades but I'm not trying to make one worse than the other just stating that Christians did murder millions of Jews, Muslims, Gypsies in the name of Christ and the organization that did it still stands never brought to justice or ever accepting responsibility for there genocide.

Right on:cool:

[selek]

I do give you that, Stalin/Hitler combined outweighs the Crusades but I'm not trying to make one worse than the other just stating that Christians did murder millions of Jews, Muslims, Gypsies in the name of Christ and the organization that did it still stands never brought to justice or ever accepting responsibility for there genocide.

So.....in other words.....you feel that the Catholic Church as an institution should be held responsible for blood crimes which no one now living committed, but the Jewish people as a whole should not?

Smells remarkably like a religiously-motivated (and politically correct) double-standard to me.....

Collective guilt is not an idea to which the LDS- or the laws of Heaven- adhere.

We will each be judged for our OWN sins- and not those of any one else. We are culpable only for what our agency permitted or prevented and nothing more.

And if you think about it......we all - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US- own a piece of the nails that were driven through Christ's flesh, and we EACH own a portion of the lashes that were inflicted and the pain he suffered.

Christ was crucified for OUR sins.

Had we not sinned, the crucifixion would not have been necessary.

Every sinner among us is as morally culpable for Christ's suffering as were those who actually drove the nails.

If every one is guilty, then singling out any one group or people is an exercise in irrelevancy.

More to the point, however, the redemption covers even that sin.

The debt we owe for Christ's suffering was paid: we are all debtors to Christ.

To say "You (as a person or as a people) owe more than I (or we) do" is sin in and of itself.

Two things for those who would condemn "the Jews"- or any one else, for that matter- to ponder in your hearts:

Luke 7

41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

Matthew 18

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would atake account of his bservants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Whomsoever amongst us who would condemn "the Jews" or "the Catholics" or "the Mormons" or "the Muslims"- or any of our brethren- for sins which they did not personally commit are no better than the unmerciful servant, and will face the same judgment as he.

Edited January 31, 2011 by selek

[Dravin]

So.....in other words.....you feel that the Catholic Church as an institution should be held responsible for blood crimes which no one now living committed, but the Jewish people as a whole should not.

Smells remarkably like a religiously-motivated double-standard to me.....

There is some degree of reasoning to it. Namely the Catholic Church is the same entity*. It's like how the United States is bound by treaties it signed many years ago even if all those who enacted the treaty at the time are now dead. Which is different than saying that individual Catholics are responsible for something that happened before they were even born. The thing is how do you hold the entity responsible without hurting the individual Catholics as if reparations are to be paid that's who it ultimately affects.

It's an interesting conundrum that goes beyond just the Catholic Church, as with my example of the United States. you run into the same thing with governments. I'm disinclined to say an ethnicity is a contiguous entity and as such that would be why Jews wouldn't be responsible and why Catholics aren't responsible (though the Catholic Church would be such an entity).

Edit: For the record if something like the Mountain Meadows massacre was the work of the LDS Church as an entity the same standard would apply. Which means if one says the crusades is the work of individual Catholics and not something the Catholic Church entity did then you'd have a similar situation as the LDS Church and Mountain Meadows (Of course one can debate which was which for both organizations and events but that's not something I'm particularly interested in debating. I'm content to leave it at an "if" and not delving into if it was an if or a was).

* I suppose depending on who you are you may or may not agree with that.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

There is some degree of reasoning to it. Namely the Catholic Church is the same entity*. It's like how the United States is bound by treaties it signed many years ago even if all those who enacted the treaty at the time are now dead. Which is different than saying that individual Catholics are responsible for something that happened before they were even born. The thing is how do you hold the entity responsible without hurting the individual Catholics as if reparations are to be paid that's who it ultimately affects.

It's an interesting conundrum that goes beyond just the Catholic Church, as with my example of the United States. you run into the same thing with governments. I'm disinclined to say an ethnicity is a contiguous entity and as such that would be why Jews wouldn't be responsible and why Catholics aren't responsible (though the Catholic Church would be such an entity).

Edit: For the record if something like the Mountain Meadows massacre was the work of the LDS Church as an entity the same standard would apply. Which means if one says the crusades is the work of individual Catholics and not something the Catholic Church entity did then you'd have a similar situation as the LDS Church and Mountain Meadows (Of course one can debate which was which for both organizations and events but that's not something I'm particularly interested in debating. I'm content to leave it at an "if" and not delving into if it was an if or a was).

* I suppose depending on who you are you may or may not agree with that.

I first would like to say that I agree with you.

Then I would point out that the Jewish people should not be held responsible

for the illegal work of the Jewish Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court.

[selek]

There is some degree of reasoning to it. Namely the Catholic Church is the same entity*.

And yet it has been alleged- not establshed- that the Catholic Church is morally culpable for the crimes committed all those years ago.

It's like how the United States is bound by treaties it signed many years ago even if all those who enacted the treaty at the time are now dead.

And yet the analogy breaks down for a number of reasons.

First, all such treaties were officially ratified by the United States government as a whole. Before a treaty is binding upon the United States, our leaders as a quorum must affirmatively and actively sign off on it.

It has not been established that rape, genocide, mass-murder and torture were the official, institutional policies of the Catholic Church as a whole, let alone that the Church government actively and affirmatively authorized it.

It is beyond question that some Catholic leaders either encouraged, looked the other way, or gave absolution for those crimes, but it has not established that this was the active, approved policy of the Catholic Church as a whole.

Second, your analogy overlooks the fact that the Catholic Church was neither the sole institution involved nor did they have veto authority over the actions of those in the field.

That the United States as a whole has signed off on a treaty does not mean that the United States as a whole is responsible for individual war crimes.

That the United States was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions did not absolve William Calley of his personal responsibility for his actions, nor did it make torture, mass-murder, or indiscriminate killing of civilians the official policy of the United States.

Bureaucratic inertia, the vast difficulty in administering the Church, (and turf-protecting) aside, you need to remember that the people committing the aforementioned crimes were (by-and-large) the sons and brothers of the most influential and powerful people of their day.

There should have been governmental and moral restraints on this behavior- not just from the Catholic Church- but it was not to be.

Had the Catholic Church actively condemned the crimes in a fashion fit to sate the bloodlust and situational indignation of our modern presentists, they would have offended and alienated the influential and powerful people- the very same people upon whom they relied to protect their people.

The centuries long disputes, persecutions, and "cleansings" which marked the changes of power between Catholic and Protestant monarchs in Britain demonstrates the folly involved.

It would have been a classic example of "biting the hand that feeds you" and reckless- to say the least.

Third and finally, the attempt to press our "more enlightened" standards on an earlier people- and to condemn them on that basis- is presentism at its worst, and borders on both arrogance and bigotry.

In LDS theology, ignorance of the law IS a valid defense.

We are judged by the law which we are given, not by the law given to somebody else.

The era in which the Crusades took place was vastly different than our own. The crimes to which we now object were common place, and "human rights" did not exist as a concept- on either side.

By the standards of the day, the Crusades were right in line with contemporary understandings of morality and law- and if you intend to condemn one side, you'd best be prepared to condemn them both.

Selective outrage is NOT justice, but prejudice.

Which is different than saying that individual Catholics are responsible for something that happened before they were even born. The thing is how do you hold the entity responsible without hurting the individual Catholics as if reparations are to be paid that's who it ultimately affects.

How can reparations be paid? And to whom?

Just as no one now living committed the crimes, no one now living suffered them, either.

Nothing can be done to either punish nor alleviate the sins of the Crusades, nor of Christ's crucifixion, nor of the pogroms and persecutions suffered by the Jews.

The only thing we can do is to resolve never to let it happen again.

Morally selective (and politically correct) navel-gazing cannot change the past, nor will it teach us "true" lessons- it will only distract from fundamental truths.

[Dravin]

And yet it has been alleged- not establshed- that the Catholic Church is morally culpable for the crimes committed all those years ago.

And? Your objection (that I responded to) was based on holding an entity culpable for behavior because those who would have engaged in the behaviour are dead while not holding individuals not belonging to a contiguous entity culpable (as far as I'm concerned an ethnicity does not qualify as a contiguous entity, but I stated that previously) being a double standard.

Which was what I addressed. I'm not trying to establish that the Catholic Church as an entity is responsible. I'm assuming you responded before catching my edit.

Edit: Hm... There may be a better descriptor than contiguous out there.

And yet the analogy breaks down for a number of reasons.

Not really, not as I used it. You are extending it beyond the reason it was used. It was not used in response to the objection that the Roman Catholic Church as an entity is not culpable for the behaviour being discussed, or that if it was culpable that it was solely culpable (as your post I responded to did not bring these up). It was in response for holding an entity consisting of individuals culpable for behavior beyond the lifespan of the individuals who made up the entity at the time. For which it does not suffer breakdown.

As far as the rest of your post explaining how they didn't do anything else others were n'tdoing, or that historical context needs to be applied when viewing past actions, is irrelevant to my point. I was addressing a specific point (that holding the Catholic Church culpable but not the Jews is a double standard) and you've kinda gone scatter gun on me. Just because I agree there is reasoning behind holding an entity culpable beyond the life span of those who made up the entity at the time of the action does not mean I agree with every holding of every entity culpable. Basically just because I agree that reasoning A has some basis does not mean I hold that B, C, D and E also have some basis or even that the conclusion using reasoning A is valid.

I just disagreed that a double standard is required to reach the conclusion that the entity of the Roman Catholic Church is culpable while the current individuals of the Jewish ethnicity are not. I think you are falling pray to the common assumption that because I may agree with or find some amount of validity in part of someone's position (in this case that a double standard is not necessary to reach a certain conclusion) that I must therefore agree with the entirety of their position.

How can reparations be paid? And to whom?

I dunno. How and who? You are probably better off asking someone who maintains that the Catholic Church is culpable and should be held responsible (which generally is a call for reparations of some sort).

Edited January 31, 2011 by Dravin

[GeneC]

I should think that there is enough blame for both sides concerning the Crusades which started, by the way with the Tabuk Crusades in 630 AD which was launched by Muhammad two years before his death of a fever, and not the Christian or Catholic Crusades.

American Thinker: The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

"1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.". . . .

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I should think that there is enough blame for both sides concerning the Crusades which started, by the way with the Tabuk Crusades in 630 AD which was launched by Muhammad two years before his death of a fever, and not the Christian or Catholic Crusades.

American Thinker: The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

"1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.". . . .

So Muslims and Catholic fight and the rape and murder of millions of European Jews is equally those Jews fault?!?!?!?

I don't understand your logic here, the Jews were innocent victims of the vile hatred of the Roman Catholic Church in the Crusades. There is no excuse or justification for there actions whatsoever. The RCC has the blood of millions of innocent people on there heads and they dead cry from the grave for justice which will be delivered by the swift wrath of God in his own due time.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I should think that there is enough blame for both sides concerning the Crusades which started, by the way with the Tabuk Crusades in 630 AD which was launched by Muhammad two years before his death of a fever, and not the Christian or Catholic Crusades.

American Thinker: The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

"1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.". . . .

The Jews had no part in the crusades nor wanted it they were just innocent victims, as was the innocent Muslim villages (that had no problems nor supported the militant Persian empire) that were destroyed along the route to the crusades simply for being Muslim.

The Crusades is the cause of the hate of the Muslim world of the west (which does not justify there jihads and terrorism against the west in any form whatsoever), an Muslim emperor attacks Christan pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem over territorial disputes (not religious disputes) and the Catholic Church retaliates with 13 "unholy wars" that murder million of Jews (which had nothing to do with the "cause" and Muslim civilians (the favorite target of the vile crusaders).

Militarily the only people the Crusaders successful beat on a regular basis was women and children they raped and murdered on the way to Jerusalem and back. The crusades were massive failures seeing that the Holy Land never stayed in Christian hands for long and the crimes committed were so terrible that Catholic membership would risk excommunication and even death hiding Jews, Muslims, and Gypsies from the Crusaders came through there town.

The Persians started a territorial conflict, the Catholic Church made it into a genocide.

Edited January 31, 2011 by LDS_Guy_1986

[GeneC]

The Jews had no part in the crusades nor wanted it they were just innocent victims, as was the innocent Muslim villages (that had no problems nor supported the militant Persian empire) that were destroyed along the route to the crusades simply for being Muslim.

The Crusades is the cause of the hate of the Muslim world of the west (which does not justify there jihads and terrorism against the west in any form whatsoever), an Muslim emperor attacks Christan pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem over territorial disputes (not religious disputes) and the Catholic Church retaliates with 13 "unholy wars" that murder million of Jews (which had nothing to do with the "cause" and Muslim civilians (the favorite target of the vile crusaders).

Militarily the only people the Crusaders successful beat on a regular basis was women and children they raped and murdered on the way to Jerusalem and back. The crusades were massive failures seeing that the Holy Land never stayed in Christian hands for long and the crimes committed were so terrible that Catholic membership would risk excommunication and even death hiding Jews, Muslims, and Gypsies from the Crusaders came through there town.

The Persians started a territorial conflict, the Catholic Church made it into a genocide.

The Jews weren't mentioned by me in my post and the CHRISTIAN Crusades started as a result of the the Muslim Crusades I sourced, which lasted HUNDREDS of years, by the way. IE

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099