ТОП 10 на сайтеПриготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации
Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча.
Франко-прусская война (причины и последствия)
Организация работы процедурного кабинета
Смысловое и механическое запоминание, их место и роль в усвоении знаний
Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления
Обработка изделий медицинского назначения многократного применения
Образцы текста публицистического стиля
Четыре типа изменения баланса
Задачи с ответами для Всероссийской олимпиады по праву
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!
ЗНАЕТЕ ЛИ ВЫ?
Влияние общества на человека
Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации
Практические работы по географии для 6 класса
Организация работы процедурного кабинета
Изменения в неживой природе осенью
Уборка процедурного кабинета
Сольфеджио. Все правила по сольфеджио
Балочные системы. Определение реакций опор и моментов защемления
Other popes who called for a Crusade
⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 184 из 209Следующая ⇒
Pope Nicholas V ordered an immediate counter-attack after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. As Pope Pius II, the same Aeneas Silvius declared a crusade in 1459 for the recapture of Constantinople, but any genuine enthusiasm that existed was short-lived, and a crusade never came into effect.
Unofficial crusades (not sanctioned by the Pope)
The most recent ”unofficial Crusade” were Russian military defensive campaigns against the Ottoman Caliphate in the 19th century which resulted in a Russian victory. However, hadn’t it been for Disraeli Britain’s defence of the Muslims (see Congress of Berlin), Constantinople would have been brought back to Christian hands.
Entertaining ideas of launching defensive crusader campaigns to take back former Christian territories has become politically incorrect in the Western world after Turkey emerged with a so called ”secular republic constitution”. This, despite the fact that they have continued their Jihadi pogroms against Christian minorities until this very day.
Canon Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Canon_Law
Council of Clermont http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Clermont
Would Pope Benedict XVI take the initiative for launching a new crusade?
Not likely. The closest Pope Benedict has come to anything controversial was his statement in a lecture delivered on September 12th 2006. Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a dialogue that occurred in 1391 between Manuel II Palaiologos, the Byzantine Emperor, and a Persian scholar and recorded in a book by Manuel II (Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian) in which the Emperor stated:
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Many Muslims were offended by what was perceived as a denigration of Muhammad, and many reacted violently. Several churches were burned and many Christians were killed in multiple locations in the Middle East (including a nun). In his book, Manuel II then continues, saying:
“God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...”
As a result of this controversy the Pope had to indirectly apologise and has since that time not tried to do anything of significance to prevent the ongoing Global Jihad against Christians or the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe. As such, Pope Benedict has abandoned Christianity and all Christian Europeans and is to be considered a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt and illegitimate Pope much like his most recent predecessors; John XXIII (1958-1963), Paul VI (1963-1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978-2005). If Pope Benedict had any shred of integrity he would at least attempt to contact all European senior and junior military officers and ask them to inintialise coups against the given multiculturalist European regimes and contribute to repell Islam from Europe for a third time. Pope Benedict, as his most recent predecessors, have failed to identify multiculturalism as an anti-European hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European Christendom. As of now, no Pope have even attempted to reach out to all European military leaders and demand action against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites who have implemented given ideology. Pope Benedict has a responsibility to act against the deliberate and systematical annihilation of European Christendom. Yet he has not even tried to do anything of significance.
When we, the cultural conservatives of Europe seize power in approximately 5-7 decades, we will take the necessary steps to eradicate the corruption which is continuing to plague the Church (both the Catholic and Protestant church). We must ensure that we have Christian leaders who believe in; self defence, protection of Eastern Christendom and the protection of Christians worldwide.
The Bible and self-defence
Many Christians claim that acts of self-defence are unbiblical, unscriptural and ungodly. However, they are un-doubtfully wrong.
The Bible couldn't be clearer on the right, even the duty; we have as Christians to self-defence.
Let's start in the Old Testament.
Exodus 22:2"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,"
we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says,
"If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodshed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That's the ultimate expression of self-defence. It doesn't matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.
The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. The people defended themselves.
Samuel 25:13: ”David said to his men, "Each of you gird on his sword." So each man girded on his sword. And David also girded on his sword, and about four hundred men went up behind David while two hundred stayed with the baggage.”
Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.
Judges 5:8: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"
Reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm. The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defence.
Psalms 144:1: "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight,"
Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time.
And what were those weapons? Swords.
They didn't have firearms, but they had side-arms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and equip them.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Matthew 26:52-54: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
If you read those verses in context they support the position of self-defence. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation, as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.
Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn't say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: "Peter, this is not the right time for a fight."
In the context of cultural conservative Europeans current war against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites and the ongoing Islamic invasion through Islamic demographic warfare against Europe, every military action against our enemies is considered self defence. There will be much suffering and destruction but eventually we will succeed and may be able to start rebuilding.
We should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.
Nehemiah 4:17-18: "Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon”. ”As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built,…”
Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-04-07; просмотров: 342; Нарушение авторского права страницы; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!
infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - 220.127.116.11 (0.017 с.)