umm...Muslims?

[rhapsody]

I still do not understand the whole Trinity issue, and I don't think it makes sense...especially when Christians themselves can not explain it.  I don't know how some ( I said some) christians ignore the crusades but jump fast on the whole "hate muslim" bandwagon...with the last messenger and Prophet of God, came the faith of Islam.  Since that day when Islam was implimented properly, it hasnt been that long (relatively speaking) ...any history majors around who can tell us what Christianity was like in its "middle ages" 

As to the doctrine of the trinity being confusing, from the same website I quoted earlier (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/whatisthetrinity.htm):
     Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp.  But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity.  On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth.  The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God.  Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times.  So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible.  What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity.  The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery.  After all, we are dealing with God Himself.

Just as Christians can't excuse what happened during the Crusades, we can't ignore the Islamic jihad either.  People of both faiths have done and continue to do a lot of evil things.  Clearly it's not constructive to just bash each faith in general.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about the Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#The_Crusades):
     Following the Great Schism, prime examples of the force of the divided cultural identities of Christendom can be found in the unfolding developments of the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emperors drew on the concept of Christian unity to inspire the population of Western Europe to unite and defend Christendom from the perceived aggression of Islam, often at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. From the 7th century onward, Islam had been gaining ground along Europe's southern and eastern borders. Muslim armies conquered Egypt, the rest of North Africa, Jerusalem, Spain, Sicily, and most of Anatolia (in modern Turkey), although they were finally turned back in western Europe by Christian armies at the Battle of Tours in southern France. Political unanimity in Europe was less secure than it appeared, however, and the military support for most crusades was drawn from limited regions of Europe. Substantial areas of northern Europe also remained outside Christendom until the twelfth century or later; these areas also became crusading venues during the expansionist High Middle Ages.

[hilljack]

The Crusades were economically driven, not driven by religion.

[Alamss]

to suggest that the crusades were not driven by religion is just absurd. Economic drive may have been a component part of it but you cannot take that part and use it to override the actual motivation for the crusades, which was religion.

[hilljack]

No professor of European history I have spoken to has said such things.  The first crusades, the farmer with pitch forks may have been motivated by religion, but these people were slaughtered.  The Crusades as a whole were primarily motivated by trade routes.

[Alamss]

capturing, or recapturing, Jerusalem, which was the goal of the crusades, was an economic goal? Trade route to Jerusalem? Wouldn't they wanted to go eastward if they were really looking for trade routes?

When you said that I did some research to actually confirm by merit sources that the crusades in fact were PRIMARILY fought for trade routes, I have yet to find that as the reason of the crusades. Even the Catholic encyclopedia says, the first sentence of its explanantion, "The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

tell me if you find otherwise, and we are talking about primary purpose and motivation, not some complementary reason.

[SH]

 rhapsody,
Thank you for trying to clarify...and like I mentioned earlier..despite having taken christianity in first year uni, AND taking Psych of Religion from our theological school...(which had its roots in judeo-christian reasoning) I still can not figure out how that is ONE GOD. If it was one God why would God be speaking to himself? As the earlier poster..abe? said...over 2000 years of debate still hasnt cleared this issue up within the scholars themselves. 


and the Islamic "jihad" did you read what La-Man wrote?


hilljck if you will say that the crusades was just about economic issues, ok i laughed...I won't comment. I am not an expert on the issue...

[la-man]

ok...the purpose of the crusades WAS not for economic fulfillment, please lets be real here. That is not only wrong but very off base. Economic gain was only a byproduct. Just to settle this once and for all, the two primary “planners” of the first crusade were Pope Urban II and Emperor Alexus of Constantinople. In his first speech and “call to the masses” the Pope called on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks….

[hilljack]

I am not saying there were no religious overtones, but would Western European countries commit their forces to fight for Christianity?  I was taught European history by a very well educated man, and I will go by what he said and what I have read.

The first crusades, the farmer with pitch forks may have been motivated by religion, but these people were slaughtered.

[la-man]

Just make sure you know that the PRIMARY reason for the crusades was a "faith based initiative"...how nice to include modern terms in a historic debate..

[Xony]

guys don't forget the spanish inquisition