The influence of artists' ideologies or non-musical behaviors

[Florestan]

the object of the discussion was the motives of the crusaders (which you claimed were purely predatory)

I claimed no such thing.

I think the ultimate purpose of the Crusades (fromt he point of God

So now you pretend to know the point of view of God. That settles the matter then, no further discussion is necessary. Pax tecum!

[Florestan]

Because God is the only thing that matters. Our life in this world is temporary. The one in the next world is forever. A war in the name of God is also a war in the name of good against evil by definition, since God is ultimate Goodness, and anything that opposes God is ultimately evil.

Ussama bin-Laden himself could not have said it better.

[Opus131]

I claimed no such thing.

So now you pretend to know the point of view of God. That settles the matter then, no further discussion is necessary. Pax tecum!

I'm inferring the purpose of God's plan reguarding the crusades from the vantage point of looking at the consequences of such wars against Islam from Charles Martel across the centuries all the way to the Battle of Vienna, which was clearly to give Christedom a space to live. I say clearly, as that was the defacto consequence of those wars.

I don't know if you noticed, but now that Christedom has been rejected in the west Islam is making an encroachment once again. And the Islamification of Europe is not a superficial matter either. One of the more interesting religious figures in modern England, Timothy Winters, happens to be a native British convert. When the more "serious" religious seekers begin to convert you know something substantial is actually occurring.

[Florestan]

I'm inferring the purpose of God's plan reguarding the crusades from the vantage point of looking at the consequences of such wars against Islam from Charles Martel across the centuries all the way to the Battle of Vienna, which was clearly to give Christedom a space to live. I say clearly, as that was the defacto consequence of those wars.

I don't know if you noticed, but now that Christedom has been rejected in the west Islam is making an encroachment once again. And the Islamification of Europe is not a superficial matter either. One of the more interesting religious figures in modern England, Timothy Winters, happens to be a native British convert. When the more "serious" religious seekers begin to convert you know something substantial is actually occurring.

A can full of worms which I am not willing to open and I advise you not to, either.

[AnotherSpin]

Because God is the only thing that matters. Our life in this world is temporary. The one in the next world is forever. A war in the name of God is also a war in the name of good against evil by definition, since God is ultimate Goodness, and anything that opposes God is ultimately evil.
[..]

Turn your attention from non-permanent objects (things) of apparent world toward your self and you will see without a doubt that you are the infinite life itself, pure existence beyond limitations of time and space. No God, or Satan required.

[Florestan]

Godefroy de Bouillon vs. Krishnamurti.

[AnotherSpin]

Reference to authority is not necessary to know that you are.

P.S. There have been at least two famous authors with the surname Krishnamurti - Jiddu and U.G. There is little in common between them, and each is interesting in its own way.

[Todd]

I will, as i just thought of a good argument to attempt to settle this issue.

The issue of anachronistic religious zealotry?

[Opus131]

The issue of anachronistic religious zealotry?

Did you read what followed?

For me, the fact those so called "anachronistic religious zealots" made art that was infinitely more transcendent than any of the grotesque buffoonery of modern times shows their inner world might have been far more profound than what you are giving it credit for.

I would also add that religious zealotry actually describes the moderns to perfection, given their blind faith in the superiority of their credo despite all evidence to the contrary considering the sordist state of the modern world. You have lunatics like Yuval Noah Harari tell us that AI could now write the Bible and somehow i'm supposed to take this deranged nonsense seriously.

[Opus131]

Turn your attention from non-permanent objects (things) of apparent world toward your self and you will see without a doubt that you are the infinite life itself, pure existence beyond limitations of time and space. No God, or Satan required.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

And so forth.

And pure existence beyond limitations of time and space is precisely what God is:

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/augustines-push-against-the-limits-of-time/

BTW, i suspect this notion of one becoming "pure existence beyond limitations" is not something to be taken literally. While it is possible to realize something of the divine essence within ourselves (theosis), to "literally" become pure exitence would ipso facto to cease to exist in what can only be described as an atheistic death. And that is because there cannot be more than one "pure existence beyond limitations". There's only one Absolute, and to literally become it means to just disappear altoghether.

[AnotherSpin]

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

And so forth.

And pure existence beyond limitations of time and space is precisely what God is:

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/augustines-push-against-the-limits-of-time/

BTW, i suspect this notion of one becoming "pure existence beyond limitations" is not something to be taken literally. While it is possible to realize something of the divine essence within ourselves (theosis), to "literally" become pure exitence would ipso facto to cease to exist in what can only be described as an atheistic death. And that is because there cannot be more than one "pure existence beyond limitations". There's only one Absolute, and to literally become it means to just disappear altoghether.

Already taken more literally than any thing else. You don't doubt that you are, do you? Who knows that he is? Who knows that he has a body and a mind? Are you confined in your body and mind or your body and mind are in your knowing?

You are, and you are now only. In eternal now, knowing all appearing objects (things) equally. Thus, you are beyond time and space, which are hypothesis of the mind.

[Todd]

Did you read what followed?

Yes.  It supplied additional evidence of your zealotry.

[Opus131]

Yes.  It supplied additional evidence of your zealotry.

Or maybe the zealotry is entirely yours.

If all you can see when looking at the celestial beauty of medieval art is "zealotry" maybe you are just speaking out of a blind hatred of religion. In fact, i would ask if there is a way in your mind in which one can be religious and NOT be a zealot.

[Todd]

Or maybe the zealotry is entirely yours.

No, not at all.  Let's revisit the most important, revealing, and anachronistic thing you wrote:

I think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.

That is zealotry - best case.

It is very easy for people to be religious and not be zealots.  Most people I know fall into that category.  Also note that I do not hate religion.  That is a false construct.

[AnotherSpin]

That is zealotry - best case.

Not necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.

https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA

[Opus131]

Not necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.

https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA

Dreadful singer. An another example that the middle ages were utterly superior to modernity:

Reminder that the notion of just war isn't exclusive of Christianity as well:

https://blogs.icrc.org/religion-humanitarianprinciples/bhagavad-gita-ethics-war/

Anyone who is actually serious about belief in God and isn't following a religion purely as some kind of social activity would agree if it must come to war, and God forbid if it does, there is no more noble object than to wage war for the sake of God, who himself is the most noble object of all.

I consider the unification of the Holy Roman empire under Charlemagne to have been such a noble aim. Charlemagne saved Catholicism in the west and created a temporal order that was truly "traditional". The mutual kneeling between the emperor and the pope, where the emperor submitted to the spiritual authority of the pope and the pope in his turn submited to the temporal authority of the emperor was the perfect model for establishing a truly sacred social order.

Alas, this balance was lost due to the insurmountable loss of political stability and loss of central authority created by the fall of the western Roman empire, the incessant bickering between the temporal powers eventually leading to an usurpation of authority by the same, with Philip IV of France being the first monarch to put temporal concerns over spiritual ones in an absolute fashion, and his actions is what ultimately led to the eventual downfall of the medieval civilization and paved the way for that pagan revolution that was the Renaissance.

By the high middle ages, the only thing that mattered were temporal concerns. This extended to the Church itself, who, deprived of a "champion" in the temporal order such as Charlemagne had been, or as Constantine had been centuries before, took it upon itself to become embriodered in temporal affairs out sheer self-preservation, which sullied and put into question its own spiritual authority. The warnings of Savonarola being discarded, the matter devolved into a conflict that was more about feelings of nationalism between the Italians and the Germans than concerns about legitimate authority, spiritual or otherwise, which is also what prepared the field for the fracturing of western Christedom during the Reformation.

So you see, when wars begun to be fought for purely temporal or secular concerns instead of being fought according to the will of God, the entire sacred order of western Christedom collapsed which opened the way for the modern secular west and its satanic downfall into the reign of the anti-Christ in the 20th century.

Ultimately, the main fallacy with those who spur the idea wars should ever be fought for the sake of God is the inhability to understand that war will ALWAYS be with mankind. Thus, if one removes God from the equation, you will still have wars, but those will invariably always be fought for secular reasons, which are hardly ever justified. Even questions of "self-defence" become hollow if the social order being preserved is anti-traditional, like a communist country "defending" itself from a foreign incursion as if communism was worth preserving.

[AnotherSpin]

Dreadful singer. An another example that the middle ages were utterly superior to modernity:

Reminder that the notion of just war isn't exclusive of Christianity as well:

https://blogs.icrc.org/religion-humanitarianprinciples/bhagavad-gita-ethics-war/

Anyone who is actually serious about belief in God and isn't following a religion purely as some kind of social activity would agree if it must come to war, and God forbid if it does, there is no more noble object than to wage war for the sake of God, who himself is the most noble object of all.

I consider the unification of the Holy Roman empire under Charlemagne to have been such a noble aim. Charlemagne saved Catholicism in the west and created a temporal order that was truly "traditional". The mutual kneeling between the emperor and the pope, where the emperor submitted to the spiritual authority of the pope and the pope in his turn submited to the temporal authority of the emperor was the perfect model for establishing a truly sacred social order.

Alas, this balance was lost due to the insurmountable loss of political stability and loss of central authority created by the fall of the western Roman empire, the incessant bickering between the temporal powers eventually leading to an usurpation of authority by the same, with Philip IV of France being the first monarch to put temporal concerns over spiritual ones in an absolute fashion, and his actions is what ultimately led to the eventual downfall of the medieval civilization and paved the way for that pagan revolution that was the Renaissance.

By the high middle ages, the only thing that mattered were temporal concerns. This extended to the Church itself, who, deprived of a "champion" in the temporal order such as Charlemagne had been, or as Constantine had been centuries before, took it upon itself to become embriodered in temporal affairs out sheer self-preservation, which sullied and put into question its own spiritual authority. The warnings of Savonarola being discarded, the matter devolved into a conflict that was more about feelings of nationalism between the Italians and the Germans than concerns about legitimate authority, spiritual or otherwise, which is also what prepared the field for the fracturing of western Christedom during the Reformation.

So you see, when wars begun to be fought for purely temporal or secular concerns instead of being fought according to the will of God, the entire sacred order of western Christedom collapsed which opened the way for the modern secular west and its satanic downfall into the reign of the anti-Christ in the 20th century.

Ultimately, the main fallacy with those who spur the idea wars should ever be fought for the sake of God is the inhability to understand that war will ALWAYS be with mankind. Thus, if one removes God from the equation, you will still have wars, but those will invariably always be fought for secular reasons, which are hardly ever justified. Even questions of "self-defence" become hollow if the social order being preserved is anti-traditional, like a communist country "defending" itself from a foreign incursion as if communism was worth preserving.

She was a great singer.

It's ridiculous to reduce Gita to war propaganda. Similarly, Christ's word can be reduced to promoting hippie lifestyle.

You advocate war in the name of God, but deny secular war, if I understand correctly. In that case, war has no place in the secular world, does it? On the other hand, one can see God's will in any horrible incident, be it war, pandemic, WEF, greens agenda, cancel culture, etc.

[Opus131]

The Gita was revealed for the Kshatriya, the warrior caste. That is why it sanctions war, because war is their domain.

In Hinduism, as far as i understand it, the chief purpose of the Kshatriya is to provide the security and peace necessary for the Brahmins to safeguard the teachings of the Vedas. In order to do this, sometimes war is necessary.

Christianity did not have a dissimilar arrangement. Ever since Constantine, the role of Christian kings has been that of safeguarding Christedom. The peace and security of the land was not something that was sought for its own sake, but for the sake of the Church and the path towards salvation it offered to the people (again, man does not live to eat, peace and prosperity for their own sake doesn't mean anything because human beings are not grazing animals with no other purpose in life but to fill their bellies undisturbed).

Now of course the fall means no perfect human society can be created. Man is both limited and fallen, human desires and motivations can often be base if not outright vile, but that too is part of why war is inevitable. It is not so much that i advocate war in the name of God, but that i see war as a permanent fixture of human existance, and war being inevitable, it should at least be waged for the right reasons to that degree that is actually possible. It is the inevatibility of war which made it necessary to define the notion of what a just war ought to be, as opposed to simply preaching for the abolishing of all wars, which most Christians thinkers were not naive enough to believe could be done.

[Opus131]

She was a great singer.

Don't see it, least of all in that video you posted.

[AnotherSpin]

Don't see it, least of all in that video you posted.

That's fine.