News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - cssml

#1
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
February 23, 2020, 04:36:10 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 23, 2020, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: cssml on February 23, 2020, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 23, 2020, 10:47:45 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 23, 2020, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 23, 2020, 09:12:22 AM
Of course education "costs."
"Free" means you don't have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.

By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.


Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.

I think he is talking about institutions like:  https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions

Just what period were these "in the churches", and would love to hear you unpack what you mean by that statement.  These institutions, while born of the church, have always been at the service of all and been in the world.  The Jesuits, who came on the scene post reformation, founded the schools above (and many many more).  They went to the ends of the Earth.  While they were of the church, they were most certainly living out their calling in the world, not restrained or confined 'in the church'.

Many of them have made enormous contributions to academia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

Your reaction reminds me of Pierce -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters


A good friend of our son went to Creighton University. He did not go there for a religious education. He is Jewish. ....

So in your secular dominated view of education, would schools like Creighton need to cease their activities such as the following, or lose any public funding?

http://moses.creighton.edu/CSRS/
https://www.creighton.edu/ministry/deglmancenter/

Would CUA have to shut down the following?

https://www.cuapress.org/books/series/
https://trs.catholic.edu/academics/graduate/church-history/index.html

How about Notre Dame's department of Theology

https://theology.nd.edu/

If Concordia Portland was not shutting down, would they be deserving of any funding if they continued to offer the following?

https://www.cu-portland.edu/academics/colleges/lutheran-institute-theology-culture

Trinity?

https://divinity.tiu.edu/degree/master-of-arts-church-history/

I guess George Fox would have to cut all the content under the title "Christian Studies"

https://www.georgefox.edu/college-admissions/academics/majors-minors.html

I wonder just how far the radical secularist would go, and just how tolerant of non-secular agendas they would be...
#2
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
February 23, 2020, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 23, 2020, 10:47:45 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 23, 2020, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 23, 2020, 09:12:22 AM
Of course education "costs."
"Free" means you don't have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.

By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.


Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.

I think he is talking about institutions like:  https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions

Just what period were these "in the churches", and would love to hear you unpack what you mean by that statement.  These institutions, while born of the church, have always been at the service of all and been in the world.  The Jesuits, who came on the scene post reformation, founded the schools above (and many many more).  They went to the ends of the Earth.  While they were of the church, they were most certainly living out their calling in the world, not restrained or confined 'in the church'.

Many of them have made enormous contributions to academia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

Your reaction reminds me of Pierce -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters
#3
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
February 22, 2020, 01:04:03 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 22, 2020, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: Pr. Terry Culler on February 22, 2020, 11:24:21 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 22, 2020, 09:25:51 AM
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations,  human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.

Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization.  Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.


The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.


Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.

Although yes,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_semper_reformanda_est , I would suggest your view of history stated above is not entirely accurate or helpful.  A great read on at least the first 16 centuries of Christian history can be found here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1681921480?pf_rd_p=ab873d20-a0ca-439b-ac45-cd78f07a84d8&pf_rd_r=APBNTN4A6YJ5P85YPJGG

And if you are of the view that God at some point ceased to guide His Church (as he promised He would do until the end of time), and that it is not only in need of reform, but is corrupt and a force for evil needing to be rebuilt and purified by 'us' and our enlightened understanding of 'the bible', then I would have to disagree. 

Let us pray that God provide the true reformation and that we remain open to His will.  May we be contrite enough to recognize our own failings in this day and age, even as we ask mercy for the failings (in practice, not teaching) of all who have gone before us, failing in their own ways. We too, fail an entire class of people today by our silence and complicity, that is the unborn.  Some 'true believers' celebrate their own taking of human life as sacred and freeing (the vast, vast majority do not, they experience great pain).  Some Christians even practice it, as they did slavery.  Some Christians even teach that this is an option open to them, that the child within them is less than human, and therefore can be treated as refuge.  If we who claim to follow Christ cannot be one on this, then the reform clearly needs to begin right here with us in our own hearts.

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am* they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world" ~ John 17

"May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."  ~ Romans 15:5
#4
Your Turn / Re: Pope Francis (Celebacy & Deacons)
February 16, 2020, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 15, 2020, 10:29:28 PM
Roman Catholic theology has a concept called (in various Latin forms) "sensus fidelium," that is the "sense of the faithful" to grasp and even interpret the magisterium of the Church.
And in this concept says a teaching - even from the Vatican - must have the "sense of the faithful," that is, the understanding and acceptance by the larger Church. (It's more complicated than that and filled with ins and outs and ups and downs, but...)
My favorite example: the Humanae Vitae encyclical written in 1968 on birth control was clearly and definitely note "accepted" or grasped or followed by Roman Catholic faithful. So there is the "teaching" of that encyclical and there is the actual faith of the people.
One type of Roman Catholic will dismiss this concept as an easily misunderstood and weasely "out" for those who don't like certain teachings and say that it is impossible for - in any way - the laity to dismiss what comes form the magisterium.
Another type of Roman Catholic will say that the Christian consciences of the laity and the faith delivered to them has a role to play in determining whether the edicts or teachings of the magisterium as expressed in the church hierarchy are valid.

As you suggest, it is complicated.  It can indeed be misunderstood as "whatever I intuitively sense is right, is the true faith", and to lead some faithful to conclude that they are not bound by the magisterium, but are themselves the only magisterium they require.  Let's not forget that the sensus fidei fidelis is the sense across all time and space of God's interaction with His people, and not simply the sense of a small group living in one cultural moment in a specific political context.  Since God is not divided, and does not change, the sense of one group in one time cannot directly change or contradict the sense of the faith of those who delivered the faith to this age.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html#Chapter_2:_The_sensus_fidei_fidelis_in_the_personal_life_of_the_believer

55. The sensus fidei fidelis is infallible in itself with regard to its object: the true faith.[69] However, in the actual mental universe of the believer, the correct intuitions of the sensus fidei can be mixed up with various purely human opinions, or even with errors linked to the narrow confines of a particular cultural context.[70]'Although theological faith as such cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith.'[71]
#5
Your Turn / Re: United Methodist Church to Split
January 06, 2020, 10:58:31 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 06, 2020, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on January 06, 2020, 01:21:07 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 06, 2020, 12:59:43 PM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on January 06, 2020, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 06, 2020, 02:02:21 AM
It may be that the United Methodist Church could not afford to litigate all the breaches of these paragraphs of their Discipline.

Breaches of what?  The ones on homosexuality?  The ones on "property held in trust"? 

Apart from offering for our consideration quotes from the Book of Discipline, do you have any thoughts on the inability of the UMC to actually enforce the "stronger" discipline with regard to homosexual practice, as opposed to the discipline regarding properties?


At least in the conference in this area, it's not an inability to enforce the discipline with regards to homosexual practice, but the bishop's unwillingness to go against his own conscious in regards to this issue. I believe that there are other bishops like him.

At least you can't pretend, like you have with regard to the ELCA, that the Methodists have never adopted an interpretation of scripture about these issues.


I didn't see one scripture reference with any of their statements about homosexuals in the Book of Discipline.
Did you see scriptural references in the passage you quoted here? http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7356.msg469514#msg469514 ?
#6
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 22, 2019, 05:01:41 PM
Some perspective from someone who has firsthand experienced...

  https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/confessions-of-a-feminist-heretic/
#7
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 21, 2019, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
Quote from: Matt Hummel on December 21, 2019, 07:47:47 AM
Just so we understand each other- You are saying we can and should quote the OT [as you personally construe it] to support the state sanctioned murder of unborn children, but not to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. Nice.

.... to a child in the womb: "the children" (Hebrew) or "the child" (LXX) "came out.  ... caused the child to be stillborn.
... to the child or to the mother.  ... the child that "came out."

One thing that is very clear, you, nor the texts you quote ever refer to a clump of cells.  So the question is, in your deep study of words, what exactly is a child?  Is it an ambiguous term?  Could it refer at times to a clump of cells lacking humanity and potentiality?  Does scripture ever, once, refer to what is in the womb as anything less than human (infant, child, ...)?  You have.  On what grounds or authority do you use such a classification?  ("clump of cells").

I can just imagine the response, "Sure, 'fruit of your womb', fruit is not human, therefore, ....." 
#8
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 19, 2019, 08:02:06 PM
Exodus 21:22 is a commonly used biblical argument used (falsely) to rationalize abortion, a quick search turns up many discussions on this..

https://www.str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion#.Xfwb7_x7k-U
https://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/786-does-exodus-21-sanction-abortion
#9
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 19, 2019, 11:35:39 AM

To see the real impacts of "population control", and how it was implemented, see those who participated talk about it in the 2019 Sundance U.S. Grand Jury Prize-winning documentary - One Child Nation.

   https://www.amazon.com/One-Child-Nation-Nanfu-Wang/dp/B07YM2K71Q

#10
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 19, 2019, 09:43:54 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on December 19, 2019, 06:44:12 AM
Is saving the human-sustaining environment a "pro-life" issue?
Are laws and policies that allow the ravaging of our planet as much of a priority as laws regulating abortion?
Is losing a whole species of plant or animal life as critical as an abortion?
Yes, but not if it means killing humans as a false perceived solution to save the environment.  You can simply blow off the following papal comments if you wish, since you are coming from the Lutheran perspective, but I offer them in the hopes that you may see them as useful views in the ongoing discussion. 

"a sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings." ... "At times we see an obsession with denying any pre-eminence to the human person; more zeal is shown in protecting other species than in defending the dignity which all human beings share in equal measure,"   Pope Francis, Laudato Si

-

"The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: "All offenses against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator." (Gaudium et Spes, 27)"  Pope St John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (38)

-

The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when "human ecology"[124] is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.   Pope Benedict XVI - Caritas in Veritate (51)

Quote
So let us all make common cause in saving the "clumps of cells" and actual living things that are plants, animals and human beings in need of clean air, water, sustainable
agriculture, and require food, the science of health care and "life".
And as David suggested, let's not use it as a tactic to ignore or divert talking about the dignity of human life, and our obligation to speak for the most vulnerable among us.
#11
Your Turn / Re: New study on abortion
December 19, 2019, 01:51:37 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 19, 2019, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on December 18, 2019, 05:14:57 PM
Your inability to grasp the very basics of how language works, coupled with your reputed expertise (at copying and pasting dictionaries and commentaries), is simply staggering.


Thank you.


Having human DNA does not mean that the cells are a human being. Something more than DNA is necessary. I hope you can understand my words.
Not sure why I bother, but the logical questions that follow are; what does make a human being, and when is that humanity imparted to a human, and obviously, by whom?  You were once a clump of cells, as was I, when did you, did I, acquire my human nature, and thus gain our right to live and make a difference in this world?  Who gave us this dignity?

How many clumps of cells that may have become the next Einstein, Obama, Mother Theresa, St Gianna Molla, Bill Clinton, Charles Austin, or Donald Trump, have been lost.  You (and I) place a higher value on some in that list, but our Lord places the same inherent value on each one.  If the 'clump of cells' -- which you an I once were -- does not have the full potential that you and I do, then we are free to cut it off like a finger nail.  If it has the value that you and I do, in the eyes of God, then... You seem to think a child infant in the womb is equivalent to a fingernail, but offer no rational argument that the so called 'clump of cells' somehow lacks the full potential, value, and dignity that you yourself have.

I presume as a Christian minister, you do not hold the position that the dignity of that clump of cells comes from our legal system, or from the father and mother deciding it should live, or by the very fact that it is 'wanted' or 'not wanted, but that its dignity is bestowed on it by the same God that you and I claim to seek to know and follow?

#12
Your Turn / Re: Fairness for All Act
December 11, 2019, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on December 10, 2019, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: Matt Andersen on December 10, 2019, 09:08:41 AM
I don't really like laws like this for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, as I have said before, were gay marriage to be voted on instead of having been presented as fiat by the Supreme court, I would vote for it and yet still attend a church that opposes it.  In this case, the churches that have remained scriptural and correct have, regrettably, done little to provide alternatives or to offer the simple fellowship and support required by the celibacy and faithfulness they demand.  This being the case, I can not require that every gay person make the same choice I have.  Therefore, on a societal level, I have to support measures that protect human life and dignity.  I don't like that a law outlawing discrimination is necessary.  But, in the past, the Church has too often shown itself as taking a stand against people instead of behavior.  So such laws, though distasteful, often become necessary.

I do have qualms about delineating and defining what it means to practice a religion.  I think it is utterly wrong and totally obnoxious and rude to force anyone to do something that is outside their religious beliefs as, for instance, forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.  However, codifying that in law can easily become an interpretation of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion and thus actually limit what may be considered practicing one's religion.  So I am always concerned by laws that attempt to define religious practices.

The other thing that concerns me about this law is whether it is really addressing a problem.  I do know several people who lost their jobs because they were gay.  But they were all jobs for religious institutions.  There are the occasional baker or photographer that is sued.  But that seems a pretty rare occurrence, indicating there are not many refusing to serve same sex weddings.  I don't know of anyone that lost a secular job or a home because they were gay, at least in the last couple of decades.  So is this actually a problem that needs addressed?  Or is it a reaction to a society that existed 20 years ago or more?  If this is a widespread or ongoing problem then, yes, I would support a law dealing with it.  If not, maybe legislation is not the best solution.

I would also add one caution for those who support LGBT rights.  Society has become more accommodating for one main reason.  The conservative opponents of gay people acted like jerks and bullies and people reacted against that.  Now I see the liberal side taking pages right out of the play book of the moral majority and focus on the family of the 1980s and doing the exact same things - often with the same terminology.  That is probably not a wise way to win friends or influence people and is likely to back fire.  Unless there is an overwhelming need for such protection, passing such laws forcing LGBT rights in housing and employment is most likely virtue signalling and is likely to backfire in the end.
At a practical level, what would a church do to provide the necessary fellowship and support for gay people to live out the chastity our teaching calls for? What would the effort look like? How would it differ from what a typical LCMS parish offers?
Courage RC is an example to consider, https://couragerc.org/.  In the Catholic church, an apostolate like Courage RC may have people from many parishes, even though they meet at a parish, and have a chaplain.  The groups do not replace participation in the normal sacramental life of the individual in their own parish.  There is a parallel group for family members of people who experience SSA, Encourage.
#13
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on October 12, 2019, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: James S. Rustad on October 12, 2019, 11:37:56 AM
It does not require any particular form of government, just this:
1) So long as the government requires you not to do wrong, obey.
2) When the government requires you to do wrong, disobey.

Charles is correct when he says "There are dozens and dozens, probably hundreds of political orders." (although they're mostly variations on just a few themes)

Does every individual get to decide what is wrong? By what criteria does one determine that something is wrong? Issues of right and wrong have divided our country perhaps from the beginning?

was it wrong to revolt from England
was it wrong to own slaves
was it wrong to relocate Native Americans; is it wrong to give them back their traditional lands
is it wrong to drink alcohol that can lead to drunkenness and addiction
is it wrong to make marijuana available
is it wrong to allow women the right to choose to have a safe abortion
is it wrong to allow same-sex marriages;
is it wrong to give same-couples the same civil rights as married couples
is it wrong to increasing the suffering of non-criminal refugees seeking protection in the U.S.
and so on
is it wrong to terminate the lives of the incarcerated if we can reasonably be certain that we can contain them and prevent them doing greater evil?
is it wrong to assist in terminating the lives of those who suffer and see death as a 'solution'?
is it wrong and unjust to terminate the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters who have no voice and by definition are the most vulnerable among us?

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html

"38. In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. " Pope St John Paul II,
#14
Quote from: Charles Austin on August 11, 2019, 04:05:06 PM
Peter writes:
And nearly all journalists outside specifically conservative niche publications are Democrats.
I comment:
I keep asking for something that really proves this allegation, and I never seem to get it. And no fair citing op-Ed writers, who are supposed  to have opinions and express them in their columns.

It is really not too difficult to find studies on this:  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

Refers to: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3279453
#15
Your Turn / Re: Global Persecution of Christians
June 22, 2019, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: TERJr on June 22, 2019, 05:28:37 PM
Quote from: cssml on June 22, 2019, 03:34:22 PM
Quote from: TERJr on June 21, 2019, 01:18:33 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on June 21, 2019, 11:52:06 AM
Yeah, but the crusaders got a boatload of indulgences virtually guaranteeing their entry into Heaven, and usually returned home with more boatloads of stolen goods and purloined pelf to finance their castles and little kingdoms. Or career soldiers got permanent employment.
If memory serves, according to Urban II's decree, it was one year's remission for those who fought with "force and sincerity." Immediate salvation required dying in battle and in a state of grace.
The period of the Crusades also began to reintegrate Western Europe into the wider Eastern world and began to allow a gradual reintroduction of Greek thought that had been lost to the West—in particular the parts of Aristotle that made Scholasticism possible. Without Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd there would have been no Thomas Aquinas.
And it was conditional on entering into the crusade with proper intentions.  See Pope Urban's speech at the council of Clermont in 1095.  There is no official transcript, but the content was recorded by others who were present:

From: https://www.ancient.eu/Council_of_Clermont/  (my emphasis)

"Whoever for devotion alone, not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance' (quoted in Phillips, 18)"

So for those who took their faith seriously, and truly desired to obtain the indulgence, they would have know well that their intent must be to liberate Jerusalem and reopen the Holy Land sites for pilgrims, not to steal and gain personal wealth (and again, historical facts clearly document that the vast majority knew full well they were not going to gain, but sacrifice their material lives, and very likely their own lives).

The assumption that simply because Urban II so is exactly what happened for every crusader is either painfully naive or disingenuous. It's Saturday and I'm going to check my notes so I will just offer the slaughter of the Jews of Mainz as sufficient.

I made no such a claim.  The claim I am making, based on sources I have quoted above, is that historical evidence and modern research on the crusades support that the vast majority of those who entered did so out of motivation to free the holy lands and open them to pilgrims, not out of motivations that are commonly stated in our mythology about the crusades.  They knew it would cost them, both financially and possibly with their lives.  The fact that many perpetuate common myths about the crusades, in spite of modern research which refutes these myths, is either naive or disingenuous.  Let me be perfectly clear, no one here is defending ANY of the horrible acts that happened, be it the sacking of Antioch by Baybars, or the sacking of Constantinople by Western Christians.   I'll repeat what I quoted, by Baybars, upstream.  I am confident you would not defend this, and you would call this horrific and barbaric also:

"You would have seen your knights prostrate beneath the horses' hooves, your houses stormed by pillagers and ransacked by looters, your wealth weighed by the quintal, your women sold four at a time and bought for a dinar of your own money! You would have seen the crosses in your churches smashed, the pages of the false Testaments scattered, the Patriarchs' tombs overturned. You would have seen your Muslim enemy trampling on the place where you celebrate the Mass, cutting the throats of monks, priests and deacons upon the altars, bringing sudden death to the Patriarchs and slavery to the royal princes. You would have seen fire running through your palaces, your dead burned in this world before going down to the fires of the next, your palace lying unrecognizable, the Church of St. Paul and that of the Cathedral of St. Peter pulled down and destroyed; then you would have said: "Would that I were dust, and that no letter had ever brought me such tidings!""

From "The Concise History of the Crusades", Thomas Madden
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk