Should Churches bring back some sort of "Knighthood"?

I think this would be incredibly good for
contemporary men and boys.. to counteract the effeminate and weak role
models and propaganda that boys are confronted with in this day and
age.. do you agree?

What effeminate and weak roles are you referring to exactly? Men at goth clubs wearing eyeliner and skirts? Ha ha...


But seriously, what are you referring to as "effeminate and weak roles"?

Join the Salvation Army!

Or the red cross?

haha.. the irony of that...




and

don't the catholics still have some sort of knighthood? or is that only in the movie 'end of days'?

lol ash i hope you are aware of the fact that knights like that never really existed... it was policts, nothing but politics. by signing up as a knight you got on the good side of either king or pope, and could ignore some laws and taxes. as for the crusaders they answered to none but the pope. it was extremely dangerous work, but for the few years you lived you could do pretty much what the hell you wanted to. and as long as you didn't do it in the name of the order, it was pretty much impossible to get kicked out. what kind of men do you think signs up for a few years of being untouchable by law and then die?


catholics still have a few orders, and so does a few kings/queens. but still to this day it is nothing but politics

xiandown wrote:don't the catholics still have some sort of knighthood? or is that only in the movie 'end of days'?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Historically speaking the RCC (roman catholic church) has never really taken part in any knighthood practices. During the Muslim crusades, when the Knight's Templar came about, they were Independent of the RCC in origin and remained so... in fact the RCC ended up putting members of these knights to death after they had served their purpose of defending Europe from Islam. Pretty twisted.

And welcome to this here little forum.

[quote="Ash"]

xiandown wrote:

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Historically speaking the RCC (roman catholic church) has never really taken part in any knighthood practices. During the Muslim crusades, when the Knight's Templar came about, they were Independent of the RCC in origin and remained so... in fact the RCC ended up putting members of these knights to death after they had served their purpose of defending Europe from Islam. Pretty twisted.

And welcome to this here little forum.

so the vatican knights are ficticous?


tnx for the welcome.

i woudl guess they are, but I'm not exactly an expert on Rcc history, although I've studied a little.

Knights were usually a matter of Kings and Lords, instead of Popes and Bishops, etc..

Of course, Hollywood is big on the Illuminati Conspiracies and such.. and they like to compare The Knights Templar to Medieval Catholicism it seems.

Ash wrote:

xiandown wrote:don't the catholics still have some sort of knighthood? or is that only in the movie 'end of days'?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Historically speaking the RCC (roman catholic church) has never really taken part in any knighthood practices. During the Muslim crusades, when the Knight's Templar came about, they were Independent of the RCC in origin and remained so... in fact the RCC ended up putting members of these knights to death after they had served their purpose of defending Europe from Islam. Pretty twisted.

And welcome to this here little forum.

you are wrong
it is true that the templar was not formed by rcc initiative. how ever, the founders and grandmasters where rcc monks, and because of this the rcc and the templars shared a common master, the pope, although the templars did not answer to anyone in the rcc they shared a head. in other words the templars where just like the rcc governed by the vatican. what the pope did was cutting of a limb that started to smell, they have done that before and keept on to this day. and there has been other orders that have been even more closely connected to the rcc.

a knight is a man of noble blood that get certain rights and tax cuts by promising to ride out in armor and with as many men he can spare when the king or church calls for help. bishops where allowed to ride with at most 40 knights but if you had specific reasons and wrote to the pope for permission you could more. initially before Scandinavia became entirely tamed, there where bishops who had 400 knights in their service. so not only where there rcc knights, there was alot of them. today the catholic orders contain rich and powerful men instead of soldiers.

Well , yea, The RCC ruled over Kings and all of Europe up until Napoleon and Henry the 8th in England. So they did exert their power of the Knight's Templar, but Theologically and Philosophically speaking, the Knight's Templar reaminded independent to the end.. that is why The RCC began burning them at the stake after the last Mulsim Crusade had been repelled.

That is the History I have read.. there are a couple revisionist versions concerning the crusades and the Knight's Templar.. but thsoe are "bunk" in my opinion.


In fact, the Knight's Templar were basically the predecessors of
modern Protestants, theologically and politically speaking. They
actually believed that the average person should have a right to be
able to read and own a translation of the Scriptures. That was illegal
at the time, under the Vatican reign.. very, very illegal.

I think this would be incredibly good for
contemporary men and boys.. to counteract the effeminate and weak role
models and propaganda that boys are confronted with in this day and
age.. do you agree?

Let's bring back the passive, submissive, supressed, stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what-he-does-type wife as a role model for girls and the whole mindset of the feudal/caste system while we're at it!

Like Ecthelion mentioned, knights were hardly upstanding and righteous heroes and role models, it's a romantic notion to believe they were. Knights were mostly just glorified high-ranking soldiers because of their 'noble blood'...just like most of our leaders today are from 'old money.'

Just like the military of our time ~ the armed forces are presented to be righteous heroes and moral fighters for freedom (don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the job they do and did in the past), but almost every person *man or woman* I've known that has served in the military have been some of the most crudest and downright disgusting people that I've ever come into contact with...I don't think that's a new trend.

Also, similar to how certain actions of the knights were covered up (or, sometimes, made up) by the churchy governments of the past, our current governments do a lot to cover up certain actions of our military folk.

Loving and responsible parents make much better role models for young folks than any type of hero figure.

well yeah the church had the power to kick out out people from their club, but not much more.
initially the church owned more property and had just as big armies as the kings.the templars where not independent, teh only difference between them and any other order is that because of their missions begin so much more dangerous their reward was greater. it was immunity toward every law but the popes. because of this they made ALOT of money, and after some time the kings and popes got jealous and wanted to get rid of them. but they where after all a military branch order from a normal rcc monk order and that way part of the catholic church.

Let's bring back the passive, submissive, supressed, stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what-he-does-type wife as a role model for girls and the whole mindset of the feudal/caste system while we're at it!

Meep! Hope I do not sound like a psycho crazy femme-nazi.

Oddly wrote:

I think this would be incredibly good for
contemporary men and boys.. to counteract the effeminate and weak role
models and propaganda that boys are confronted with in this day and
age.. do you agree?

Let's bring back the passive, submissive, supressed, stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what-he-does-type wife as a role model for girls and the whole mindset of the feudal/caste system while we're at it!

Like Ecthelion mentioned, knights were hardly upstanding and righteous heroes and role models, it's a romantic notion to believe they were. Knights were mostly just glorified high-ranking soldiers because of their 'noble blood'...just like most of our leaders today are from 'old money.'

Just like the military of our time ~ the armed forces are presented to be righteous heroes and moral fighters for freedom (don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the job they do and did in the past), but almost every person *man or woman* I've known that has served in the military have been some of the most crudest and downright disgusting people that I've ever come into contact with...I don't think that's a new trend.

Also, similar to how certain actions of the knights were covered up (or, sometimes, made up) by the churchy governments of the past, our current governments do a lot to cover up certain actions of our military folk.

Loving and responsible parents make much better role models for young folks than any type of hero figure.

Actually, Knighthood has very little to do with war and fighting. It is all about honor and Christian principles. That is what I think may benefit contemporary Christians.

You are depicting the Knight's of old as being ruffians and blood thirsty mercenaries. That is what anti-Christian revisionists like to portray and also Hollywood, but History portrays the opposite. Even the Mohammedans ended up respecting the fighters' and knight's of the Templar.. both because of fighting prowess and their honor in battle and deed.

....

Actually, Knighthood has very little to do with war and fighting. It is all about honor and Christian principles. That is what I think my benefit contemporary Christians.

srsly ash what naive old man though you your history? Knighthood was all about politics... which back then often resulted in war

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:

Actually, Knighthood has very little to do with war and fighting. It is all about honor and Christian principles. That is what I think my benefit contemporary Christians.

Knighthood was all about politics... which back then often resulted in war

No, it wasn't.

Politics did happen and did corrupt at times, but it was not "all" about politics.. at all.

Many of the early Christian hymns were written by retired Templar knights who became monks and priests.. for example.

templars are a whole other story, they often where monks in the first place and you could never leave the order. if you wanted to stop fighting all you could do was switch to non military branch.
do you think the church and crown would grant a group such privileges without reason? knighthood and lordship was nothing more then a very fancy bribe

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:templars are a whole other story, they often where monks in the first place and you could never leave the order. if you wanted to stop fighting all you could do was switch to non military branch.
do you think the church and crown would grant a group such privileges without reason? knighthood and lordship was nothing more then a very fancy bribe

You using the example of some of the few bad apples to paint the whole Organization and Philosophy/Theology as corrupt.

It's abit more complicated than that, but ok

The overall point is that knights weren't all good folk, they were dudes doing their jobs...like firefighters ~ good, meaningful and helpful job, it doesn't mean all firemen are good people.

Oddly wrote:The overall point is that knights weren't all good folk, they were dudes doing their jobs...like firefighters ~ good, meaningful and helpful job, it doesn't mean all firemen are good people.

Of course, according to Christianity no one is good. Some of us , at best, are just less bad than others.

Ash wrote:

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:templars are a whole other story, they often where monks in the first place and you could never leave the order. if you wanted to stop fighting all you could do was switch to non military branch.
do you think the church and crown would grant a group such privileges without reason? knighthood and lordship was nothing more then a very fancy bribe

You using the example of some of the few bad apples to paint the whole Organization and Philosophy/Theology as corrupt.

It's abit more complicated than that, but ok

corrupt?no not corrupt, it was nothing but politics. the peace loving knight with his white hoarse and knights code wasmade up later and is nothing but fairytale!
knights where nobles that supported a mighty ruler in return for privileges. nothing else.