Setting the reccord straight, on the Crusades

What were the Christian crusades?

The crusades are among the most frequent objections to the Christian faith. Some Islamic terrorists even claim that their terrorist attacks are revenge for what Christians did in the crusades. So, what were the crusades and why are they viewed as such a big problem for the Christian faith?



First of all, the crusades should not be referred to as the "Christian crusades." Most of the people involved in the crusades were not truly Christians...even though they claimed to be. The Name of Christ was abused, misused, and blasphemed by the actions of many of the crusaders. Secondly, the crusades took place from approximately 1095 to 1230 A.D. That was between 775 and 910 years ago. Should the unbiblical and un-Christ-like actions of supposed Christians 1000 years ago still be held against Christians today?



Third, not that this is an adequate excuse, but Christianity is not the only religion with a violent past. In actuality, the crusades were responses to Muslim invasions on what was once land occupied primarily by Christians. From approximately 200 A.D. to approximately 900 A.D. the land of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc. was inhabited primarily by Christians. Once Islam began to spread and become powerful, Muslims invaded these lands and brutally oppressed, enslaved, deported, and even murdered the Christians living in those lands. In response, the Roman Catholic Church and "Christian" kings / emperors from Europe ordered the crusades to reclaim the land the Muslims had taken. The actions that many so-called Christians took in the crusades were still deplorable. There is no Biblical justification for conquering lands, murdering civilians, and destroying cities in the Name of Jesus Christ. At the same time, Islam is not a religion that can speak from a position of innocence in these matters.



For a good, historical, and balanced summary of the various crusades, please read the following article - http://www.theopedia.com/Crusades.



To summarize briefly, the crusades were attempts by "Christians" in the 10th through 12th centuries A.D. to reclaim land in the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslims / Arabs. The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to "convert" to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. This is blatantly unbiblical...and perhaps that is the best summary of the issue. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the Name of Christ is completely unbiblical. The crusades may have been done by so-called Christians...but many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith should stand for.



How can we respond when, as a result of the crusades, the Christian faith is attacked by atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and those of other religions? We can respond in the following ways: (1) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of people who lived 900+ years ago? (2) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of everyone who claims to represent your faith? Trying to blame all of Christianity for the crusades is analogous to blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-crusades.html

http://www.theopedia.com/Crusades

lol, funneh.....

No, this is funny.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6320/1173885736673hx9.jpg

Good post. That's pretty much what I was sayin' only they said it better.

That's what made me go grab this. Good comments man.

Should the unbiblical and un-Christ-like actions of supposed Christians 1000 years ago still be held against Christians today?


lol *Christians* are still at it today they just found a different excuse..

It's true. Hold it against them, not true Christians who are trying to make the world a better place.

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom,[1] with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.[2][3]

The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[4], usually against pagans[citation needed] and those considered by the Catholic Church to be heretics, for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[5] Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade. The traditional numbering scheme for the Crusades includes the nine major expeditions to the Holy Land during the 11th to 13th centuries. Other unnumbered "crusades" continued into the 16th century, lasting until the political and religious climate of Europe was significantly changed during the Renaissance and Reformation.

The Children's Crusade was not a military campaign but probably a popular uprising in France and/or Germany, possibly with the intention of reaching the Holy Land in order to convert Muslims there peacefully to Christianity.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions (such as the Fourth Crusade) were diverted from their original aim and resulted in the sack of Christian cities, including the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Church, establishing the precedent that rulers other than the Pope could initiate a crusade.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all religions should be abolished.. we would have a much more peaceful world

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom,[1] with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.[2][3]

The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[4], usually against pagans[citation needed] and those considered by the Catholic Church to be heretics, for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[5] Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade. The traditional numbering scheme for the Crusades includes the nine major expeditions to the Holy Land during the 11th to 13th centuries. Other unnumbered "crusades" continued into the 16th century, lasting until the political and religious climate of Europe was significantly changed during the Renaissance and Reformation.

The Children's Crusade was not a military campaign but probably a popular uprising in France and/or Germany, possibly with the intention of reaching the Holy Land in order to convert Muslims there peacefully to Christianity.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions (such as the Fourth Crusade) were diverted from their original aim and resulted in the sack of Christian cities, including the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Church, establishing the precedent that rulers other than the Pope could initiate a crusade.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep in mind that those were not "Christians." They were evil and corrupt men. Christians were persecuted by them and by the muslims throughout that entire period. The entire western civilization is reaping the negative effects of their heinous actions.

all religions should be abolished.. we would have a much more peaceful world

agreed. Religon should be used as a guide, not black and white; do or die; Do you really think God, or some higher power, meant religon to be so hardcore? It's about choices, and probabilities. (just my opinion)

Keep in mind that those were not "Christians." They were evil and corrupt men. Christians were persecuted by them and by the muslims throughout that entire period. The entire western civilization is reaping the negative effects of their heinous actions.

Agree :thanks:

:yt:

Keep in mind that those were not "Christians." They were evil and corrupt men.
Are there "bad" Christians? I mean, if a person in their heart believes and wants to be a Christian, and yet for whatever reason, they continue to do evil, are they not merely a "bad" Christian? At what point do their sins invalidate their faith? At what point do they lose their membership? Can we say that we know what they really believed, in their hearts, despite their actions (something, presumably only their god can know)? Who can say they are not Christians?

I can't say for sure if I will see any of those men in heaven, becuase I don't know their heart and what if any changes took place in it. However, if we can judge trees by their fruit, I can say with certainty that at the time of these crusades, these men were definitley not Christian men. The were the antithesis of everything Christ's words taught. Therefore, they cannot be called Christian.
Are there "bad" Christians?
Make no mistake, we are all sinners, I probably more than most here. That's why we need Christ in the first place. The difference between me being a sinner and those men of the crusades is that I repent and am forgiven because Christ has saved me. Repenting is characterized as:

1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be
contrite.
2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it.
3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

Those men of the crusades obviously were engaged in anti-Christian behaviour and made no attempt at changing for the better and showed no remorse or contrition. If they aren't repenting of their sins, God will not forgive them. I cannot call someone Christian who is not living and acting like a Christian. To do so is dangerous, not just to the Christian community, but to un-repentant person.

I grew up with a kid and I've known him my entire life. We've both gone to the same Church for many years. He is a lying, cheating, philandering, un-repentant person. He's ruined countless peoples lives with his pride and arrogance. He married another good friend of mine and is in the proccess of destroying her life as well. I do not call that person a Christian, even though he still attends Church, once in a while. That doesn't stop me from hoping and praying for him every day. I don't know what God has in store for him, or if I will see him in Heaven some day. I certainly hope that I do, but I will not call and apple and orange and I won't call someone who is living a blatantly un-Christian life a Christian.

Those men of the crusades obviously were engaged in anti-Christian behaviour and made no attempt at changing for the better and showed no remorse or contrition.
Do we know that? Are their lives so well documented? It seems that we don't want to call them Christians while they're sinning, only when they're repenting.

http://portfolio.xerode.net/html/images/xenu.jpg

Cause it makes about as much sense .....



:hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:

If they were repentant, there wouldn't have been 9 crusades. An un-repentant sinner is not a Christian. A repentant sinner is a Christian. There is a marked difference.

Edit: I do see what you're saying though, and who can say whether or not these men had a change of heart later in their lives. I certainly hope that they did. However, as you've mentioned, there's no evidence of that. It's not documented. I sincerely hope I see them some day in Heaven, but that's for God to know and me to find out.

Also, all hail xenu.

During the Korean Conflict, my Dad was purged from his Methodist church in his hometown. Now he was good enough to fight for freedom for their sorry asses but, because of non attendance and not paying his tithes like a "Good Christian" should, they purged him from their rolls. He has never been back. I think maybe five times since the fifties my Mom got him to go to church. He said he simply can't stand to be around "Good Christians". He still believes in Christ and he hopes to go to Heaven. But nothing is set in stone. He had double bypass at eighty-five and made it. He is a tough old man.8)

If they were repentant, there wouldn't have been 9 crusades. An un-repentant sinner is not a Christian. A repentant sinner is a Christian. There is a marked difference.
The Crusades spanned two centuries. Who went on all nine? Methuselah? Even so, is there a sell-by date on repentance? Even after a lifetime of horror, is it ever too late to truly repent? Do we know that much about the Crusaders in their later years?

During the Korean Conflict, my Dad was purged from his Methodist church in his hometown. Now he was good enough to fight for freedom for their sorry asses but, because of non attendance and not paying his tithes like a "Good Christian" should, they purged him from their rolls. He has never been back. I think maybe five times since the fifties my Mom got him to go to church. He said he simply can't stand to be around "Good Christians". He still believes in Christ and he hopes to go to Heaven. But nothing is set in stone. He had double bypass at eighty-five and made it. He is a tough old man.
Holy crap! You're saying that because your dad was off fighting a war and couldn't make it back on Sundays in time for church, they excommunicated him? That's messed up dude.

Even after a lifetime of horror, is it ever too late to truly repent?
Absolutley not. God wants who he wants. It doesn't matter if you're King David and your sending dudes off to die so you can mary their wives. God will bring you to repentance if you're meant to come.

The Crusades spanned two centuries. Who went on all nine?
What if, hypotheticaly, one of these "Christians" who was running one of the crusades, was called to Christ and had a change of heart? Could he not have set the example for others after him and stopped the un-Christian actions against muslims and Christians in those lands? Do we at least agree that their actions were contrary to Christian teachings?

What if, hypotheticaly, one of these "Christians" who was running one of the crusades, was called to Christ and had a change of heart? Could he not have set the example for others after him and stopped the un-Christian actions against muslims and Christians in those lands? Do we at least agree that their actions were contrary to Christian teachings?
Yes, a repentant Crusader could have tried to stop subsequent Crusades. Maybe some even did. What I'm saying is that I don't think we know these men well enough to invalidate their claim to being Christians.

As for going against Christian teachings... Don't the Crusaders claim divine inspiration? Hasn't God sent the faithful to fight in the past? What about Joshua and the faithful at Jericho? They killed everybody but Rahab, including the infants, children, pregnant women, and the old. Their actions seem to compare with the horrors of the Crusades, and yet I understand their actions to be justified by the fact that they were acting out the will of God. Isn't it possible that God DID send the Crusaders to do what they did, that He moved them to action by touching their hearts and inspiring them according to His ineffable will? Can we know the workings of His plan to say that He didn't do again what He'd done before?

Nothing like having a debate / discussion on something that is based on nothing more than faith and foggy subjective historical 'facts' .... The problem with unwavering faith is when presented with a differing opinion backed up with another set of 'facts' the faithful simply never waver. There is little or no chance of changing the mind and opinions of the die hard Kool-Aid drinkers... very hard, and a waste of time to even try.

I dont believe in God or any invisible supreme being. Yet I understand that I dont understand so much in this world that I could be wrong. I play out life based on what I can see, taste smell and wrap my tiny human brain around...

Smoking another bowl... continue on ....


:hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:

Maybe some even did.
It certainly seems that would have been an event well worth documenting, although I'm still not saying it didn't happen.
e know these men well enough to invalidate their claim to being Christians.
Exactly, all we have is their actions. Their actions were un-Christian.
Don't the Crusaders claim divine inspiration?
Of course they do. It's the only way that they could justify going against the word of God. By saying that God himself told them too. Anyone can say that. So how do you judge? In the old covenant, the wars, like the one against Jericho, were a neccessary part of God's plan. However, under the new covenant of Jesus Christ, those things are not advocated. God tells us in the Bible that there is no more need to make holy war against the people on earth because our side has already won with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our war now is for the souls of mankind, not that physical body. It's layed out quite clearly in the Gospel.

So a crusader, claiming by the Will of God, to be able to rape and plunder is obviously acting against the will of God.

This doesn't mean that all war is wrong. There were three main reasons for the crusades.

1. Rescuing fellow Christians from invasion and persecution
2. Conquering or retaking lands in the possession of Muslims
3. Fulfilling personal vows to go on a crusade

The first reason, according to the Bible, is perfectly just. However, it is doubtful that by the time of the crusades, there were any Christians left alive in any of the lands left to rescue. The second two are just blatantly against the teaching of the Bible.

Can we know the workings of His plan to say that He didn't do again what He'd done before?
Yes, to a certain point. He's laid it out for us in the Bible. Now, if I go to the Bible and start picking out verses from the old covenant and say, "oh look, the israelites razed entire cities to the ground because God commanded them to, so I'm going to do that as well," that wouldn't be right. Because I'm only looking at that one part of the Bible, not the whole thing. If I read further and read about the new covenant that God makes, my perpective will change to understand what God wants of me.

So to sum up, if I claim, "divine inspiration," and then go set fire to an abortion clinic, or kill a doctor who practices abortion, that doesn't make what I did Christian. It is against what Christ teaches.

LOLLERZ TO THE MAX!

Nothing like having a debate / discussion on something that is based on nothing more than faith and foggy subjective historical 'facts' .... The problem with unwavering faith is when presented with a differing opinion backed up with another set of 'facts' the faithful simply never waver. There is little or no chance of changing the mind and opinions of the die hard Kool-Aid drinkers... very hard, and a waste of time to even try.

I dont believe in God or any invisible supreme being. Yet I understand that I dont understand so much in this world that I could be wrong. I play out life based on what I can see, taste smell and wrap my tiny human brain around...

Smoking another bowl... continue on ....


:hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:

:cry: :ttiwwp:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1663/1173974537112wi0.jpg

Exactly, all we have is their actions. Their actions were un-Christian.
Given that I don't know the fine points of the Law, I'll grant that their actions may not have been Christian, but can we agree that we can't say they themselves were not, in fact, just sinning Christians?

So to sum up, if I claim, "divine inspiration," and then go set fire to an abortion clinic, or kill a doctor who practices abortion, that doesn't make what I did Christian. It is against what Christ teaches.
Once agains, I'll grant that it may be against what Christ teaches, but is the will of God circumscribed by revelation? I guess what I'm wondering about is, isn't it conceivable that someone could do something that appeared to be in conflict with what you perceive to be the details of the covenant, and yet they were in fact, moved to act by God according to His greater understanding? Surely one's understand of God, His will, and his law, cannot be perfect in every detail (even if those things themselves are perfect). I get the fact that one only has what's been revealed to go on, but isn't that at least possible? And if so, is it possible to truly differentiate between the divinely inspired and the rest?

but can we agree that we can't say they themselves were not, in fact, just sinning Christians?
Sure, that's entirely possible. Although I don't think it likely.
isn't it conceivable that someone could do something that appeared to be in conflict with what you perceive to be the details of the covenant
Yes, in fact that probably happens more often than not. There lot's of people who are much wiser than me. However, this is a broad and general statement and we're talking about the specific action of the crusades. My perception has nothing to do with it. What was done in the crusades and what is taught in the Bible are in conflict with each other.
Surely one's understand of God, His will, and his law, cannot be perfect in every detail
Absolutley correct.
is it possible to truly differentiate between the divinely inspired and the rest?
God gives us the means to discern the truly inspired from the false prophets in his word. He didn't give us an incomplete manuscript to fill in the blanks with our own understanding. He gave us a litmus test to understand what is in accordance to his will. The actions of the crusades fail that test. Plain and simple.

but is the will of God circumscribed by revelation?
edit: sorry, I didn't quite catch on to this. Can you explain what you mean a little more for my feeble mind?

During the Korean Conflict, my Dad was purged from his Methodist church in his hometown. Now he was good enough to fight for freedom for their sorry asses but, because of non attendance and not paying his tithes like a "Good Christian" should, they purged him from their rolls. He has never been back. I think maybe five times since the fifties my Mom got him to go to church. He said he simply can't stand to be around "Good Christians". He still believes in Christ and he hopes to go to Heaven. But nothing is set in stone. He had double bypass at eighty-five and made it. He is a tough old man.8)

Seriously, thank him from me for his service to this country!:hail:

You tell me that the actions of the Crusaders, at face value, are against "Christian teaching". I'll take your word for it and concede that point for this discussion. I think we've come to agree that we don't necessarily know enough about the Crusaders to judge whether they were in fact, false Christians or bad Christians pending repentance.

The remaining point I was wondering about has to do with that last bit, the idea that the will of God might be limited by what he's revealed. I doubt that a believer would entertain this idea for a moment, and I'd bet that the explanation has something to do with the mystery wherein God's ability to see the future and free will intersect.

But I think that's sufficiently differentiated from the original topic to warrant it's own thread in the future.

As I understand it, it is not up to either of you two to decide if these people, or any people, are "good" Christians or not. It is only gods place to make that judgment. In fact, I would say that your passing judgment on what you perceive to be a "bad" Christian might put you somewhere near them....Dunno

That was all I am going to say about this. I am with Hyper, there is no talking someone out of their faith. It is already believing in what you can't prove. You can't mess with that...

As I understand it, it is not up to either of you two to decide if these people, or any people, are "good" Christians or not.
That's actually my point precisely.

That was all I am going to say about this. I am with Hyper, there is no talking someone out of their faith. It is already believing in what you can't prove. You can't mess with that...
I don't think you're likely to talk someone out of their faith, either, and it's probably a bad idea to try, but I think that we're aiming more for mutual understanding in this thread, not conversion or a debate victory.

The remaining point I was wondering about has to do with that last bit, the idea that the will of God might be limited by what he's revealed. I doubt that a believer would entertain this idea for a moment, and I'd bet that the explanation has something to do with the mystery wherein God's ability to see the future and free will intersect.
Although I don't want to just put this all on *shrug*it's a mystery*shrug* I think that you're right that it does warrant it's own thread. I would welcome the discussion. Cheers.
You tell me that the actions of the Crusaders, at face value, are against "Christian teaching". I'll take your word for it and concede that point for this discussion. I think we've come to agree that we don't necessarily know enough about the Crusaders to judge whether they were in fact, false Christians or bad Christians pending repentance.
Agreed.
As I understand it, it is not up to either of you two to decide if these people, or any people, are "good" Christians or not. It is only gods place to make that judgment. In fact, I would say that your passing judgment on what you perceive to be a "bad" Christian might put you somewhere near them....Dunno

That was all I am going to say about this. I am with Hyper, there is no talking someone out of their faith. It is already believing in what you can't prove. You can't mess with that...
The judge not lest ye be judged statment in the Bible refers to taking the law into your own hands and not waiting for God to sort it out. We are constantly commanded to "judge" in the making decisions about right and wrong sense of the word.

God: myth busted.

Seriously, thank him from me for his service to this country!:hail:We, his family, thank him for his meritorious service. He almost had to go to Viet Nam, too!!!

Nothing like having a debate / discussion on something that is based on nothing more than faith and foggy subjective historical 'facts' .... The problem with unwavering faith is when presented with a differing opinion backed up with another set of 'facts' the faithful simply never waver. There is little or no chance of changing the mind and opinions of the die hard Kool-Aid drinkers... very hard, and a waste of time to even try.

I dont believe in God or any invisible supreme being. Yet I understand that I dont understand so much in this world that I could be wrong. I play out life based on what I can see, taste smell and wrap my tiny human brain around...

Smoking another bowl... continue on ....


:hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail:
What ever gets you through the night, its alright. Just remember, your kids will pick out your nursing home. (J/K)

Jesus and the spaghetti monster came to me the other day, said they were an inter-species couple and told me to spread the message of piece...........The message was......believe in them or be cut to pieces !!

provable / disprovable ?.......nope.....

thats whats inherently funneh about religion.......

God..?? whutsthatallabahtthen...

I wus born aparently Scottish East Coast Mom n Dad cared not a jot in an area that had only Catholic schools.. Went to Catholic school from age 5 to age 9.. Moved back to families original area.. Half family had Irish Catholic roots.. Half had Scandinavian/European Protestant roots.. Went to Non denominational. (protestant school.. ) age 9 to age 16..

Learned people hate me.. whether they know me or not..

Learned I should hate certain people.. whether I knoe them or not..

Learned I should hate some of my family.. Just because..

All of the above comming from both sides..

Realised.. ...

FUCK THIS..

I can be a happier.. nicer.. more evenly balanced arsehole fuckwit.. in my estimation.. all on my own...

and I'll chose.... If I fuck up.. thats down to me.. If I do good.. thats down to me..

All I gotta concern myself with is being the best I can for my kids.. and that includes them making their own minds up about how I do things.. with talk honesty and the realisation that no matter what label we give ourselves.. we know when we aint that bad... or that good.. but trying not to be those things that we know aint right..