Christianity Is Not To Blame For The Crusades......

[Tim Myers]

I have a significant problem with people (ususally non-believers) who continually try to make Christianity out to be a "bad religion" by throwing things like The Crusades in the face of believers........

For one thing, the Crusades were a long, long time ago and, no matter how wrong or how horrible or how stupid they may have been, there is nothing anybody can do to change the fact that they took place.....

But, a more important point can be illustrated by asking the question: Are all the citizens of a country responsible for, or to blame for, or guilty of the crimes committed by their government? Most especially, citizens living in that country over a thousand years after those crimes were committed?

The Crusades were implemented and carried out by what may as well be seen as one of the most restrictive dictatorial "governments" in the entire history of human civilization.

Blaming Christians today for the Crusades is like blaming the peasants and common people of the former Soviet Union for all the decisions and actions carried out by the Stalin regime, in my opinion.

We must remember, nations do not make war....human beings make war. The way I see it, Christianity was not and is not responsible for or to blame for the Crusades, plain old selfish human beings were.........

 

[Saint Polycarp]

have a significant problem with people (ususally non-believers) who continually try to make Christianity out to be a "bad religion" by throwing things like The Crusades in the face of believers........[/]

The Crusades were implemented and carried out by what may as well be seen as one of the most restrictive dictatorial "governments" in the entire history.....

Government? What government. Mid evil Europe was a made of many Kingdoms and other than a common bond of being Christian there was no unified government.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

On the other hand, the Crusades are what led to the Knights of St. John, who pretty much saved Europe from being overrun by the Ottomans, so it wasn't all bad.

 

[theWaris1]

True enough a non believer will throw up any excuse to keep from accepting there is a creator.

The creation is so complex, so beautiful and marvelously filled with so many wonders it's just hard to believe it could have just evolved from nothing.

 

[freezerman2000]

Government? What government. Mid evil Europe was a made of many Kingdoms and other than a common bond of being Christian there was no unified government.

And most of those "Kingdoms" were under the RC's thumb...Rulers kowtowed to the Pope to avoid being excommunicated, Rich men with no formal training bought the position of Bishops, and pretty much ran vast areas...woe to civil authorities who went against their wishes.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/middleages/religion.html

 

[freezerman2000]

True enough a non believer will throw up any excuse to keep from accepting there is a creator.

The creation is so complex, so beautiful and marvelously filled with so many wonders it's just hard to believe it could have just evolved from nothing.

What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[freezerman2000]

I have a significant problem with people (ususally non-believers) who continually try to make Christianity out to be a "bad religion" by throwing things like The Crusades in the face of believers........

For one thing, the Crusades were a long, long time ago and, no matter how wrong or how horrible or how stupid they may have been, there is nothing anybody can do to change the fact that they took place.....

But, a more important point can be illustrated by asking the question: Are all the citizens of a country responsible for, or to blame for, or guilty of the crimes committed by their government? Most especially, citizens living in that country over a thousand years after those crimes were committed?

The Crusades were implemented and carried out by what may as well be seen as one of the most restrictive dictatorial "governments" in the entire history of human civilization.

Blaming Christians today for the Crusades is like blaming the peasants and common people of the former Soviet Union for all the decisions and actions carried out by the Stalin regime, in my opinion.

We must remember, nations do not make war....human beings make war. The way I see it, Christianity was not and is not responsible for or to blame for the Crusades, plain old selfish human beings were.........

I agree..people meed to quit dwelling in the past and opening up old wounds.

 

[Biblicist]

freezerman2000 beat me to the gun with his response to; "Government? What government. Mid evil Europe was a made of many Kingdoms and other than a common bond of being Christian there was no unified government."

Even though there were numerous governments within Europe they were still under the control of Rome; though it may be rightfully said that Rome for a time was generally under the thumb of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire which was a German institution.

Even though Rome was certainly guilty of committing numerous atrocities not only against Muslims but also against Christians, the Muslims very quickly organised their own crusades which is their acronym for evangelism. Europe was right in not trusting Islam as it had already devastated civilisation in North Africa and had even encroached into Europe via Spain and through some of the Balkan countries.

Even though the motives of some of the crusades could be questioned and certainly the behaviour of many of its combatants, Europe was certainly justified in resisting the hordes that were trying to impose its religion upon Europe and the rest of the world.

Even though we would like to say that these things are in the past; it is more than evident that Islam has not changed and is just as violent as it was under Mohammed.

 

[Tim Myers]

"Government? What government."

"....they were still under the control of Rome"

Bingo!!.....and the gentleman wins a cigar!!.......

 

[theWaris1]

What does that have to do with the OP?

Some people will use crusades and other poor excuses as a reason not to believe in a God. It's blocking tactic.

 

[grace24]

I don't know what happen in all the crusades, but the first crusade (If I'm not mistaken) was a response to Muslims who overtook many Christian lands. When the non-believers are saying that Christians only intent was to force conversion and took over land to colonized, that is simply not true. First of all, those lands belong to Christians anyway, they are only taking back what belong to them back from the Muslims. Second, no Pope ever called to killed Jews (which is another issue the non-believers will raised - the issue that Christians killed Jews and women and child etc.) or force conversion etc. Were there Jews who got slaughter? Sure. Where innocent women and child died? Sure, just like any war. If you got a Jew and a Muslim fight side by the side how the heck do you tell who is a Jew and who is Muslim? Swords are slashing everywhere who gives a crap right? That being said the crusades was a response to take back Jerusalem which is a right thing to do. Did Pope ever apologized? Maybe, but the primarily reason for apologizing is not the crusades in general - it was a right thing to do. The Pope may have apologized because Jews were killed and things like that, though... Just my thought may be off topic though.

 

[Tim Myers]

"I don't know what happen in all the crusades....."

First Crusade 1095–1099--The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.

Second Crusade 1147–1149--After a period of relative peace in which the Church and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Muslims conquered the town of Edessa. A new crusade was called for by various preachers, most notably by Bernard of Clairvaux. French and South German armies, under the Kings Louis VII and Conrad III respectively, marched to Jerusalem in 1147 but failed to win any major victories.

Third Crusade 1187–1192--In 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, conquered Jerusalem after nearly a century under Church rule, following the Battle of Hattin. After the Church surrendered the city, Saladin spared the civilians and for the most part left churches and shrines untouched to be able to collect ransom money from the Franks.

Fourth Crusade 1202–1204--The Fourth Crusade was initiated in 1202 by Pope Innocent III, with the intention of invading the Holy Land through Egypt.

Fifth Crusade 1217–1221--By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade afoot, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land. In the first phase, a crusading force from Austria and Hungary joined the forces of the king of Jerusalem and the prince of Antioch to take back Jerusalem. In the second phase, crusader forces achieved a remarkable feat in the capture of Damietta in Egypt in 1219, but under the urgent insistence of the papal legate, Pelagius, they then launched a foolhardy attack on Cairo in July of 1221.

Sixth Crusade 1228–1229--Emperor Frederick II had repeatedly vowed a crusade but failed to live up to his words, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX in 1228. He nonetheless set sail from Brindisi, landed in Saint-Jean d'Acre, and through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success: Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem were delivered to the crusaders for a period of ten years.

Seventh Crusade 1248–1254--The papal interests represented by the Templars brought on a conflict with Egypt in 1243, and in the following year a Khwarezmian force summoned by the latter stormed Jerusalem. The crusaders were drawn into battle at La Forbie in Gaza. The crusader army and its Bedouin mercenaries were completely defeated within forty-eight hours by Baibars' force of Khwarezmian tribesmen.

Eighth Crusade 1270--The eighth Crusade was organized by Louis IX in 1270, again sailing from Aigues-Mortes, initially to come to the aid of the remnants of the crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying.

Ninth Crusade 1271–1272--The future Edward I of England undertook another expedition against Baibars in 1271, after having accompanied Louis on the Eighth Crusade. Louis died in Tunisia. The Ninth Crusade was deemed a failure and ended the Crusades in the Middle East.

Interspersed among and after these nine larger crusades were other smaller crusades such as: Crusade of 1101, Norwegian Crusade 1107–1110, Albigensian Crusade, Children's Crusade, Crusades of the Teutonic Order, Swedish Crusades, Wendish Crusade, Stedinger Crusade, Aragonese Crusade, Alexandrian Crusade, Mahdian Crusade, and the Crusades in the Balkans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

[callmeMurph]

Looks to me like Christians had a pretty big part in the Crusades.

 

[freezerman2000]

Some people will use crusades and other poor excuses as a reason not to believe in a God. It's blocking tactic.

You had me going there...I thought you had mistakenly posted here instead of another thread about spirituality...this one is about history...

and welcome to CF!

 

[Tim Myers]

"Looks to me like Christians had a pretty big part in the Crusades."

Where do you see that at, callmeMurph??

 

[callmeMurph]

"Looks to me like Christians had a pretty big part in the Crusades."

Where do you see that at, callmeMurph??

In the post you made....did you not read it? Christians were most certainly involved with the crusades. Are the to blame for it? Sure they are, along with Muslims and probably others. Christians can do bad things too...

The good thing is that it is about Christ, not Christians.

 

[Nephi]

Just going to say that the Crusades are a sensitive issue in general in modern times - Protestants will either defend it or claim it as a Catholic evil, Catholics will defend it as necessity despite evils committed by individuals or groups, eastern Christians will say that it was either an evil of Western Christianity or a good intent (help the eastern Christians against the conquering Islam) gone wrong (encroaching of Christian lands, sacking of Constantinople, occupation of already Christian lands, etc.).

Throw in modern historical revisionism amongst many secular or Islam-sympathetic historical scholars and you have a rewrite of history that is very anti-Christian and very pro-Islam. In other words instead of referring to the booming Islamic empire as "conquering" its neighbors and suppressing their religious faiths and hierarchies they refer to it as "liberating" the minorities which were being oppressed by the naughty Christian tyrannies.

Personally I ascribe to the view that the crusades began with a good intent at the request of the emperor of the Byzantine Emperor to hold back the ever oncoming Muslims - but I believe it quickly gave way to politics, monetary gain and land-grabbing.

Also something that should be stated: the Crusades were a small blip as far as history's concerned; many people tend to exaggerate their extent as well as damage incurred by them in an attempt to further a political or religious agenda.

Just my opinion on the whole thing.

 

[wayseer]

Government? What government. Mid evil Europe was a made of many Kingdoms and other than a common bond of being Christian there was no unified government.

(Actually part of Spain was Muslim - but that is perhaps another matter).

Exactly - and there was so much waring and whoring going in the rest of Europe on that Pope whoever-it-was decided something needed to be done and just like George Bush picked on Islam as the problem to be solved. Besides, the instability in Europe was threatening the Church.

The Crusades is perhaps the darkest aspect of Christianity. The whole fiasco was totally an invention and solved absolutely nothing.

 

[Nephi]

Exactly - and there was so much waring and whoring going in the rest of Europe on that Pope whoever-it-was decided something needed to be done and just like George Bush picked on Islam as the problem to be solved. Besides, the instability in Europe was threatening the Church.

Pope Urban II didn't just arbitrarily decide to call on the First Crusade because of the chaos in Europe; this seems to be what you're implying.

 

[wayseer]

Pope Urban II didn't just arbitrarily decide to call on the First Crusade because of the chaos in Europe; this seems to be what you're implying.

Yes - that is exactly what I am saying.