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

[Nephi]

Yes - that is exactly what I am saying.

I'm afraid I was tired when I wrote my reply so you may not have understood my intent.

I don't believe Pope Urban II's sole reason for calling forth the Crusades was to make the European kingdoms peaceful or to lessen their warring/chaos. I do however see that as one of several secondary reasons that partially came into play regarding his decision.

 

[dcyates]

Looking at the centuries long conflict between Christendom and Islam, and starting with the so-called 'Crusades', is like looking at World War 2 and starting with the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It effectively makes the wrong side look like the aggressor.

 

[wayseer]

Looking at the centuries long conflict between Christendom and Islam, and starting with the so-called 'Crusades', is like looking at World War 2 and starting with the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It effectively makes the wrong side look like the aggressor.

Could you supply a reference for you view.

 

[dcyates]

Could you supply a reference for you view.

I think pretty much any history book that touches in any way on the rise of Islam will testify to its innate militancy ever since its inception. In point of fact, none of the armies of Europe invaded a single square foot of Muslim land that hadn't been previously dominated by Christianity. Moreover, Islamic armies had repeatedly invaded Europe throughout the centuries leading up to the so-called crusades. It was only with the crusades that Christendom finally went on the offensive. And it certainly can't be said that they hadn't been sufficiently provoked.
Additionally, Muslims didn't even start calling it the 'crusades' until several centuries after they had ended. They saw it as simply a part of the ebb and flow of their continuing conflict with Christendom.

 

[Biblicist]

Even though there can be a few difficulties with the use of “Christian” with this question; we need to remind the Muslims that they were first responsible for the killing of many Christians as their hordes ‘evangelised’ parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor and the Balkans with the sword.

We should also point out that the European “State Religion” not only established crusades against the Muslims but also against many Christian regions as well. We only have to take a look at the Papal armies who were sent against the Donatists in North Africa starting sometime in the later 4th century. At least five Papal armies were sent against the Reforming churches in Bohemia and surrounding countries; each one was beaten off at great cost to both sides.

The Fourth Crusade was an unmitigated disaster in that instead of being directed against Islam through Egypt (if there was ever any value in doing so who knows), but it instead turned itself against the Eastern Orthodox Churches by sacking Constantinople which weakend the Eastern Empire to the point that it was easily overrun by Islam.
[FONT=&quot]So it was not only the European “State Religion” vs. Islam but also against many Christian countries and cities.
[/FONT]
There were of course many localised massacres organised under the authority of the Roman Curia as well.

 

[wayseer]

I think pretty much any history book that touches in any way on the rise of Islam will testify to its innate militancy ever since its inception.

Then you need to read different history books.

 

[wayseer]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
There were of course many localised massacres organised under the authority of the Roman Curia as well.

Indeed. The Crusaders took to killing and raping Jews just for practice along the way.

 

[realtruth101]

Who were the Knights Templar.....for 20,000 Alex

 

[Nephi]

[/color]

Then you need to read different history books.

Are you denying the role of Muhammad as both a spiritual and a military leader?

One need look no further to show the militancy of early Islam than by looking at Mohammad's life itself. The battles of Uhud and Badr immediately come to mind.

 

[wayseer]

Are you denying the role of Muhammad as both a spiritual and a military leader?

Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades.

[/quote]One need look no further to show the militancy of early Islam than by looking at Mohammad's life itself. The battles of Uhud and Badr immediately come to mind.[/QUOTE]

Then you need to look at the dark side of Christianity and you will get a similar picture. You might also look at what is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Revenge is not an option for self-pofessing Christians.

 

[Kaitlin08]

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........

Just ignore them. They're sadly too thoughtless to reason with.

 

[dcyates]

[/color]

Then you need to read different history books.

Really? So how do you account for Islam's rapid spread throughout its first century of existence? The rest of the ancient Near East, Northern Africa, Sicily, and a significant portion of the Iberian Peninsula didn't succumb to Islam via the Muslims' persuasive use of reason, nor were they won over by Muslim acts of charity.
Additionally, as far as the breadth of my reading on the subject is concerned, just glancing over at my book shelves and quickly enumerating those books that deal specifically with the Crusades, or of the wider conflict of Islam with Christianity, I count 26 volumes (counting one three-volume set as one). Just out of curiosity, how many monographs on the subject do you possess in your own personal library?
(But even apart from that, I stated that pretty much ANY history book touching on the subject will readily testify to Islam's inherently martial tendencies. I know of not a single one that doesn't. But if you have any suggestions, by all means, share them with me.)

 

[Nephi]

Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades.

Pardon? I don't understand since I was replying to your general assessment of Islam - nothing to do with the Crusades despite the subject of the thread.

Then you need to look at the dark side of Christianity and you will get a similar picture. You might also look at what is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Revenge is not an option for self-pofessing Christians.

What is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan are secular actions motivated by either politics, economic interests, or whatever your reasoning for their presence may be. However it is irreligious.

There is a difference between religious people fighting and people fighting religiously. Early Christianity was built up of pacifistic martyrs - not religious soldiers.

That is not to say that Christianity hasn't had its fair share of historical (just that, mostly historical) brutalities and wars - it has. Compare them to Islam though and you have a whole different animal.

You, and many others, cry "Crusades!" when the Islam vs Christianity conversation comes up, but remember - the Crusades were but a small blip in history that come far short of the wars by Islamic empires. The Crusades were also not purely "anti-Islamic" endeavors; as it has been pointed out previously in this thread there were Crusades against Pagans, Heterodox/Heretical Christians, and political opponents. Even then the overall scale of the brutalities of the Crusades shies in contrast to the Islamic religious wars.

 

[dcyates]

Indeed. The Crusaders took to killing and raping Jews just for practice along the way.

While a somewhat simplistic way of putting it, yes, many Jews were horribly and tragically persecuted and killed as "crusading" armies journeyed south. But it's also only fair to note that these actions were roundly condemned by those regions' bishops and that many Jews actually sought and received protection from those bishops during such depredations.

 

[Nephi]

While a somewhat simplistic way of putting it, yes, many Jews were horribly and tragically persecuted and killed as "crusading" armies journeyed south. But it's also only fair to note that these actions were roundly condemned by those regions' bishops and that many Jews actually sought and received protection from those bishops during such depredations.

You seem to have more knowledge of the Crusades than I do; which Crusade was it in which a separate, peasant-based force attacked a Jewish settlement/town? My memory's fuzzy on the subject and the course I had only briefly mentioned it. I'm wanting to say it was the First or the Second.

 

[Philothei]

Ah.... These poor Jews they were percecuted ... My memory is not fuzzy it is the second

 

[Tim Myers]

"Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades."

He was born in 570 A.D.............

 

[dcyates]

Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades.

One need look no further to show the militancy of early Islam than by looking at Mohammad's life itself. The battles of Uhud and Badr immediately come to mind.[/quote]

Then you need to look at the dark side of Christianity and you will get a similar picture. You might also look at what is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]
First of all, Nephi didn't make the claim that Muhammud was alive during the time of the "Crusades."
Second, there is no "dark side" to Christianity. There is certainly a dark side to the church (all human institutions are flawed somehow), but not to Christianity.

Revenge is not an option for self-pofessing Christians.

Ideally speaking, no. But in neither Afghanistan nor in Iraq can it be said that the invasion of either was motivated by an unalloyed desire for revenge. I think it can also be argued that there was intent to protect the weak involved in both.

 

[dcyates]

You seem to have more knowledge of the Crusades than I do; which Crusade was it in which a separate, peasant-based force attacked a Jewish settlement/town? My memory's fuzzy on the subject and the course I had only briefly mentioned it. I'm wanting to say it was the First or the Second.

It was during the lead-up to both the First and Second Crusades that saw savage persecutions of Jews in both France and Germany. In the 1140s, the authorities were better prepared to prevent such attacks, but there was still such figures as the monk Radulf, whose vitriolic preaching incited the murder of Jews in northern France and the Rhineland (it was not widespread). Responding to an appeal from Archbishop Henry of Mainz, none other than Bernard of Clairvaux ordered Radulf back to his monastery and strove to end the violence. In 1146 he wrote to the archbishop:
"Is it not a far better triumph for the church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the church offers for the Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof, that the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favour him who renders good for evil and love for hatred."
It was because of his intervention on their behalf during this time that Jews came to regard Bernard of Clairvaux as a Righteous Gentile.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I just look at it with some historical levity. Yes it was horrible, and yes it was inspired by the faith of the people involved. And yes the jews were horribly persecuted for centuries. I just try not to start comparing tragedies in history because eventually people stop appreciating the pain of the events and turn it into misery poker.