Crusades

[Davian]

Why?

I thought I justified "my opinion" with Jesus' own words in Luke 21:24?

Indeed, but when any position, however contrary to another, can be supported by a line in the bible, your justification is canceled out and lost. You are left with opinion only.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, but when any position, however contrary to another, can be supported by a line in the bible, your justification is canceled out and lost. You are left with opinion only.

"Opinion only" didn't help the Crusaders, did it?

If "opinion only" can start people marching off on the Crusades, then "opinion only" can keep people from marching off on Crusades as well.

I'm not really sure what you're point is?

Are you trying to make a Crusader out of me? or are you saying I can't use the Bible to condemn the Crusades?

Please explain your position.

Also ... I'm curious about something:

If you disagree with "my interpretation," then are you implying the times of the Gentiles have already ended?

 

[Davian]

"Opinion only" didn't help the Crusaders, did it?

If "opinion only" can start people marching off on the Crusades, then "opinion only" can keep people from marching off on Crusades as well.

I'm not really sure what you're point is?

Are you trying to make a Crusader out of me? or are you saying I can't use the Bible to condemn the Crusades?

Please explain your position.

Also ... I'm curious about something:

If you disagree with "my interpretation," then are you implying the times of the Gentiles have already ended?

Nice rant. Feel better now? I made my point in post #21.

 

[AV1611VET]

I made my point in post #21.

Your point is a dangerous one.

The Crusaders used the Bible to justify the Crusades; but when Independent Baptists try and use the Bible to condemn them, "our interpretations" are suddenly 'canceled out and lost' by you Internet scientists?

I don't get it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then your "in spite of the Bible" statement is incorrect. It may be in spite of your opinion of the bible.

You're being semantically nit picky

 

[AV1611VET]

You're being semantically nit picky

Ya, Davian.

 

[JustMeSee]

What were the motivating factors of the crusade wars?
What are the motives of prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women?

Deliberate calls to deaths and dismember, or mistaken objectives gone wrong?

It is now known that certain antidepressants can cause problems during pregnancies. In the past, pregnant women have taken these medications. Was anyone involved trying to harm the women or fetuses?

 

[AV1611VET]

What were the motivating factors of the crusade wars?

IMO, the love of money is what started it all.

What are the motives of prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women?

You mean what were the motives?

I think, according to them, it was to alleviate morning sickness.

Deliberate calls to deaths and dismember, or mistaken objectives gone wrong?

The former ... but I don't wish to discuss why I think scientists came up with Thalidomide in the first place.

I have an opinion on it, for what it's worth ... and it's probably not worth much.

It is now known that certain antidepressants can cause problems during pregnancies.

I'll take your word on it.

In the past, pregnant women have taken these medications.

I'll take your word on it.

Was anyone involved trying to harm the women or fetuses?

I doubt it.

 

[Davian]

Your point is a dangerous one.

Not for me.

The Crusaders used the Bible to justify the Crusades; but when Independent Baptists try and use the Bible to condemn them, "our interpretations" are suddenly 'canceled out and lost' by you Internet scientists?

I don't get it.

Perhaps you cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[Davian]

You're being semantically nit picky

And let him get away with his semantic muddling in post #5? No, I will pick nits every time.

Ya, Davian.

What do you want, an echo chamber?

 

[Smidlee]

I'm glad for the Crusaders as if it wasn't for them we could have become United States of Islam. Just within a hundred year Islam took Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. No matter how much people claimed Muslins is a peaceful religion it surely didn't start out peaceful.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad for the Crusaders as if it wasn't for them we could have become United States of Islam. Just within a hundred year Islam took Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. No matter how much people claimed Muslins is a peaceful religion it surely didn't start out peaceful.

That may be true, but when they set their sights on Jerusalem, they overstepped their bounds.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm glad for the Crusaders as if it wasn't for them we could have become United States of Islam. Just within a hundred year Islam took Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. No matter how much people claimed Muslins is a peaceful religion it surely didn't start out peaceful.

Uhhhh, no, that is not what would have happened.

I dont think one could honestly say that the crusades han any good outcomes at all no matter what.

 

[godenver1]

I don't follow all the petty bickering that goes on in this forum, so I don't understand how this question ended up in the science forum.

Without wanting to digress too far, could history be considered a science?

 

[florida2]

That may be true, but when they set their sights on Jerusalem, they overstepped their bounds.

Jerusalem was ruled by Muslims for 400 years before the First Crusade without any European attempts to try and recapture it. Jews and Christians were tolerated and allowed to live in the Holy Land and pilgrims were allowed most of the time.

The capture of Jerusalem was a secondary objective in the First Crusade after helping the Byzantine Empire. They succeeded but the following Crusades were not exactly a rip-roaring success.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jerusalem was ruled by Muslims for 400 years before the First Crusade without any European attempts to try and recapture it. Jews and Christians were tolerated and allowed to live in the Holy Land and pilgrims were allowed most of the time.

The capture of Jerusalem was a secondary objective in the First Crusade after helping the Byzantine Empire. They succeeded but the following Crusades were not exactly a rip-roaring success.

If they succeeded, why were there 'following Crusades'?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Without wanting to digress too far, could history be considered a science?

Not really.

 

[florida2]

If they succeeded, why were there 'following Crusades'?

Well, the First Crusade was a success and lasted only four years which even at the time was considered remarkable.

Future crusades were sometimes in response to Muslim attacks or trying to gain further ground from them. Sometimes the Crusaders ended up fighting each other and armies from different European countries were not good at cooperating and coordinating their efforts.

One of the biggest disasters was the Fourth Crusade in which the Crusader army from Europe never even made it to the Holy Land to fight Muslims. Instead they had to capture a Christian city is what is now Croatia for the Venetians to pay for passage on ships. They ended up going to Constantinople, the largest Christian city in the world at that point and capital of the Byzantine Empire, and sacked it.

This helped to lead to the Great Schism (the permanent divide of the Catholic and Eastern churches) and the collapse of the Christian Byzantine Empire and its replacement with the Muslism Ottoman Empire.

After 200 years at nine Crusades the final Crusader cities were recaptured by the Muslims and European countries had grown tired with the idea.

 

[Davian]

Your point is a dangerous one.

The Crusaders used the Bible to justify the Crusades; but when Independent Baptists try and use the Bible to condemn them, "our interpretations" are suddenly 'canceled out and lost' by you Internet scientists?

I don't get it.

If you and others see your book as "evidence", and the "evidence" can be used to support opposing views, it cancels out. The bible settles nothing.

 

[jayem]

I'm glad for the Crusaders as if it wasn't for them we could have become United States of Islam.

Getting off topic here, but:

The influence of Islam in western culture was stopped at the Battle of Tours. Which was 300+ years before the First Crusade.