Crusades

[BryanJohnMaloney]

I find it odd that Western Christians have adopted the Muslim rhetoric to disparage Catholicism, rather than try to look at this dispassionately.

I am looking at it dispassionately. Indeed, if anything, if anything, my bias would be from an Orthodox Christian (Eastern) perspective.

You seem to start with the assumption that there were just a bunch of peaceful Muslims living in the Middle East and that the Crusaders were these barbaric conquerors.

No, I don't. Start over. What I wrote was that the Holy Lands had been in the hands of Muslim states for a long time. The Seljuks were a problem in ANATOLIA, not the Holy Lands. The Emperor only asked for help in ANATOLIA. He did not want to unleash a barbarian Ferengi horde on all that other territory. If there was reconquest in his plans, it was for the RIGHTFUL owner, the Empire, NOT those Latins, to take them.

I also find it odd that you do not acknowledge the existence of a Byzantine Empire. If there was no Byzantine Empire, then who lost the Battle of Manzikert that resulted in the appeal of the Emperor for help.

That is not what I meant. By saying there was no "Byzantine Empire", I referred to the WESTERN FICTION that was called the "Byzantine Empire", not the REAL Empire, which was a direct continuation of Rome, which called itself the "Roman Empire" (actually in Greek, not using the English words). The real Empire, "Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn", certainly took part. However this "Byzantine Empire" was a construction of the West, a fiction overlaid upon the reality.

the Emperor's appeal to Urban and Urban's calls for action all centered around just such a distinction.

Yes, propaganda is propagandistic. The Emperor did NOT want to set up a bunch of Latins, practicing and promulgating the schisms of the West in what he saw as the rightful lands of the Empire.

Painting the Christians (and where were the Byzantines that had a much greater stake in this than the Crusaders) as the aggressors and the Muslims as peaceful, devout men of God is ignoring 400 years of Muslim conquests.

Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I painted the Muslims as "peaceful, devout men of God". Give direct quotes, you liar. BACK UP YOUR LIES ABOUT WHAT I WROTE! GIVE DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Try actually responding to the SPECIFIC THINGS I wrote instead of MAKING SOMETHING UP to PRETEND to respond to. BACK UP YOUR LIES WITH DIRECT QUOTES OF WHAT I WROTE.

Likewise, the Romiosini were minor participants in the Crusades. It was the Ferengi who carried them out. It was the Ferengi who even went so far as to "crusade" against Nova Roma, Constantinople, who sat a false "patriarch" in the Hagia Sophia.

As for your final question, that's a red herring. It has NOTHING at all to do with the reality of the history behind the origination of the Crusades.

 

[tz620q]

The problem with going all the way to the 17th century is that this muddies the moral waters. After AD1095, Muslims can claim (rightly or wrongly) that they were acting specifically as a result of the wrongful invasion by the foreign Crusaders, who never had any rights to the land in question. So, to be honest, we have to restrict our "tu quoque" claims (which are childish, in any case) to before the First Crusade.

So, exact numbers from before thent? Specific circumstances? How many of the killings were primarily military or political in motivation? Let's see some solid analyses.

Thank you for the questions; but when I see you use words like "wrongful invasion" and "never had any rights" I wonder at how you are making these moral judgments. The morality of today would not have been the morality of the Muslim forces or the Crusaders of that time. As far as tu quoque claims, you asked an open question, I tried to clarify the time span, so where is the hypocrisy? I just don't see this as a fight between good and evil; but much more complex and would like us to at least try to agree on some basics of discussion. As far as were the killings military, political, or religious, I am not sure we can separate these motivations that easily. To a Muslim of the 700's the call was for jihad against all non-believers. That is a religious imperative that incited war. Of course, there were military aspects of the resulting conflict and political motivations that fluctuated greatly over hundreds of years; but the call was constant and we cannot close our eyes to that and just look at the Crusades without understanding the long-standing conflict that prompted them. I am not trying to be vague. I just don't think we are at a point to talk details without thrashing out the more over-arching aspects of this.

 

[tz620q]

I am looking at it dispassionately. Indeed, if anything, if anything, my bias would be from an Orthodox Christian (Eastern) perspective.




No, I don't. Start over. What I wrote was that the Holy Lands had been in the hands of Muslim states for a long time. The Seljuks were a problem in ANATOLIA, not the Holy Lands. The Emperor only asked for help in ANATOLIA. He did not want to unleash a barbarian Ferengi horde on all that other territory. If there was reconquest in his plans, it was for the RIGHTFUL owner, the Empire, NOT those Latins, to take them.



That is not what I meant. By saying there was no "Byzantine Empire", I referred to the WESTERN FICTION that was called the "Byzantine Empire", not the REAL Empire, which was a direct continuation of Rome, which called itself the "Roman Empire" (actually in Greek, not using the English words). The real Empire, "Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn", certainly took part. However this "Byzantine Empire" was a construction of the West, a fiction overlaid upon the reality.



Yes, propaganda is propagandistic. The Emperor did NOT want to set up a bunch of Latins, practicing and promulgating the schisms of the West in what he saw as the rightful lands of the Empire.



Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I painted the Muslims as "peaceful, devout men of God". Give direct quotes, you liar. BACK UP YOUR LIES ABOUT WHAT I WROTE! GIVE DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Try actually responding to the SPECIFIC THINGS I wrote instead of MAKING SOMETHING UP to PRETEND to respond to. BACK UP YOUR LIES WITH DIRECT QUOTES OF WHAT I WROTE.

Likewise, the Romiosini were minor participants in the Crusades. It was the Ferengi who carried them out. It was the Ferengi who even went so far as to "crusade" against Nova Roma, Constantinople, who sat a false "patriarch" in the Hagia Sophia.

As for your final question, that's a red herring. It has NOTHING at all to do with the reality of the history behind the origination of the Crusades.

Wow, OK. I'm out. I am sorry that I inferred you were taking the Muslim side; but you responded to my post to another poster asking why the Muslims get a pass on killing Christians seeming to argue in their favor. I misunderstood where you were coming from and for that I apologize.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If the Crusaders are going to be condemned for wanting to take Jerusalem and have it once again in the control of Christians then such a critic must also condemn the entire Islamic world and it's radical spread through Jihad into territories it had no right or legitimate claim to.

To my mind the Crusades as a concept were justified, if only to show Islam that there would be those who would not submit willingly.

 

[Angel dude]

Were they justified and what the crusaders did right?

The Crusades was bullcrap. It was all the world of evil. Most of the Crusaders didn't even worship God. They actually worshipped Baphomet, one of the manifestations of Satan's image. They claimed they killed in the name of Christ, but it was all out I their heads by the devil. That is one of the biggest reasons the Muslims hate Christians.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Crusades was bullcrap. It was all the world of evil. Most of the Crusaders didn't even worship God. They actually worshipped Baphomet, one of the manifestations of Satan's image. They claimed they killed in the name of Christ, but it was all out I their heads by the devil. That is one of the biggest reasons the Muslims hate Christians.

Prove this statement.

 

[Angel dude]

Prove this statement.

The Freemasons worship Baphomet as well. I have talked to some at the local Lodge in my town, one who was descended from a crusader knight. He discussed this at length and also he had no respect for Christ or Christianity and most off his fsmily, about 97 percemt according to him were all Satanists or atheist. He showed me some notes that were passed down to him through about 5 generations and they were sickening anti-God bullcrap.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Freemasons worship Baphomet as well. I have talked to some at the local Lodge in my town, one who was descended from a crusader knight. He discussed this at length and also he had no respect for Christ or Christianity and most off his fsmily, about 97 percemt according to him were all Satanists or atheist. He showed me some notes that were passed down to him through about 5 generations and they were sickening anti-God bullcrap.

So one Freemason in the 21st century speaks for the entire Crusading movement. Credible.

 

[Angel dude]

So one Freemason in the 21st century speaks for the entire Crusading movement. Credible.

Find a crusader or a descendent and ask as well. It will be hard to find much though because they were pretty much almost entirely wiped out by the church for their horrific deeds.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Find a crusader or a descendent and ask as well. It will be hard to find much though because they were pretty much almost entirely wiped out by the church for their horrific deeds.

Who is the they here? What actual historical evidence do you have? Any primary sources or just the claims of one free mason upon which you judge history?

 

[Angel dude]

Who is the they here? What actual historical evidence do you have? Any primary sources or just the claims of one free mason upon which you judge history?

Also check out the book that Eliphas Levi wrote in the 1800s on the subject. He also discussed it in length and it is one of the most remembered and substantial books on the history of that time period, most involving the crusades. He was one of the worlds leading authorities on occult studies, and religious mysticism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Were they justified and what the crusaders did right?

Not really but that was kind of beside the point. Around a thousand AD, Rome passed an edict authorizing Catholics to retake the Holy land and sacred relics. Its right around the time they excommunicated the Orthodox for not submitting to Rome. The first crusade successfully captured Jerusalem, the rest were simply dismal failures. KING Philip of Freance led a particularly inept one, only to return to France and be invaded by King Richard. It went on all over Europe and the Middle East. It didn't really stop till the population explosion in the mid 19th century

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Also check out the book that Eliphas Levi wrote in the 1800s on the subject. He also discussed it in length and it is one of the most remembered and substantial books on the history of that time period, most involving the crusades. He was one of the worlds leading authorities on occult studies, and religious mysticism.

Give me one primary source he uses to prove the contention the Crusaders worshipped Baphomet.

 

[Angel dude]

“Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar….and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences… have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates.”

Secret Societies and Subversive Movements by Nesta H. Webster

Also check out the book that Eliphas Levi wrote in the 1800s on the subject. He also discussed it in length and it is one of the most remembered and substantial books on the history of that time period, most involving the crusades. He was one of the worlds leading authorities on occult studies, and religious mysticism.

 

[Angel dude]

Give me one primary source he uses to prove the contention the Crusaders worshipped Baphomet.

“Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar….and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences… have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates.”

Secret Societies and Subversive Movements by Nesta H. Webster

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

“Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar….and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences… have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates.”

Secret Societies and Subversive Movements by Nesta H. Webster

Do you know what a primary source is?

 

[Angel dude]

Do you know what a primary source is?

Why don't you show me a primary source that defies my argument. One that is truth and not government edited filth and heresy, like 99% of the schools and universities textbooks are.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why don't you show me a primary source that defies my argument. One that is truth and not government edited filth and heresy, like 99% of the schools and universities textbooks are.

I'll give you a hint, why not actually read the ancient Chronicles or sources written by people at the time or as close to the time as possible in order to demonstrate what your claiming? The fact that you haven't been able to find a primary source used by your authorities should demonstrate something of the veracity of their claims, that there is nothing behind them besides wild contention.

 

[Angel dude]

I'll give you a hint, why not actually read the ancient Chronicles or sources written by people at the time or as close to the time as possible in order to demonstrate what your claiming? The fact that you haven't been able to find a primary source used by your authorities should demonstrate something of the veracity of their claims, that there is nothing behind them besides wild contention.

Knights Templar: The Occult

 

[Angel dude]

Knights Templar: The Occult

I am still waiting for your your source. Just mentioning chronicles is not enough. I need your primary source. And just because something was written at that time doesn't make it truth either.