The Crusades, good or bad?

[lismore]

What do you think of the Crusades? Good or bad?

 

[Albion]

What do you think of the Crusades? Good or bad?

They didn't accomplish their objectives.

 

[pshun2404]

I think the first one was justifiable. The Saracins had attacked city after city, killed thousands of Christians, and destroyed many of what were considered Holy Sites. The second I believe was money motivated and it all went downhill after that. There were actually quite a few crusades not all of which were from Rome some were against it.

Paul

 

[Knee V]

I see no reason why a Christian should ever wield the sword to bail out another Christian, regardless of the circumstances. Christ is proclaimed by us laying down our lives, not by us taking the lives of others. Christ is exalted in our weakness. Christ did not save us by exerting his power over the Jews and Romans; He did so by letting them kill Him.

Therefore...

Crusades = no good

 

[pshun2404]

A very sound point Knee-V...

Being slaughtered for His name was a glorious thing indeed for those who died.

Paul

 

[Knee V]

Being slaughtered for His name was a glorious thing indeed for those who died.

Paul

One thing that the martyrs have in common is that they welcome their death as if it were a friend come to greet them, and many have been sorrowful that they were not able to suffer more. That's counterintuitive for most of us (myself included), but the proof is in the pudding, I suppose.

 

[lismore]

The second I believe was money motivated and it all went downhill after that.

Ya. The fourth crusade against Constantinople seemed to be a particularly bad thing to do. Not only did it cause a lot of suffering, it removed Christendom's Eastern Bulwark.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier." - Tertullian

The Crusades were a bad thing. Taking up the sword in the name of Jesus is like prostituting oneself in the name of chastity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

"When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier." - Tertullian

The Crusades were a bad thing. Taking up the sword in the name of Jesus is like prostituting oneself in the name of chastity.

The church was pacifistic only while it was a persecuted religion. When it became the religion of the Empire, all that changed.

It still seems appropriate to distinguish between a just war and an unjust war.

 

[true2theword]

What do you think of the Crusades? Good or bad?

killing people in the name of Jesus!.......you need to even ask such a question?

love and flee were the only two options regarding our enemies

 

[dayhiker]

So I take it that all those against all killing don't think we should kill any of the murders that from time to time walk our streets?

The western church was asked to come protect Constantinople at the time of the 1st Crusade. I think that one was OK. I don't think any of the other Crusades were justifiably.

 

[Rhamiel]

were they good?
war is never good
but was it justified?
was it needed?
I would say yes

the Muslim forces were sacking city after city, even raiding the coast of Ireland for slaves
europe was not politically unified at all
each small bit of land having its own baron or duke or prince
for over 100 years the king of france was little more then the mayor of Paris, I am talking about the Capation kings, for most of the history of that dynasty
so religion was the only thing that could have unified enough of Europe to go out and bring the fight to Muslim forces

were mistakes made
yeah
but over all, it was needed

 

[grandma dolittle]

The crusades were self serving in many ways. Many of the men bought indulgences from the church which forgave them ahead of time for any sin they might comitt. As they traveled across the continent, they robbed, raped, and killed at will. And all this was done in the name of Christ????? that had nothing to do with rescuing Christians or Jerusalem. In fact, they killed Christians and Jews in Jerusalem. How did that glorify God????

grandma

 

[ViaCrucis]

Prior to the First Crusade there were thousands of Jews in Jewish communities up and down the Rhine. After the First Crusade those communities were all but completely destroyed.

Whatever good that might have been the original motivation behind the First Crusade was thoroughly extinguished right from the onset as Christian crusaders committed gross acts of mass violence against innocents all along the journey.

The Crusades are nothing but a massive blight on the reputation of the Christian Church. Christians murdering Muslims, Christians murdering Jews, Christians murdering Pagans, and Christians murdering Christians--that is the legacy of the Crusades.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[diychristian]

The crusades were self serving in many ways. Many of the men bought indulgences from the church which forgave them ahead of time for any sin they might comitt. As they traveled across the continent, they robbed, raped, and killed at will. And all this was done in the name of Christ????? that had nothing to do with rescuing Christians or Jerusalem. In fact, they killed Christians and Jews in Jerusalem. How did that glorify God????

grandma

From my understanding during the first crusades the church gave no such commands for rape and pilage and actually condemned such actions. Although it happened it didn't happen in the first crusade happen to the caliber portrayed in modern thought and the church didn't condone it.

 

[Albion]

Prior to the First Crusade there were thousands of Jews in Jewish communities up and down the Rhine. After the First Crusade those communities were all but completely destroyed.

Whatever good that might have been the original motivation behind the First Crusade was thoroughly extinguished right from the onset as Christian crusaders committed gross acts of mass violence against innocents all along the journey.

The Crusades are nothing but a massive blight on the reputation of the Christian Church. Christians murdering Muslims, Christians murdering Jews, Christians murdering Pagans, and Christians murdering Christians--that is the legacy of the Crusades.

Factually, that's above criticism. However, what if there were no Crusades, bad as the consequences you've mentioned were? Would Eastern and Central Europe have remained out of the invaders' hands? Some would say that the Crusades weakened the Eastern Roman Empire and made it more vulnerable, but it didn't fall entirely until much later when times, and the invaders, were different.

 

[Knee V]

Factually, that's above criticism. However, what if there were no Crusades, bad as the consequences you've mentioned were? Would Eastern and Central Europe have remained out of the invaders' hands? Some would say that the Crusades weakened the Eastern Roman Empire and made it more vulnerable, but it didn't fall entirely until much later when times, and the invaders, were different.

If there were no Crusades (or at least no First Crusade), then perhaps the Muslim forces would have advanced all the way to the Atlantic. And as bad as that would have been, what would have happened if the Christians in the 1st century gathered a strong enough army to overthrow the Roman Empire and take it over? It's very difficult to know what would have happened, and there's no telling how many Muslims could have converted to Christ as a result of the Church taking a different course of action.

 

[Albion]

If there were no Crusades (or at least no First Crusade), then perhaps the Muslim forces would have advanced all the way to the Atlantic.

Yes, that was my question. It seems possible, or at least that a large part of Europe could have fallen.

It's very difficult to know what would have happened, and there's no telling how many Muslims could have converted to Christ as a result of the Church taking a different course of action.

Which raises a different question. Where and when HAS a large piece of territory been converted FROM Islam? Spain maybe, but it doesn't seem that if the Muslims had taken big sections of Europe, they'd have been liable to convert to Christianity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You cannot look at them as a whole. The general idea, to preserve the Holy Land as a pilgrimage place and Jerusalem as a place where Christians lived, yes, that's good. Some, in fact many, incidents within the entire body of the Crusades, bad to very bad to downright wrong.

The problem was not the mission the Crusaders were sent on, the problem was the people, and the circumstances they fought in.

But the Crusades were not bad, compared to other wars. Relatively few were killed, and they were not as bloody as people think.
By the time of the foundation of Islam, the Church Christ founded had spread from the Middle East to cover the Mediterranean Basin, and more. Once Mohammed died, the Muslims became tribal warriors, and wiped Christianity out of North Africa, and into Spain, almost to France. The Crusades were instituted mainly to push back on the Muslim invasion.

 

[Knee V]

Which raises a different question. Where and when HAS a large piece of territory been converted FROM Islam? Spain maybe, but it doesn't seem that if the Muslims had taken big sections of Europe, they'd have been liable to convert to Christianity.

I'll tend to agree with you about that characteristic of Islam - once it takes root somewhere, it seems that it's there to stay.