What do you think of the Crusades?

[visionary]

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

2.1 First Crusade 1095-1099
2.1.1 Siege of Jerusalem
2.1.2 Crusade of 1101
2.2 Second Crusade 1147–1149
2.3 Third Crusade 1187–1192
2.4 Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
2.5 Albigensian Crusade
2.6 Children's Crusade
2.7 Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
2.8 Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
2.9 Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
2.10 Eighth Crusade 1270
2.11 Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
2.12 Northern Crusades (Baltic and Germany)
2.13 Other crusades
2.13.1 Crusade against the Tatars
2.13.2 Crusades in the Balkans
2.13.3 Aragonese Crusade
2.13.4 Alexandrian Crusade
2.13.5 Hussite Crusade
2.13.6 Swedish Crusades

Notice these crusades were all just one church against all in the way.

One of the ironic things about the Crusades is that even though “God may have indeed wished it, there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history" Peters, “Early Muslim Empires,” pg 85. Qtd in Islam: The Straight Path. John L. Esposito. Oxford University Press: New York, 2005. Pg. 58.

 

[Holy Roller]

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

2.1 First Crusade 1095-1099
2.1.1 Siege of Jerusalem
2.1.2 Crusade of 1101
2.2 Second Crusade 1147–1149
2.3 Third Crusade 1187–1192
2.4 Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
2.5 Albigensian Crusade
2.6 Children's Crusade
2.7 Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
2.8 Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
2.9 Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
2.10 Eighth Crusade 1270
2.11 Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
2.12 Northern Crusades (Baltic and Germany)
2.13 Other crusades
2.13.1 Crusade against the Tatars
2.13.2 Crusades in the Balkans
2.13.3 Aragonese Crusade
2.13.4 Alexandrian Crusade
2.13.5 Hussite Crusade
2.13.6 Swedish Crusades

Notice these crusades were all just one church against all in the way.

One of the ironic things about the Crusades is that even though “God may have indeed wished it, there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history" Peters, “Early Muslim Empires,” pg 85. Qtd in Islam: The Straight Path. John L. Esposito. Oxford University Press: New York, 2005. Pg. 58.

I was using that wikipedia article as a reference, too. But a reference that all but proves the secular liberal educator had his hand in it.

Notice immediately the contradictions: first the wikipedia article says that the crusades were meant to recapture a religious city from a religious group (Turks), then contradicts itself by stating the Byzantine empire called for assistance to deal with Muslim expansion.
Elsewhere in the article it states that there was no Muslim expansion at all, but rather bands of Turks (not necessarily Muslim) terrorizing the Byzantine empire (the only consistent explination, BTW) and had to be stopped, so the Byzantine empire called for helb on both China and Pope Urban II...

The wikipedia reference is a good excersize in seeing just how far secular liberal educators will go to try and cast a bad light on Christianity. The wikipedia article and the liberal educators that wrote it are so fed up with what they percieve to be an intolerant religion (Christianity) that they're willing to distort history in order to achieve their goal of defacing Christianity.
These liberal educators and secularists in one breath will accuse religious fanaticism of causing Palestinian homocide bombers ("Yep! It happened again. Another religious Muslim fundie blowing himself up in the Gaza Strip again..."), then contradict themselves moments later by saying, "The poor Palestinians, always living in poverty and squalor. No wonder why they're committing these homocide bomb runs!"

When doing your research in western history, I urge all who read this to sift all the information for consistent, relevant data, because behind western history there is always a secular liberal educator taking his anger out on Christianity somewhere.

 

[Nooj]

I was using that wikipedia article as a reference, too. But a reference that all but proves the secular liberal educator had his hand in it.

Notice immediately the contradictions: first the wikipedia article says that the crusades were meant to recapture a religious city from a religious group (Turks), then contradicts itself by stating the Byzantine empire called for assistance to deal with Muslim expansion.
Elsewhere in the article it states that there was no Muslim expansion at all, but rather bands of Turks (not necessarily Muslim) terrorizing the Byzantine empire (the only consistent explination, BTW) and had to be stopped, so the Byzantine empire called for helb on both China and Pope Urban II...

The wikipedia reference is a good excersize in seeing just how far secular liberal educators will go to try and cast a bad light on Christianity. The wikipedia article and the liberal educators that wrote it are so fed up with what they percieve to be an intolerant religion (Christianity) that they're willing to distort history in order to achieve their goal of defacing Christianity.
These liberal educators and secularists in one breath will accuse religious fanaticism of causing Palestinian homocide bombers ("Yep! It happened again. Another religious Muslim fundie blowing himself up in the Gaza Strip again..."), then contradict themselves moments later by saying, "The poor Palestinians, always living in poverty and squalor. No wonder why they're committing these homocide bomb runs!"

When doing your research in western history, I urge all who read this to sift all the information for consistent, relevant data, because behind western history there is always a secular liberal educator taking his anger out on Christianity somewhere.

You ever going to come back to the History Forums? I'd be happy to address this post there if you want.

For those who are interested, a Jewish anonymous author who was contemporary to the First Crusade wrote about the persecution of some Jewish communities by the Crusaders. It's called the Mainz Anonymous, but I'd warn that it's pretty graphic stuff. Ruins the Yom Kippur mood...

 

[ContraMundum]

What they are doing is claiming moderate muslims the only muslims and all christians are not allowed to mention extremist positions and christians are not allowed to talk about christ and are being presented as religious fanatics.If they want moderate mainstream views of american muslims then they need to accept educating people on all moderate views of all religions. Muslims should not be the only ones that get to speak about religion in the schools.

Muslims are not the only people allowed to speak in schools....where did you hear that? Is this some kind of local thing you're talking about?

Thus I said that it was pure prejudice (against christians and Jews).
We had a professor abducted by government for nine months for being married to a muslim woman and handling muslim cases in court. Next it will be the christians and the Jews that loose all rights and anyone else that refuses the NWO.
I'd say we have the makings of a new crusade coming our way.

I really, really doubt that. America is the most fundie Christian nation on the planet. I really don't think the majority religion of the nation will be silenced.

...and this "NWO"...is this the same NWO that pentecostals and conspiracy theorists have been talking about for decades on end or are you speaking of the NWO that actually exists?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Christianity was on the brink of being destroyed as one nation fell after another to Islam. We can turn around and find flaws with it- but it saved western Europe from Muhammadism.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'm betting that a thousand years from now, people might like to condemn the current war in the Middle-East by the atrocities that are committed by soldiers in contrast with the orders given by their commanders.

Things don't change people- you sent people over there and a few of them will mess things up. But that doesn't mean the goal wasn't noble, nor were most of the troops.

 

[Kas]

Shalom brethren...

I've read the whole thread and I have to say that most people seem grossly misinformed about the crusades... I can't get into it all now as I am at work... but to be breif... a lot of people seemed to have abosrbed the liberal properganda of the enlighten,ent about them... they were not about getting rich... most people poured into them their own personal wealth... they were not aggressive but in responce to four hundred years of Islamic aggression... they were both noble and avage... they did save europe... a point ever detractor should bare in mind... without them Europe would be moslem...

the painful lesson for the pacafist to learn is./.. that islamic aggression can only be stopped by Christian aggression... in the face of a revivalist movwmnt that is persecuting our brethren... and has gone on unabated... I think its time once more to call for a new crusader movement... however, one that can learn from the many miostakes of the previous movement...

Shalom

Kas

 

[Nooj]

the painful lesson for the pacafist to learn is./.. that islamic aggression can only be stopped by Christian aggression... in the face of a revivalist movwmnt that is persecuting our brethren... and has gone on unabated... I think its time once more to call for a new crusader movement... however, one that can learn from the many miostakes of the previous movement...

Shalom

Oh dear, I do believe my irony meter just exploded.

What some of you don't seem to understand is that the Crusades were not merely wars of defense, or just wars, but holy wars. They were wars that got you into heaven by the process of killing and dying whilst fighting in the service of God. Can you as a Christian honestly tell me that Jesus preached Holy War in the NT?

 

[Kas]

well the holy spirit does in revelations... so er yeah I can...

 

[Kas]

and the old testament...

 

[Holy Roller]

Oh dear, I do believe my irony meter just exploded.

What some of you don't seem to understand is that the Crusades were not merely wars of defense, or just wars, but holy wars. They were wars that got you into heaven by the process of killing and dying whilst fighting in the service of God. Can you as a Christian honestly tell me that Jesus preached Holy War in the NT?

So this is what they're teaching people in high school nowadays? Have the secular liberal educators encroached this far in their brainwashing attempts?

Nooj, please understand that there's a very aggressive war being fought in our schools today. It's the usual war, though; good versus evil, morality versus existentialism, etc. We as Jews and Christians are at the forefront, with the forces of secularism as our opponent.
They want to dismantle Christianity because they perceive Christianity and Judaism as intolerant towards certain of minority groups (the gay community, for example). They also, for whatever reason, stand for iniquity and condone killing, as in the case of abortion. They managed to make the hitherto into political issues such as abortion. They knew the only way they could have made abortion legal is to turn killing into a political issue.
Thus, they attack wholesomeness from all angles: Capitol Hill, in media and in your instance, education. On Capitol Hill, they're making abortion legal, allowing gay people to marry and start families and trying to blur the lines between gender. In the media, they are blocking the promotion of good, wholesome, Christian programming. In education, they're teaching you that the crusades were a form of religious extremism and an atrocity that musn't be repeated. All this in the hopes they advance what they regard as social progress.
Read your history; this isn't social progress, it's Grecian Hellenism revisited. King Solomon said in the Book of Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun, and indeed, the agenda the liberal educator is pushing isn't social progress, and it isn't revolutionary, either. It's Grecian hellinism just being replayed again.
There really isn't anything new under the sun, here.

 

[johnd]

I thought Indiana Jones and the last crusade was quite entertaining.

 

[ContraMundum]

What some of you don't seem to understand is that the Crusades were not merely wars of defense, or just wars, but holy wars.

Many declared them to be "holy wars", yes.

They were wars that got you into heaven by the process of killing and dying whilst fighting in the service of God.

Ummmm...no. That might have been true from the Islamic side though.

Can you as a Christian honestly tell me that Jesus preached Holy War in the NT?

Not once.

 

[Mikeb85]

Ummmm...no. That might have been true from the Islamic side though.

The Roman Church was giving out indulgences for participation in the crusades, which as we know are supposed to provide absolution for sins (what the Roman Church claims). Crusaders were also promised that they'd become martyrs for the faith if they died in battle. So the crusaders probably did indeed think they'd go to heaven for participating in these 'Holy Wars'.

 

[ContraMundum]

The Roman Church was giving out indulgences for participation in the crusades, which as we know are supposed to provide absolution for sins (what the Roman Church claims).

According to Roman doctrine, an indulgence is only good if you're already going to Heaven.

Crusaders were also promised that they'd become martyrs for the faith if they died in battle.

Provided they were already in a "state of grace". Exact phrase, I believe. At no point was there the idea that you got to heaven by killing and dying, as the other guy said.

 

[johnd]

One of the most overlooked aspects about the crusades is that Israel has been washed over (over run) by rulers and empires alike for imperial reasons since the beginning of time (before there even was an Israel). The crusades were for religious ideology / reign. First the Islamic invasion, then the Christian retaliation which if memory serves was the Holy Roman Empire (in essence Catholicism).

The ancients called upon gods to lead their campaigns, but unless I miss my guess, it was never about religious ideology before... other than the Yehoshua crusade after Moshe b' Amram died. And that was a legit crusade / campaign commissioned by the true God.

 

[johnd]

Bail out Main Street, not Wall Street

Nice mantra...

On second thought... forget Main Street, bail ME out!

 

[visionary]

All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

 

[visionary]

Even the catholic encyclopedia states that they were murderous band heading to Jerusalem.

On 27 November, the pope himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of "God wills it!" all rushed towards the pontiff to pledge themselves by vow to depart for the Holy Land and receive the cross of red material to be worn on the shoulder. At the same time the pope sent letters to all Christian nations, and the movement made rapid headway throughout Europe. Preachers of the crusade appeared everywhere, and on all sides sprang up disorganized, undisciplined, penniless hordes, almost destitute of equipment, who, surging eastward through the valley of the Danube, plundered as they went along and murdered the Jews in the German cities. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

In order for the crowd to be of the mind that they were justified in the eyes of God to do the atrocities, they had to have received word from their clergy that it is sanctioned.

 

[ContraMundum]

In order for the crowd to be of the mind that they were justified in the eyes of God to do the atrocities, they had to have received word from their clergy that it is sanctioned.

All good stuff...and I think we all agree on that. The only part I disagree with on this thread was the comment made earlier that the "church" decreed that one could be saved by killing or dying in the Crusade. I recall no such teaching. All the indulgences etc. given were on the presumption that one was in a state of grace before one fought etc. If one died outside of faith, despite being in a Crusade, one was deemed to be bound for hellfire etc.

One thing I would say is that I don't agree with the Medieval idea of what makes one a believing Christian.

A good point you made earlier was that there were many wars called "Crusades" that were not necessarily to do with attacking Palestine. Some of those other Crusades actually seem to have been wars in self-defence.