What do you think of the Crusades?

[Kas]

wow the continued villinisation of the crusades seems completely out of balance, and riddled with Liberal properganda about the issue, you have ignored 400 years of Islamic aggression... you also ignored that many crusades were out of great piety at the crusaders own expense and sacrifice... also Islamic persecution of Christians is ignored by you all both now and in the past centuries of occupation... tell me brethren what were they to do... accept dhimmitude... wars and other atrocities lying down... and what would you have done... tell me more what should we do against Islamic Jihad today...

 

[Holy Roller]

wow the continued villinisation of the crusades seems completely out of balance, and riddled with Liberal properganda about the issue, you have ignored 400 years of Islamic aggression... you also ignored that many crusades were out of great piety at the crusaders own expense and sacrifice... also Islamic persecution of Christians is ignored by you all both now and in the past centuries of occupation... tell me brethren what were they to do... accept dhimmitude... wars and other atrocities lying down... and what would you have done... tell me more what should we do against Islamic Jihad today...

I doubt it would be correct to call it "Islamic aggression"; it's more like Centuries of Turkish aggression, or aggression caused by bands of feudal warlords.
Since there was Christian on Christian fighting during these crusades, we can eliminate any religious motivators to the crusades, although the various Popes did promise the fighters they'd have civil, social and religious 'sins' removed if they would participate...

 

[SarahJoy]

I think that the character Tiberius in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" described the Crusades well when he said, "At first i thought we were fighting for God, then i realized that we were fighting for land and wealth; I was ashamed."

I've done quite a bit of study on the Crusades myself and that is pretty much what happened. The christians wanted the Holy Land to quenched their greed and did so by throwing God into it. In my opinion, it is one of the disgraces of humanity. If they truely wanted to convert people, they certainly were not following Torah's rules for conquering a nation!

The Jews were heavily persecuted during the first and second crusades and it only ceased because the pope realized they were good, honest businessmen.

TanteBelle​

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That's almost as bad as anything I've heard.
The pope didn't realize anything - he is not able to according to Scripture.
The persecution of the Jews, and of those who honor Yhvh's Shabbat, is INCREASING every day, it DID NOT cease, and will not, until Yahshua returns and His angels take out the wicked from the earth and Yahshua rules with the Ones He chooses to be alive.

See the history of the crusades back then, the popo had started the islam religion to gain more power himself on earth, then fought when they rebelled against him fought to gain Jerusalem for himself. Never a righteous motive.

 

[Holy Roller]

I think that the character Tiberius in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" described the Crusades well when he said, "At first i thought we were fighting for God, then i realized that we were fighting for land and wealth; I was ashamed."

I've done quite a bit of study on the Crusades myself and that is pretty much what happened. The christians wanted the Holy Land to quenched their greed and did so by throwing God into it. In my opinion, it is one of the disgraces of humanity. If they truely wanted to convert people, they certainly were not following Torah's rules for conquering a nation!

The Jews were heavily persecuted during the first and second crusades and it only ceased because the pope realized they were good, honest businessmen.

TanteBelle​

Then can you please advise the forum why there was Christian v. Christian infighting during all the crusades?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

See the history of the crusades back then, the popo had started the islam religion to gain more power himself on earth, then fought when they rebelled against him fought to gain Jerusalem for himself. Never a righteous motive.

I am assuming by 'popo' you mean the Pope. Do you have any proof of your claim? Last I heard, Islam was started by Muhammad.

 

[ContraMundum]

the popo had started the islam religion to gain more power himself on earth.

Question to self: did jeff read Jack Chick's comic "The Prophet" for this bizzare conspiracy theory? Come to think of it.......does he have the whole collection?

 

[Henaynei]

Then can you please advise the forum why there was Christian v. Christian infighting during all the crusades?

because greed knows no brother....

 

[visionary]

Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

"Heretics or those under the ban of excommunication" is broad sweeping term that means all who are not catholic. I think we can clearly say that it was under catholic pope initiative starting with Islamic battle and spreading to Jerusalem, with slaughter of many others for any other reason along the way. Such is war.

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.

 

[Nooj]

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

Obviously I don't think they were 'holy' wars, but they fit the definition of a holy war that we use today, which is a religiously sanctioned war among other things.

Not once.

So why are some Christians calling for a new holy war?

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

Uh, I'm confused by your wording. Could you explain what you mean?

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

See below.

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.

There are numerous accounts from the Crusaders themselves that states those who died on the Crusade were martyrs who would go to heaven. Most likely they believed that the remission of sins would allow them to bypass purgatory.

I was wrong to state that you got to heaven by going on a Crusade.

What going on a Crusade did do is grant full remission of confessed sins. The process of killing and fighting on a Crusade was a substitutionary act for all penances. That would severely cut through the time you spent in Purgatory, and whilst not guaranteeing heaven, would get you much closer. This is from the Audita Tremendi bull from the Third Crusade:

To those who with contrite hearts and humbled spirits undertake the labour of this journey and die in penitence for their sins and with right faith we promise full indulgence of their faults and eternal life; whether surviving or dying they shall know that through the mercy of God and the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, and our authority, they will have relaxation of the satisfaction imposed for all their sins of which they have made proper confesssion.

Sorry for the confusion folks.

 

[Holy Roller]

because greed knows no brother....

Lulz...
So the crusades were fought out of the blanket-term greed. Why not call them the greedades?

 

[ContraMundum]

Obviously I don't think they were 'holy' wars, but they fit the definition of a holy war that we use today, which is a religiously sanctioned war among other things.

I agree.

So why are some Christians calling for a new holy war?

If that's the case, then they are clearly misguided. Christians are not given the authority by Jesus to wage a "holy war" in His Name.

Sadly, there's a lot of misguided people around.

Uh, I'm confused by your wording. Could you explain what you mean?

No need, I think you got it!

See below.

There are numerous accounts from the Crusaders themselves that states those who died on the Crusade were martyrs who would go to heaven. Most likely they believed that the remission of sins would allow them to bypass purgatory.

I was wrong to state that you got to heaven by going on a Crusade.

What going on a Crusade did do is grant full remission of confessed sins. The process of killing and fighting on a Crusade was a substitutionary act for all penances. That would severely cut through the time you spent in Purgatory, and whilst not guaranteeing heaven, would get you much closer. This is from the Audita Tremendi bull from the Third Crusade:

To those who with contrite hearts and humbled spirits undertake the labour of this journey and die in penitence for their sins and with right faith we promise full indulgence of their faults and eternal life; whether surviving or dying they shall know that through the mercy of God and the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, and our authority, they will have relaxation of the satisfaction imposed for all their sins of which they have made proper confesssion.

Sorry for the confusion folks.

That's basically what I was getting at.

 

[Kas]

Wow the ignorance on this subject is just incredible.. I mean really your actually quoting a hollywood movie some of you to prove a point written totallly from an anti Christian perspective... but anyway...

I think if any of you knew the huge expense and personal cost affected by those who took the religious vows and answered the religiouds calls of the clergy you would dismiss this sillyness of saying these were wars of greed, they were expressions of deep piety and faith and a desire to go to heaven! They were also, an opportunity for plunder and wealth, but this is too over stated by liberal dogmatists and their clones to realise the full and true picture...

furthermore... moslems were the aggressors arab moslems, turk moslems, mongol moslems, berber moselms, and laterly albanian moslems... what sillyness to ignore that...

lastly, there is nothing misguided or unchristian about wishing to deffend one faith... many a brave christian soul and martyre sacrifised themselves upon the alter of war to deffend that which gave their whole life meaning and purpose...

tell me what should they have done... surrendered... accepted dhimitude... died, converted, be oppressed... let their women folk be taken as war booty... please guys get a grip... you would not do that for your own families... why condemn others for doing same... and who is our family according to the Christ

 

[Kas]

lets not forget it was Islamic aggression that lead to the crusades... and its still happening today... reviving infact...

 

[ORI]

there is a student in another thread who is asking this question as s/he prepares to give a report on the subject

I invite you to express the truths about the Crusades from a Jewish and Messianic POV

BUT PLEASE do so without being part of any move to turn the thread into a battle ground over these truths.... go in peace and humility with a gentle heart and posting style/content....

that said:
the thread is here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7249131

To be polite, they were self-righteous pigs!

 

[Holy Roller]

Wow the ignorance on this subject is just incredible.. I mean really your actually quoting a hollywood movie some of you to prove a point written totallly from an anti Christian perspective... but anyway...

I think if any of you knew the huge expense and personal cost affected by those who took the religious vows and answered the religiouds calls of the clergy you would dismiss this sillyness of saying these were wars of greed, they were expressions of deep piety and faith and a desire to go to heaven! They were also, an opportunity for plunder and wealth, but this is too over stated by liberal dogmatists and their clones to realise the full and true picture...

furthermore... moslems were the aggressors arab moslems, turk moslems, mongol moslems, berber moselms, and laterly albanian moslems... what sillyness to ignore that...

lastly, there is nothing misguided or unchristian about wishing to deffend one faith... many a brave christian soul and martyre sacrifised themselves upon the alter of war to deffend that which gave their whole life meaning and purpose...

tell me what should they have done... surrendered... accepted dhimitude... died, converted, be oppressed... let their women folk be taken as war booty... please guys get a grip... you would not do that for your own families... why condemn others for doing same... and who is our family according to the Christ

I'll agree with some of this, but the second paragraph is a little inaccurate. The crusaders weren't "defending their faith"; they were defending the Byzantine empire from Turkish aggressors.

 

[Holy Roller]

To be polite, they were self-righteous pigs!

We're "self-righteous pigs"?

 

[Nooj]

I'll agree with some of this, but the second paragraph is a little inaccurate. The crusaders weren't "defending their faith"; they were defending the Byzantine empire from Turkish aggressors.

So if they were defending the Byzantines, why did they push beyond Anatolia and into the Levant? Why is it that their predominant goal from the start was Jerusalem?

 

[Holy Roller]

So if they were defending the Byzantines, why did they push beyond Anatolia and into the Levant? Why is it that their predominant goal from the start was Jerusalem?

I'm not going to speculate mideval military strategy, nooj. The fact that the crusaders were blind to the religion of the people they engaged with is enough to tell us that they weren't trying to defend any particular faith.

 

[Nooj]

I'm not going to speculate mideval military strategy, nooj. The fact that the crusaders were blind to the religion of the people they engaged with is enough to tell us that they weren't trying to defend any particular faith.

So you don't know why the Crusaders set out for Jerusalem from the very beginning. It has little to do with military strategy, because it was militarily a wild, almost insane scheme. It was almost certain death. They didn't know whether water or food or allies was waiting for them there, they didn't know what enemies would be there. 100,000 lords, knights, peasants didn't just pick up and leave and travel half the world because they wanted to defend an empire that was equally foreign.

The Crusaders, if they were thinking about defending the Byzantines at all, had the overarching goal of taking Jerusalem because of religion. It was the most important location to Christianity, and it chafed everyone to think it was in the hands of Muslims.