J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Can a crusade be justifiable in today’s modern society?
Can a crusade be justified (using the Church's doctrine) in today's modern world?
- Status
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
I would say they would be justifiable today-just as they were a thousand years ago. The Crusades were defensive wars waged against the onslaught of the Mohammedian hordes that threatened Christendom. Unfortunately they weren’t completely successful. Had they been successful, maybe we wouldn’t be having all the problems we have with radical Muslims.
I feel that we need one now more than ever, except that today the secular socialist gov’ts of Europe have just invited the Muslims in-they didn’t even need go to war over it.
I feel that we need one now more than ever, except that today the secular socialist gov’ts of Europe have just invited the Muslims in-they didn’t even need go to war over it.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Agreed. I think that Pope Innocent III’s words to the Crusaders apply now more than ever:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? …Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
W
wcknight
Guest
IF the Crusades had strictly stuck with noble purposes with which some were started, they may have been more successful and maybe (a huge maybe) the effects would have been longer lasting.
Given the self serving rulers, greed, petty infighting, power grabbing and host of other negatives, the Crusades were mostly failures of short lasting success at best. The Crusaders undermined their own successes and I have no doubt that present day rulers would have equally self serving motives and reasons to go to war.
BUT even IF Christian rulers and governments could refrain from greed and self interest, the very idea of going to war and killing innocent people to try to convert them is subversive and totally anti-Christian. Jesus did NOT teach us to kill or torture our enemies, and He certainly did not say to kill or maim anyone who does not become one of His followers,
The Crusades was a bad idea back then, and it is still a bad idea today.
Given the self serving rulers, greed, petty infighting, power grabbing and host of other negatives, the Crusades were mostly failures of short lasting success at best. The Crusaders undermined their own successes and I have no doubt that present day rulers would have equally self serving motives and reasons to go to war.
BUT even IF Christian rulers and governments could refrain from greed and self interest, the very idea of going to war and killing innocent people to try to convert them is subversive and totally anti-Christian. Jesus did NOT teach us to kill or torture our enemies, and He certainly did not say to kill or maim anyone who does not become one of His followers,
The Crusades was a bad idea back then, and it is still a bad idea today.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
This was not the intent of the Crusades. You seem to have a very distorted view of history. Read this for the short version of what the Crusades were really all about:
staycatholic.com/the_crusades.htm
M
mike182d
Guest
In today’s modern society, just war has been rendered either non-exist or entirely impossible to achieve.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
On what basis do you make this statement? Is the war on terror justified?
W
wcknight
Guest
The original INTENT may have been honorable, BUT what they turned out to be in many cases was wholesale slaughter, and in many instances the slaughter was from the Christian side.
I have a book on the Crusades. It chronicles the Knights Templar, Hospitalers etc.
The Crusades made the Holy Land the door prize for the many secondary nobles to try to grab power, land or wealth. The defense of Christianity became secondary or lost completely. There is a host of intrigue, back stabbing, treason, and greed associated with the Crusades. What you are looking at is a white washed version of History.
I have a book on the Crusades. It chronicles the Knights Templar, Hospitalers etc.
The Crusades made the Holy Land the door prize for the many secondary nobles to try to grab power, land or wealth. The defense of Christianity became secondary or lost completely. There is a host of intrigue, back stabbing, treason, and greed associated with the Crusades. What you are looking at is a white washed version of History.
B
Brendan
Guest
The Crusades were a defense against invading bands of Turks, Saracens and Moors.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with either defending one’s land against invaders or helping another country defend it’s own land, especially when asked by that country.
All of Asia Minor was once part of Greece and populated by Greeks. Why is not now?
St. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo in Lybia. Who is the bishop there now? What happend there?
M
mike182d
Guest
Oh, I’m not saying there’s no such thing as just war today. In fact, I think both the Crusades - or at least the first couple of them - and even the Iraq war were “just war.” Its just that today, Catholic bishops have defined “just war” in such a way that it excludes any and all warfare.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
CONGRATULATIONS! :clapping: I have several books as well as magazines that address the Crusades. Who wrote yours?
Wrong again. Most of the crusaders were first gen. nobles.
No. What you are reading is anti-Catholic revisionist history.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
Let us assume that your book isn’t just modernistic biases against the Church or the Crusades-would you care to post the title and author? Sources do no good if you just refer to them as “a book”.
You completely sidesteped the last point. You said that “the very idea of going to war and killing innocent people to try to convert them is subversive and totally anti-Christian.” That wasn’t the point of the Crusades-they were not fought to forcibly convert the Muslims.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Catholic bishops cannot redefine “just war.” They have no such authority. It’s as simple as that.
W
wcknight
Guest
YES the original INTENT was to defend and take back the holy land BUT the Crusades became much more than than that. There were probably many who genuinely thought they were fighting for a just cause. It’s a lot easier to recruit for a holy war than it is to get folks to fight for conquest.
It is unfanthomable to me that anyone who calls themselves Christian would advocate fighting and killing. Jesus was the ultimate pacificist, It would be enough to bring about the Second Coming of the Lord if anyone ever hoists up a banner like “Killing for Jesus” or “Slaughter an unbeliever for the Lord”.
It is unfanthomable to me that anyone who calls themselves Christian would advocate fighting and killing. Jesus was the ultimate pacificist, It would be enough to bring about the Second Coming of the Lord if anyone ever hoists up a banner like “Killing for Jesus” or “Slaughter an unbeliever for the Lord”.
W
wcknight
Guest
There is nothing wrong with defending ones country or even “DEFENDING” someone elses. BUT there is plenty wrong with starting a war or killing folks simply because they don’t believe as you do.
What country is it that you are trying to defend with your new crusade ?
What country is it that you are trying to defend with your new crusade ?
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
I see you’ve bought into the modernist error that sees Jesus as some “righteous dude” who’s just cool and passive and wouldn’t, uh…like fight or anything. While we’re at it, we could light up a dooby and listen to Phish.
What about Jesus making a whip and chasing the merchants and coin changers out of the temple? That wasn’t very pacifistic.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. The Crusades were never “convert or die!” like you would have us believe. Also, wouldn’t it be more important to defend a religion, no, the only True Religion, than to defend a country?
I never said such a thing. It’s a hypothetical.
BTW, would you mind telling us who wrote your book? You seem to be avoiding that.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Very true. I think we need to start asking ourselves:
Who would Jesus whip?
W
wcknight
Guest
As they say the road to H*** is paved with good intentions.
So Jesus chased some folks out of the temple, so what. That does NOT make Him pro-war by any stretch. Show me a passage where He says it is okay to kill folks in His name, or to maim or murder anyone ???
So Jesus chased some folks out of the temple, so what. That does NOT make Him pro-war by any stretch. Show me a passage where He says it is okay to kill folks in His name, or to maim or murder anyone ???
- Status