Cant do evil so that good may come

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnCalm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnCalm

Guest
Help me with this doubt. If the title applies, how are the crusades justified? They are not?
 
The general problem of doing evil to obtain a promised future good, is that, (apart from the fact that you are doing evil), the promised future good may actually never occur anyway, and you are simply left with having done evil and no future good received at all, being left with only the result of the evil. This occurred with the crusades since there were no witches to kill, and the deaths of those people did not bring about any good fortune.
 
Joy2day said:
The general problem of doing evil to obtain a promised future good, is that, (apart from the fact that you are doing evil), the promised future good may actually never occur anyway, and you are simply left with having done evil and no future good received at all, being left with only the result of the evil. This occurred with the crusades since there were no witches to kill, and the deaths of those people did not bring about any good fortune.
Click to expand...
Actually thats not the problem, because you could kill recently baptized children, knowing for certain there will be going to heaven,

I dont think you know much about the crusades, or its historical context, or why they happened… little to do with witches…
 
Muslim forces invaded and conquered the Holy Land (and they were only getting started).

If Cuba invaded and conquered Puerto Rico, the United States would send an armed response to recapture the territory. Would that be an “evil” act?

It seems to me that the invaders are the evil ones.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Muslim forces invaded and conquered the Holy Land (and they were only getting started).

If Cuba invaded and conquered Puerto Rico, the United States would send an armed response to recapture the territory. Would that be an “evil” act?

It seems to me that the invaders are the evil ones.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it would be taken as a defense.

But what can you say about a father reprimanding his son, thats a bad thing, that conveys a good thing in the long run.
 
JohnCalm said:
But what can you say about a father reprimanding his son, thats a bad thing, that conveys a good thing in the long run.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “bad.” The subject of the post refers to “evil.” It is not evil for a father to reprimand his son, provided the reprimand is not unreasonably harsh (at which point it becomes evil and is unacceptable, even if it yields the desired result).
Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! [Romans 3:8]
Click to expand...
 
Joy2day said:
This occurred with the crusades since there were no witches to kill, and the deaths of those people did not bring about any good fortune.
Click to expand...
Please educate yourself on the actual history of the Crusades (there were multiple). Your statements here are nothing but ill-informed slander of those people. We as Christians are called to be truthful since we follow He who is The Truth.

The First Crusade was a defensive response to almost 4 centuries of Muslim aggression, violence and conquest.

Here’s a brief intro to help

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jakin_crusades_sept06.asp
 
If not for the crusades, Europe would have been conquered by followers of Islam. Various Muslim leaders had already conquered vast amounts of territory stretching from the middle east (and even parts of India) through Northern Africa and parts of Europe (Spain, sicily, huge parts of Eastern Europe). This happened over several hundred years of course. There were various crusades but pretty much all of them were very important in stopping the spread of Islam. Countries conquered by these invaders lost their culture, beliefs, government, etc. They were, in some cases, enslaved and brutalized beyond belief. Children were indoctrinated into Islam and into the military, etc. All non Muslims were treated with contempt, many of their rights taken away, etc. I am not saying this to condemn Islam people today, this is just the way it was back then. Europe was weak due to all the in fighting between European nations. Without the crusades, Europe would have been conquered piece by piece.

I suppose you think this would have been preferable?
 
BRZ said:
If not for the crusades, Europe would have been conquered by followers of Islam. Various Muslim leaders had already conquered vast amounts of territory stretching from the middle east (and even parts of India) through Northern Africa and parts of Europe (Spain, sicily, huge parts of Eastern Europe). This happened over several hundred years of course. There were various crusades but pretty much all of them were very important in stopping the spread of Islam. Countries conquered by these invaders lost their culture, beliefs, government, etc. They were, in some cases, enslaved and brutalized beyond belief. Children were indoctrinated into Islam and into the military, etc. All non Muslims were treated with contempt, many of their rights taken away, etc. I am not saying this to condemn Islam people today, this is just the way it was back then. Europe was weak due to all the in fighting between European nations. Without the crusades, Europe would have been conquered piece by piece.

I suppose you think this would have been preferable?
Click to expand...
You are overestimating the impact the Crusades that took place in the ME had on the expansionism of the various Islamic states into Eastern Europe. They at best were nothing more than a speed bump and had a far less impact on slowing/stopping Islamic expansionism into Eastern Europe than the Mongols.
 
Sorry, but I disagree. Obviously I was condensing hundreds of years of history into a simple paragraph but you can’t just consider the crusades as only the conflicts in Jerusalem an surrounding areas. There were many important events that happened in Europe which are all part of the Crusades. The Battle of Lepanto is an excellent example. This battle was one of the most important naval battles in history and effectively stopped the Ottoman Empire from achieving its goal of conquering Italy.
 
JohnCalm said:
Help me with this doubt. If the title applies, how are the crusades justified? They are not?
Click to expand...
Do you understand what the first crusade was about?

Let’s put it this way. Suppose, right this minute, an army started mustering from a Muslim country on the borders of a non-Muslim country with the expressed intention of bringing the Muslim faith to the people. They announced that nonMuslims would be TOLERATED, but that they would apply Muslim law (sharia) to ALL members of the country they intended to take over. Would the non-Muslim country have the right to not only have its own citizens repel this army, but to ask for help against the Muslims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top