Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter M_Oliver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M_Oliver said:
Well, since the post you based this post on was a lie you might just have a problem here 🙂
Click to expand...
Tell me exactly what the lie is, other wise admit you are anti-Catholic and have no clue what you are talking about.
 
M_Oliver said:
So why then does its members attack so viciously those who have more understanding? They usually use the excuse that their “church” says so and that is the final word. You see, this is the problem that I have with ALL identifiable “churches”, their members are not even in agreement. This is contrary to the Scriptures…
Click to expand...
Who do you think decided what was scripture and what was not. Get a clue, it was the Catholic church.
 
Lance said:
Tell me exactly what the lie is, other wise admit you are anti-Catholic and have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Lance, my brother in Christ,

Anti-Catholics need our help. They don’t have a clue. That is where you come in, and others to aid our seperated brethern.

If they have ears to hear, and eyes to see with the help of the Holy Spirit and a touch of history they will be illuminated and come to their senses.

No need to worry now. Time has a way of working these things out in due course.

In the meantime, get ready for another thread for this hostile poster.

I have a feeling its coming.
 
Valke2 said:
I’m not sure how the murder and persecution of Jews during the cursades is a defensive war. And I don’t know of any catholics who even try to justify that today.
Click to expand...
I know of atleast one Protestant (Baptist I think). My 10th grade History teacher back in the day.

He said, and I quote, “The crusades were started to re-establish Israel and clear the lands of the unbelievers”, pretty much implying that it was a noble and just deed.
 
M_Oliver said:
So why then does its members attack so viciously those who have more understanding? They usually use the excuse that their “church” says so and that is the final word. You see, this is the problem that I have with ALL identifiable “churches”, their members are not even in agreement. This is contrary to the Scriptures…
Click to expand...
Yes not all members are not in agreement.

BUT!

Members that do have differing opinions are not trying to establish a new denomination like you have in Protestantism.

My Dad decided to start his own church because he did not like what others were teaching. He hired and fired many preachers until the day his youngest Son took the pulpit. Now he has someone he can cull. Since then my brother has and his church have crossed over to the “Church Of God” and has been ordained a Bishop. Now my dad is the hand behind the puppet in the pulpit.

There may be differences in opinions within Catholicism but they will not split and form their own church or denomination.

That is the difference.
 
M_Oliver,

Something that was interesting a while back was your affirmation (or half affirmation) that people do not have free will. If that is the case you have God or Satan (whom ever you wish) to blame for the crusaders. We were just doing what we were programmed to do … not our fault God made us to do “evil”.

As for the crusades, I am no expert but have read a bit about it and all I can say is the spirit of the crusades was to help the innocent…the intentions of some crusaders … $$$

Yes the crusades were less than perfect but they were necessary. If you believe that forceful defence is wrong I ask of you to demonstrate to me how you would respond in the following scenario:

Your city is under attack by a relentless army of 8,000 people with sword, spear and bow. They are not interested in any negotiations, peace deals or the like. They have been ordered to kill every one in the city and that is their intention and nothing will change their minds to try to succeed in obtaining this goal. Ok now give me an example of how you will save the 10,000 people living on the city while at the back your mind you know they will continue advancing city by city killing every one they find. So you know that by running away you will achieve nothing. OK so now give me a solution that will result in saving innocent life…
 
I’m sure this has been mentioned (as I am not exactly a thorough reader of all replies to original posts), but I don’t know that any Catholics actually try to justify the Crusades…it really can’t be done! I’m sure some still do, but that is no means a mainstream Catholic endeavor. You will never here the Magisterium attempt to sugarcoat any of the attrocities of the Middle Ages. While I do believe that the evil acts of Christian history (i.e. The Crusades and The Inquisition) have been grossly sensationalized, I don’t believe that this is an excuse, justification, or the like. I see the facts as being scewed to a certain degree. You see, persecution (however slight) of Christians is the only acceptable bigotry left in our politically correct world. Saying this, I don’t feel that any of this historical actions, no matter how actually small or large, can be defended or tolerated! There is however a difference between past (and even present) Christian attrocity and Islamic attrocity. Christianity’s violent past has been small and specific. Why? Because violence is shunned in our faith and has only come at the hands of corrupted, unfaithful leaders that have not followed the teachings of our Lord. Islam’s violence has been continuous throughout the past 15 centuries and not sporadic like in the case of the Church. Why? Because unlike with Christianity, violence is a part of their creed and not merely the tool of corrupted faith leaders. You cannot point to a violent historical Muslim leader, like a particular sultan, and say, “Boy, that guy, for some reason, was violent!” No, he was just following his faith…plain and simple! You can’t say the same about Pope Urban during the Dark Ages or any other Church leader who was questionable or even down-right dirty in their choices. They unlike Saladin, for example, were actually opposing their creed. Therefore my brothers and sisters, the specific religious tenets of the faiths in question are the real issue.

“Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpasses his natural knowledge” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 109, 1).
 
JoeyWarren said:
Yes not all members are not in agreement.

BUT!

Members that do have differing opinions are not trying to establish a new denomination like you have in Protestantism.

My Dad decided to start his own church because he did not like what others were teaching. He hired and fired many preachers until the day his youngest Son took the pulpit. Now he has someone he can cull. Since then my brother has and his church have crossed over to the “Church Of God” and has been ordained a Bishop. Now my dad is the hand behind the puppet in the pulpit.

There may be differences in opinions within Catholicism but they will not split and form their own church or denomination.

That is the difference.
Click to expand...
You are spiritually BLIND if you think I am a follower of one of the most evil men who ever lived. Calvin was an evil man. His “church” is as blind as all the rest of the identifiable churches that exist today.
 
SAINThoodSEEKER said:
… but I don’t know that any Catholics actually try to justify the Crusades…it really can’t be done! …You will never here the Magisterium attempt to sugarcoat any of the attrocities of the Middle Ages. While I do believe that the evil acts of Christian history (i.e. The Crusades and The Inquisition) have been grossly sensationalized
Click to expand...
Actually the majority of Catholics do not justify the Crusades or the Inquisition because they are misinformed or know little about them. An army was necessary to stop advancing muslim forces. Whatever name or banner you wish to attach to this defensive army it was needed and justifiable.
Having said that yes some Crusaders and Kings took advantage to gain profit but is not so clear cut. At one of the first crusades (have to re-read the books to give specifics but sorry have no time-brother getting married inn about 4hrs) after the crusaders had formed an allegiance with the Pope they arrived to Constantinople short of supplies for the journey (some had already perished due to lack of food). When thay asked for help to the Emperor of Constantinople, he demanded that he would only help if their allegiance was to him instead of the Pope. They refused but as a result they had to steal resources from surrounding villages. So things are not as black and white. Yes there were bands of Crusaders that robbed and murdered for self benefit but they do not represent what the Crusades were about.

If the Crusaders had gone met the enemy fought and either won or lost without any one committing attrocities, the Crusades would have been heralded as a novel and just war. However we do not live in a perfect world and mistakes were made but no matter what army would have been sent (AND AN ARMY HAD TO BE SENT) the presence of sin will always follow mankind and no matter who had fought in the behalf of Christendom sin would eventually had been committed by them.

Regarding the Spanish Inquisition, the ABC had done a recent documentary. They found the Inquisition not to have been any more barbaric than the normal courts of law of the time. Only about 2-4% of those trialed were executed (which was slightly below average in those times).Spain had fought severly to get its independence from Muslim conquest. You had Muslims (and some Jews) pretending to be Catholic in order to undermine the new Kingdom. Spain had to expose those people. If found they were trialed and given a penance to do for their crime. It was only after they were found faking their religious affiliation for the second time that they were handed down to the courts for sentensing. When the King and Queen of Spain (and common Spaniards) took things a bit too severely the Pope sent a bull to Spain asking Jews and Muslims to flee to Rome for protection. The Inquisition was never against Muslims or Jews as such they were about keeping them honest. If muslim be a muslim if Jew be a jew. They had even found rabbiis as Bishops even though they did not believe in Christianity. Again not a perfect world, things did not go as planned but the Inquisitions for the most part were necessary.
 
Lance said:
Tell me exactly what the lie is, other wise admit you are anti-Catholic and have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
M_Oliver stated in a previous post that my conversion to Catholicism was based on a lie. 3 days ago I asked him to tell me what the lie was or admit that he is anti-Catholic and had no clue what he was talking about. He has not replied, though he has posted on this thread since then so he must have seen my post. He therefore leaves no alternative but to assume that my original supposition is true.
 
Hi all!
40.png
Formosus:
The Jews most likely fought on the side of the muslims like they did when the Persian empire attacked the Byzantine controlled Jerusalem in the early 600s. The Jews betrayed the Eastern Catholic government of Jerusalem and aided the persians in their conquering of the city. I can only imagine that during the Crusades the jewish population fought as soldiers for the Muslims , and also the first crusaders were condemned by the Pope for their actions after taking the city of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Yes, many Jews from Babylonia (and the Holy Land) fought with the Sassanid Persians (who had their own reasons for hating orthodox Christians; they were tolerant of Nestorians, Jacobites, etc. and other eastern Christian sects) when they overran the Holy Land in 614 CE & many Jews did participate in the ensuing massacre of Christians.

There can never be an excuse for those Christians murdered in Jerusalem but it’s not hard to see why the Jews and Sassanid Persians killed so many of them.

I cite an article from The Jerusalem Post this past May:
Local Jews together with their co-religionists in Babylonia allied with the Zoroastrian invaders to defeat the Christian rulers. Seeking revenge for generations of persecution, the Jews destroyed hundreds of churches and monasteries.

James Parkes described the ensuing slaughter in his book, A History of Palestine from 135 AD to Modern Times: "In 614 they took Jerusalem after a siege lasting only 20 days. There is no doubt that the Persians received substantial help from the Jews of Galilee. One chronicler mentions a figure of 20,000 Jewish soldiers, another 26,000. While the actual figures are as unreliable as all ancient figures, there is no reason to question the fact that the Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable.

“Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre. It would not be surprising if the accusation were true, even though the fantastic stories told of Jewish revenge by Christian chroniclers are certainly exaggerated.”
Click to expand...
Link: jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1139395521705&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

As per the underlined phrase, the three centuries (roughly) prior to the Persian conquest in 614 had been a period of unrelenting persecution of the Jews of the eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (see fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jews-romanlaw.html, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_code#Servitus_Judaeorum, fordham.edu/halsall/source/novel146.html,http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html & jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/syriabloodlibel.html).

But I’m curious as to what evidence you can cite that Jews actually fought in the various Muslim armies against the Crusaders. I have not heard this before.

Be well!

ssv 👋
 
I, for one, would vote for at least a one year moratorium on invoking the Crusades to bash Christians. It’s a tiresome, lame one-trick pony.

“Islamists killed 3000 innocents on 911”
-“Yes, but the Crusades…”

“The Church deplores killing the innocent in abortions.”
-“Yeah, but the Crusades…”

“Islamists killed thousands in Sudan and Timor”
-“yes, but you must understand, the Crusades…”

“The Catholic Church has been a civilizing force in history”
-“No, the Crusades prove…”

“The Islamic world hates the West”
-“Justified by the Crusades…”

“The Pope prays for peace.”
-“But the Crusades put the lie to that…”

“Lightning hit my computer and burned up my modem.”
-“Because of the Crusades…”

Truth is, it was viewed by many or most at the time as defensive. Ultimately, it became just one more feudal arrangement. Christian feudal rulers were often allied with Muslim feudal rulers. The Crusaders might have been able to help save the Islamic world from the Mongols, who actually destroyed Arab Islamic civilization’s “golden age”, had they been strong enough. Some Crusader leaders proposed alliance with the Muslims to do just that. But the Mamluks drove the Crusaders out before that could happen, even though the Mongol threat was there at the time. Later, when Timur came along, the Middle East was devastated so completely, it never recovered. For the devastation of their lands and structures, Islam can thank the Mongols, Timur and the Ottomans, not the Crusaders.

But as to the military generally, I think we all need to think about the fact that Jesus did not tell the Roman centurion who sought help for his daughter, not to be a soldier anymore. The Roman army was a pretty tough bunch at the time. Jesus knew everything the centurion ever did. Yet, He did not tell him his profession was evil, though that was His chance to do it. No, Jesus said He had not found greater faith than the centurion’s in all Israel. If Jesus was like modern pacifists, He would never have said something like that.

It’s one thing for me to turn the other cheek when I am the only victim. I have a right, perhaps a duty, to do that. I have no right whatever to turn the cheek of some innocent person to the violence of the evil. I have a positive duty to at least attempt to protect that innocent person.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I, for one, would vote for at least a one year moratorium on invoking the Crusades to bash Christians. It’s a tiresome, lame one-trick pony.

“Islamists killed 3000 innocents on 911”
-“Yes, but the Crusades…”

“The Church deplores killing the innocent in abortions.”
-“Yeah, but the Crusades…”

“Islamists killed thousands in Sudan and Timor”
-“yes, but you must understand, the Crusades…”

“The Catholic Church has been a civilizing force in history”
-“No, the Crusades prove…”

“The Islamic world hates the West”
-“Justified by the Crusades…”

“The Pope prays for peace.”
-“But the Crusades put the lie to that…”

“Lightning hit my computer and burned up my modem.”
-“Because of the Crusades…”

Truth is, it was viewed by many or most at the time as defensive. Ultimately, it became just one more feudal arrangement. Christian feudal rulers were often allied with Muslim feudal rulers. The Crusaders might have been able to help save the Islamic world from the Mongols, who actually destroyed Arab Islamic civilization’s “golden age”, had they been strong enough. Some Crusader leaders proposed alliance with the Muslims to do just that. But the Mamluks drove the Crusaders out before that could happen, even though the Mongol threat was there at the time. Later, when Timur came along, the Middle East was devastated so completely, it never recovered. For the devastation of their lands and structures, Islam can thank the Mongols, Timur and the Ottomans, not the Crusaders.

But as to the military generally, I think we all need to think about the fact that Jesus did not tell the Roman centurion who sought help for his daughter, not to be a soldier anymore. The Roman army was a pretty tough bunch at the time. Jesus knew everything the centurion ever did. Yet, He did not tell him his profession was evil, though that was His chance to do it. No, Jesus said He had not found greater faith than the centurion’s in all Israel. If Jesus was like modern pacifists, He would never have said something like that.

It’s one thing for me to turn the other cheek when I am the only victim. I have a right, perhaps a duty, to do that. I have no right whatever to turn the cheek of some innocent person to the violence of the evil. I have a positive duty to at least attempt to protect that innocent person.
Click to expand...
Well written, however, it is all of the wishful thoughts of a carnal mind. No Scriptural truth whatsoever…
 
All of it the wishful thinking of a carnal mind? Now there’s a statement so full of overweening, hate-filled, self-indulgent pride that Lucifer himself could have made it. You evidently don’t know a lot about history, but you know nothing whatever about my mind.
 
M_Oliver said:
Have you ever read the pathetic excuses put forth by catholics to make their bloody history go away? The crusades were WAR, period. A true Christian never supports war.

**They admit:

“For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars.”**

Oh, so because it was a defensive war it was ok? I guess Jesus was just kidding around…

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

**They say:

“They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.”**

Sounds just like Peter’s logic in defending Christ, doesn’t it? Of course he was wrong, Christ said so.

**They say:

"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed.

By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.

In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."**

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

A pope wouldn’t entertain WAR would he?

"Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095."

In other words he called them to WAR! I guess Christ was just kidding…

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

How did the church who says it is the only church of salvation respond?

"The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it?"

Why DID they do it??? Because they were not and are not True Christian’s!

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHH. Forgive me. We can murder when it is an act of love. Surely Christ must have been speaking “metaphorically”. Isn’t that the catholic answer to almost every sin they commit that is prohibited by Scripture.

I remind you Christ said:

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

My intention was to go through this entire joke of an article but I must admit it is to troubling to me when I read it. Catholism was out of control from it’s beginning as it is today. They have mastered the art of BS, to put it mildly, when it comes to their MANY unscriptural actions throughout history.

Here is the link if you want to read the rest of this lame attempt to justify war (murder) in the name of catholicism:

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

May Chist our Lord speed His return and have mercy on those who are liars inside but bless you with their lips.
Click to expand...
Jesus wasn’t wrong. But he didn’t mean we should lay down and die or to lay down and let his word die. Yes that’s right…All Christians have reaped the benifits of the crusades. Because if they didn’t make a stand Jesus word would have been lost. We (me and you and the rest of christianity) have much to thank them for. So even if they were wrong they paid a even greater price for OUR religous freedom not only did many lose their lives but also their souls. So if you feel they were wrong next time you pray to Jesus in public or come on here to sprout your own revelations say a little pray for those who paid the ultimate price for YOU. I suppose those who died fighting the nazis were also wrong? So my friend keep raging against the church, the church that gave you your freedom to talk about that diatribe insecure rubbish you have mistakenly labeled christianity.
 
pro_universal’s talking points remind me of the old joke abou the man trapped on his roof in a flood. Perhaps not the nicest joke to tell in these times but I’m from Louisiana and I think it illustrates a key point on faith and God’s plan.

A man was trapped on his roof in a flood. A rescuer in a boat came up to him and told him to jump in.

“No, the Lord will save me.”

So the boat went off.

Hours later, the water rising higher, another boat pulled up to the man’s roof.

“Get in! You’re going to DROWN!” said the rescuer.

No, I have faith that God will protect me." said the man

Later the rescuer came back in a helicopter as the water was rising and churning too rapidly.

“This is your last chance! YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!” said the rescuer.

“No I AM NOT!” God will save me!" said the confident man.

Well, hours later, the water rose again and the man was washed away and drowned. As walked up to see God he asks him…

“God, I thought you were going to save me! I had faith in you!”

Exasperated, God replies, “What do you mean? I sent two boats and a helicopter!”

Moral here…We have no idea what means God uses to carry out his plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top