Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

[AquinaSavio]

Ella:

I think M Oliver is a troll.

No offense Ella, but you could have said that in a kinder manner.

 

[john_ennis]

Did you mean he was “trolling”? That’s what I thought you meant. As in, just doing a drive-by.

 

[Ella]

AquinaSavio:

No offense Ella, but you could have said that in a kinder manner.

Troll: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

“In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting).” **
**

 

[Contarini]

M. Oliver,

Apparently you are a thorough-going Christian pacifist. I respect this position, though I’m not entirely convinced of its truth. However, I’m puzzled as to why you would go after the Crusades in particular. Why not focus on more immediate cases where Christians support war–the war in Iraq being the most obvious example? And given that you appear to be an evangelical Protestant, why not tackle the majority of evangelical Protestants who are far more ready to support military action than the current leadership of the Catholic Church? While the modern Catholic Church is not pacifist, it’s a lot closer to pacifism than most American evangelicals are.

So let’s clear up our own back yard before we go worrying about the misdeeds of our spiritual ancestors 1000 years ago!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[AquinaSavio]

Ella:

Troll: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

“In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting).” **
**

Sorry, my mistake. I’ve never heard that term before. :whacky:

 

[JSmitty2005]

Contarini:

Apparently you are a thorough-going Christian pacifist. I respect this position

To be quite honest, I don’t respect such a position at all. God’s people have never been pacifists. In the O.T. most of the main figures were military geniuses. Israel was basically a tribe of warriors. Similarly, Catholics have always been quite militant. That’s just the way it was meant to be.

 

[Kirane]

Milliardo:

Yes, we should love our enemies. In the sane vein then, Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, right? But that begs the question: are we to simply let people trample over us? What if, for instance, a religion makes war against the Church, what are we to do then? Simply roll over and give in? Or must we defend our Faith?

Was this the case for the first Crusade or for the fourth Crusade? In the first Crusade a German army began a series of pogroms against the elder brothers of our faith, the Jews, and thousands of our elder brothers were massacred, before leaving for Jerusalem. Then when the crusaders enetered Jerusalem, more Jews were massacred. In the fourth Crusade, Constantimople was sacked and the Crusaders ruthlessly and savagely destroyed, defiled and stole everything that they could from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Kirane:

our faith

Don’t even imply that you’re Catholic, Kirane. Your info says that your religion is “other” and it is quite evident in your posts that you are decidedly anti-Catholic.

 

[JSmitty2005]

“Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place.’”

He didn’t say to get rid of it, He just said to put it back in Peter’s scabbard. :ehh: He said this because Peter’s attack was an attempt to hinder the will of God, even though Peter did not realize it. Jesus had just been through His agony in the garden and was ready to get on with His Passion. He didn’t need Peter getting in the way of it. This verse in no way implies pacifism.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Kirane:

Was this the case for the first Crusade or for the fourth Crusade? In the first Crusade a German army began a series of pogroms against the elder brothers of our faith, the Jews, and thousands of our elder brothers were massacred, before leaving for Jerusalem. Then when the crusaders enetered Jerusalem, more Jews were massacred. In the fourth Crusade, Constantimople was sacked and the Crusaders ruthlessly and savagely destroyed, defiled and stole everything that they could from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Sure. Wrong was done in the Crusades. But none of these armies in the crusades you cite were headed by a Pope or even a bishop. They were all under various kings, dukes and barons. The fighting monastic orders mostly operated in the Holy Land itself and were only a small fraction of the western fighting forces.

The Pope didn’t urge the German army to pogrom Jews. Those nobleman thought that up on their own… most likely to fill their coffers with confiscated monies.

So… which countries would you have apologize for these 1,000 year old wrongs? Or are those countries even countries now? Germany wasn’t really Germany then… was it? Me… I blame the people who did the crimes. By the by, Muhammed and his followers have always done evil to the Jews on a large scale, starting with the Prophet wiping them out in Medina.

Were the Popes wrong to call the Crusades? Well, considering that Islam had taken over half of Christiandom before a counter-attack was launched, and considering that jihadists impaled, crucified and slaughtered infidels of any stripe with impunity after conquering, I think they should have acted a LOT earlier.

If the Good Samaritan came across the unfortunate traveler WHILE he was being savagely beaten and robbed… would we call him “good” if the Samaritan did nothing to save him? Or would we call him the Cowardly Samaritan?

Jihad begot the Crusades. As they will again if it continues.

Here are some articles on the history of the jihads and the crusades in response.

Jihad begot the Crusades

The Battle Over the Crusades

 

[AquinaSavio]

Promotor Fidei:

Sure. Wrong was done in the Crusades. But none of these armies in the crusades you cite were headed by a Pope or even a bishop. They were all under various kings, dukes and barons. The fighting monastic orders mostly operated in the Holy Land itself and were only a small fraction of the western fighting forces.

The Pope didn’t urge the German army to pogrom Jews. Those nobleman thought that up on their own… most likely to fill their coffers with confiscated monies.

So… which countries would you have apologize for these 1,000 year old wrongs? Or are those countries even countries now? Germany wasn’t really Germany then… was it? Me… I blame the people who did the crimes. By the by, Muhammed and his followers have always done evil to the Jews on a large scale, starting with the Prophet wiping them out in Medina.

Were the Popes wrong to call the Crusades? Well, considering that Islam had taken over half of Christiandom before a counter-attack was launched, and considering that jihadists impaled, crucified and slaughtered infidels of any stripe with impunity after conquering, I think they should have acted a LOT earlier.

If the Good Samaritan came across the unfortunate traveler WHILE he was being savagely beaten and robbed… would we call him “good” if the Samaritan did nothing to save him? Or would we call him the Cowardly Samaritan?

Jihad begot the Crusades. As they will again if it continues.

Here are some articles on the history of the jihads and the crusades in response.

Jihad begot the Crusades

The Battle Over the Crusades

Very well said!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Kirane:

Constantimople was sacked and the Crusaders ruthlessly and savagely destroyed, defiled and stole everything that they could from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

They had been excommunicated before they even did that. At least that’s what I got out of the article.

 

[Batjacboy]

JSmitty2005:

They had been excommunicated before they even did that. At least that’s what I got out of the article.

That’s true: The Pope excommunicated the Fourth Crusade long before they sacked Constantinople.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Our op could help his case immensly if he argued against the Crusades using the Church’s own doctrine of just war. As it is all he is doing is giving an alternative interpretation of Scripture. So what else is new? I can’t swing a dead cat without hitting 6.023x10 to the 23rd power number of biblical interpretations–all if them claiming to be more definitive than the next.

 

[whatevergirl]

You will always meet people who justify war, death, inhumane treatment, bla bla bla. Catholics are people, and they make mistakes. There are “good” and “bad” Catholics…and there is good and bad in every faith. I don’t judge an entire faith/religious group based on the actions of a few…You shouldn’t either.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

whatevergirl:

You will always meet people who justify war, death, inhumane treatment, bla bla bla. Catholics are people, and they make mistakes. There are “good” and “bad” Catholics…and there is good and bad in every faith. I don’t judge an entire faith/religious group based on the actions of a few…You shouldn’t either.

That is true, but his contention is that the Crusades as a whole were unjustifiable, but has not made his case other than to spam one tiny snippet of Scripture and just say Catholic apologetics are lame as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

P.S. Here is a link to a non-Catholic site that will demonstrate that Matt 26:52 as an absolute prohibition against war is a stretch, and in all fairness that passages that seem to justify war (note that the op didn’t even include these) are a stretch as well.

tektonics.org/lp/noswords.html

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Scott Waddell:

That is true, but his contention is that the Crusades as a whole were unjustifiable, but has not made his case other than to spam one tiny snippet of Scripture and just say Catholic apologetics are lame as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

P.S. Here is a link to a non-Catholic site that will argue that Matt 26:52 as an absolute prohibition against war is a stretch, and in all fairness that passages that seem to justify war (note that the op didn’t even include these) are a stretch as well.

tektonics.org/lp/noswords.html

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think the M. Oliver misses a huge point. He sights an example of people murdering your family and that being part of God’s plan. Well as I understand it, we are all people with free wills and God allows us to live out the consequences of our willful decisions. Hence we still have to die today because of sin. There is stavation in the world even though we have enough food for everyone. Christians are martyred every day for their faith. 1000’s of innocent babies are murdered in their mother’s wombs everyday by the culture of death. These are all choices that men have made and there are concequences for them. I do not think this is part of God’s plan or his will that is happening.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Scott Waddell:

That is true, but his contention is that the Crusades as a whole were unjustifiable, but has not made his case other than to spam one tiny snippet of Scripture and just say Catholic apologetics are lame as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

P.S. Here is a link to a non-Catholic site that will argue that Matt 26:52 as an absolute prohibition against war cannot be maintained, and in all fairness that passages that seem to justify war (note that the op didn’t even include these) are a stretch as well.

tektonics.org/lp/noswords.html

 

[M_Oliver]

Nebuchadnezzar:

I think the M. Oliver misses a huge point. He sights an example of people murdering your family and that being part of God’s plan. Well as I understand it, we are all people with free wills and God allows us to live out the consequences of our willful decisions. Hence we still have to die today because of sin. There is stavation in the world even though we have enough food for everyone. Christians are martyred every day for their faith. 1000’s of innocent babies are murdered in their mother’s wombs everyday by the culture of death. These are all choices that men have made and there are concequences for them. I do not think this is part of God’s plan or his will that is happening.

These are very tough subjects no doubt Nebuchadnezzar. I am not convinced of the “free will” doctrine. I was once but I have my doubts now as I advance. Forgive me for not having the chapters and verses handy but I am pretty sure at minimum King David and Prophet Jeremiah make it very clear God knows His people before they are even born. When I say His people I mean all of His creation.

I know Paul speaks of it in Ephesians. See Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11. He speaks of being predestinated. God knows us before we are born. If He knows us before we are born is it a heresy to think He knows what we will do in our life once we are born? I say no.