Christian Crusades

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Gear I think your weak ideas of Christ “degrades Christianity”

What, you think that the moral teaching of Christ was pretty much in agreement with the ethics of Hitler ? I beg to differ.​

A Christianity that is compatible with murder, lies, treachery, the massacring of Jews, & the sacking of cities is wholly worthy of Nazism; it even sounds like it. But it has nothing to do with Christ. If people want to claim that Christ would have approved of massacre & deceit & the rejection of His own moral teaching (not to mention the slaughter of His own People), & want to call that Christianity, I don’t.

Now that is a degradation of Christianity

 

[Sword_Brethren]

What, you think that the moral teaching of Christ was pretty much in agreement with the ethics of Hitler ?(​

So you think Pope Urban II the Great, Pope Innocent III, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pope Nicholas IV etc. ect. were like Hitler? It is amazing that you know better than they do?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Pope Urban II did not support the murder of Jews but he did call for the first Holy Crusade. During the Fourth Crusade Pope Innnocent III did not support the sack of Constantinople.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Gottel of Geer

So you think St. Louis VIII was like Hitler, too? St. Louis was a great Crusader and he is in heaven with Christ, now. You and I are not in heaven. I am sure he was a better Christian than you will ever be. I suggest you study the life of St. Louis VIII and his holy Crusades, the 7th and 8th.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I ment St. Louis IX.

 

[Axion]

LOL.​

• 1. The First Crusade was marked by repeated massacres of Rhineland Jews while those involved were on the way to the Holy Land, which even the bishops were not able to stop.

WRONG. The killers of the Rhineland jews were not the crusaders of the first Crusade but a completely gang of ruffians who used the crusade idea as an excuse to attack Jews to whom they owed money. They were condemned at the time.

• 1. The Fourth Crusade was marked by the sacking of Constantinople & Zara - both of which were Christian cities.

Again a twisting of History. The people who sacked these cirties did so agaionst the command of the Church, got involved in local politics, and were immediately excommunicated.

1. When the Third Crusade succeeded in taking Jerusalem, about 2700 Muslims wered slaughtered - though they had been promised their lives if the city surrendered

Never happened.

You are probably thinking of the 1st Crusade. There was a massacre of defenders, but this was something that happened at those times if a city refused to surrender and was taken by storm at great cost of life to the attackers. It was done by both sides. A city was given the chance to make terms. If it did not, then the troops who broke in often sacked the city.Far greater was the massacre of Christians by Muslims in cities like Sebasteas and Antioch. But these are rarely reported

Which is more Christ-like: to lay down the lives of those who have been promised they would be spared - or to lay down one’s own life for one’s enemies ?

On that basis you would of course say we should have laid down our arms before Hitler.

 

[SereneOne]

This was put to me today and I didn’t know what to say apart from errr and umm it’d be great if I could make a comeback but I’m gonna need you guys to help

Would Jesus disapprove of the medieval crusades launched by the Christians against Islam? Was this in the spirit of Christianity?

First off, the Muslims attacked Christianity first (Mohammed’s first conquests of Christian communities were in mid-7th century-Gregorian Calendar), well before the first Christian Crusade was declared. Second, the first Crusade by the Faithful, including religious, pilgrims, and children, resulted in their dying in huge numbers from trying to across Europa without logistical support. Third, the “successful” crusades were driven more by European nobles than by practicing Christians (such as the monks living in monasteries); it was a land-grab and the clergy’s part was to motivate the masses for the undertaking. Fourth, the Pope-inspired crusades were not Christian-led crusades, but Pope-inspired crusades; Popes at that time were placed in office by the nobility and thereby it was a land-grab by the nobility. Don’t get the Church leadership of the time confused with the Christian Faithful. Fifth (and I could go on and on with these instances), but once people of little faith (whether calling themselves “Christians” or “Muslims” or whatever) start killing each other, the only remedy from greater and greater atrocities by each side is exhaustion from seeing those you love maimed or killed (e.g. the appalling losses during the U.S. Civil War, WWI, and the recent Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, etc.). In concluding, those that question the violence are beginning to understand Christianity and what it promises. However, if all who call themselves Christians never take a stand against aggression, I doubt they live to see Christ’s Kingdom come to Earth since there are plenty non-Christians out there who would never grow tired of slaughtering those they consider weak or “infidels” (a good example of this would be the Nazi’s “final solution” against a largely passive Jewish population in WWII). As Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Why should we expect things to have changed much after only 1974 years? Has the Human species actually changed much during that time?

Merry Christmas.

May the Peace of Christ and the Love of our Holy Father be with each of you always.