Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

[murtad]

pro_universal:

This is directly opposed to the European and Catholic views of just warfare. We do not kill people for their opinions or their votes, but only for directly participating in battle. At least, that’s the law we are supposed to follow.

How can you speak for Europeans when you yourself said you are American? Many Europeans are Orthodox Jews and they hold Palestinians are collectively guilty for the murder of Lord Jesus as St. Paul, an Orthodox Jew himself calls the murderers of Lord Jesus Ishmaelites.

How can you speak for all Catholics when Edomites like you represent just a tiny minority of the Church?

Who are you to call your own personal views the European and Catholic views?

We do not have to follow your man-made law, Pro_Universal. You are not Caesar. That is why Christian America and our anti-terrorism allies (even Buddhist Thailand and Taoist Singapore) invaded Afganistan and Iraq, for God told us to bring freedom to these oppressed people. What freedom? Freedom from the slavery of Arabism.

pro_universal:

You can claim that the death of thousands of children in Germany is the fault of the nazis, but the fact remains that we chose to firebomb civilian targets know who was there and what we were doing. I’m of the view that if you choose to do something, the consequences are your responsibility.

Your views are nothing for you are an Edomite. When the allied forces struck Nazi Germany and many civilians even German babies, children and women died, they were right in doing so for Nazis were Ishmaelites (ie. they wanted to enslave Europeans under the yoke of German language).

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

I realize that, and I’m presenting our case for limiting warfare to combatants only. This is the dominant view in international law, and it’s probably one of the reasons Israel’s policies on just warfare are not shared by the International Community.

You may call it “dominant view in international law” but if this is so, how come nobody could try those governments (ie. Singapore, Thailand, India, Australia, America, Spain and British) known as commonwealth of Israel who waged war in Afganistan, Iraq and Palestine? Most of us international legal experts hold that warfare cannot be limited to combatants only since Palestine society itself holds the mujahideen as holy warriors. So, Palestine population (which is Muslim-majority) must be blamed.

Also, when you use the words “not shared by the International Community” this is not true as vast majority of the humans hold the wars in Afganistan and Iraq to be just wars. Otherwise, how come the “International Community” is powerless to do charge the offenders?

Remember, democracy is majority rule and vast majority voted for pro-war Bush rejecting anti-war Kerry. The same in Australia, when majority voted for pro-war Howard and anti-war Latham. In Singapore, the governing PAP that has ruled for 40 years returned back to power unopposed - yes, Singaporeans overhelming backed the pro-war stance of their government.

pro_universal:

It’s very easy for people to name a policy (carpet bombing, for example), but no one ever wants to own the individual relationships the policy creates because they are indefensible. Hence, talk at the level of “strategy” is simply a method of obscuring what total war is really about: one individual shooting/burning/bombing little kids and old ladies.

All people of Afganistan, Iraq and Palestine are collectively guilty for the sins of their forefather, Muhammad. This is why God punished them with the U.S.-led invasion that killed more than 3 million Islamic terrorists – mainly babies, children and women as punishment for 9/11 attacks on U.S.A.

Remember, Palestinians elected a terrorist political party Hamas and so this gives Israel the right to punish them. It does not matter if some self-proclaimed “scholars” of international law claim it is illegal, the majority of the International Community say it is not illegal.

 

[pira114]

Contarini:

I said “rail,” not “rally.”

The archangel Michael didn’t rail against Satan. Why should we rail against Islam?

If they are our enemies, then we are called to love them. I am unwilling to say that they are God’s enemies. I’m a lot more concerned with not becoming God’s enemy myself.

I believe that the crusades were in principle justified, but they were carried out very badly. I’m not sure that they were necessary to Christian survival. How did they contribute to Christian survival, in your view?

I think this is simplistic at best and radically false at worst.

Edwin

I support any Christian who does not want to use violent force against an enemy. But they are still our enemy. Find another way to combat them. Apologetics is a good way, but it will not suffice on it’s own. Just like a war would not suffice on it’s own.

The Crusades were in fact justified, like you said. And, I agree that they were carried out very badly. If they were carried out well, then the muslims would either have ceased to exist (which I doubt) or they would not be as numerous and violent as they are today.

Make no mistake about it. The Crusades were entirely about Christian survival. The muslims fought to gain control of all Christian occupied territory. Once that was done, they would have set about forcing conversion by enslaving or killing those who refused. Their own teaching says that. So I don’t know how anyone could ever think that the Crusades were not about Christian survival. I don’t know where people get the idea that the Crusades were bad and it was just about the Catholic Church wanting to conquer non-Catholics. But I can guess where. Mostly from non-Catholic Christians ironicaly. They need to find an excuse to hate Catholics. The other major source is of course the muslims. Who I can at least respect for being consistant in being our enemies. Of course they will denounce the Crusades.

And yes, it is simple. If the muslims had been destroyed as a major people back then, it stands to reason that they would probably not have the power to carry out attacks on Christians on the same level they do today.

 

[murtad]

JSmitty2005:

pro_universal, why do you feel the need to defend infidels and their atrocities?

Pro_Universal is not of Jacob (Christian) but of Esav (a person who hates his birthright). Both Israel and Edom come from the same parents, Isaac and Rebekah.

Isaac symbolises our Lord Jesus. Just as Isaac was Abraham’s only begotten son, Lord Jesus was the only begotten son of God. Rebekah symbolises the Church. The Church bore two children, one who is a loyal Christian who observes its teachings and another is a traitor to the Lord. You have heard God says, “I love Jacob but I hate Esav”.

We must be aware in the Church, there are both observant Christians and unobservant Christians.

If you require more information, I encourage you to read what St Augustine of Hippo says on this.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

The archangel Michael didn’t rail against Satan. Why should we rail against Islam?

No, he just threw him out of Heaven along with the angels that followed his errors.

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

Second, the cause for making war doesn’t mean that every single act in prosecuting the war is moral. Think of it this way: The police have moral justification to chase criminals. Does that give them moral authority to torture the criminals’ relatives in order to find out where those criminals may be hiding?

The police have moral authority to torture criminals’ relatives (as long as they are Ishmaelites) in to find out where those criminals may be hiding. That is why Spanish Iniquisions remain just war in the same way as the Crusades and the current U.S.-led anti-terrorism war in both Afganistan and Iraq.

pro_universal:

Looking at what other people do won’t tell you if your own conduct is moral. That’s why the above is not relevant to this discussion about how we should conduct warfare.

We are not looking at what others do. Christians are allowed just war especially to fight Ishmaelites (who murdered our Lord Jesus) and Edomites (who hate their inheritance). That is why I am on this forum: my duty is to defend the Catholic Church and its teachings. That is too a just war.

pro_universal:

If anything, as a Priest, you should be witnessing the Catholic doctrine of avoiding civilian casualties to stillsmallvoice, who has clearly come to us with an impaired vision of the truth.

I thought you were against prosetylising Muslims and other non-Christians alike? You were calling it an attack on Islam or something like that. I can see your hypocrisy, Pro_Universal In your worldview, prosetylising Jews is allowed but not Muslims since deep inside you, you are a Islamist. That is why we call you an Edomite (ie. a person who is a member of the Church but hates his birthright).

 

[murtad]

Contarini:

Every continent and faith does have its criminals–but right now Muslims are by far the worst offenders. That’s not a reason to scapegoat all Muslims. But it’s false to claim that all religions are equally prone to violence right now. Christians have been guilty of plenty in the past, and still sometimes are, but not on the same scale.

I agree with you that its wrong to claim all religions are equally prone to violence right now. AFAIK, today there exists no Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucians, Jews, and Christians who have advocated violence (such as murdering apostates from their religion or advocating suicide bombing).

The Bible tells us only Ishmael [Muslims] will be most hostile to Esav and Jacob. Who is Esav and Jacob? Let St. Augustin of Hippo be your teacher. Isaac and Rebekah symbolise freedom, he, Esav refers to those who are born free, yet try to destroy freedom, while he, Jacob refers to those who are born free and try to maintain freedom.

There is a struggle between three forces, Ishmael, Esav and Jacob.

 

[Contarini]

pira114:

And, I agree that they were carried out very badly. If they were carried out well, then the muslims would either have ceased to exist (which I doubt) or they would not be as numerous and violent as they are today.

If they had been carried out well they would have regained Anatolia for the Byzantine Empire, and they would have imposed a genuinely Christian discipline on the “holy warriors,” preventing them from committing atrocities, instead of allowing them to think that massacring women was OK as long as they didn’t rape them.

Make no mistake about it. The Crusades were entirely about Christian survival.

Bunk. Name one way in which the Crusades actually promoted Christian survival. Any long-term effect the Crusades in the Holy Land had on Christian survival was, as far as I can tell, negative. Arguably they didn’t have any effect either way. But I can’t see how they had a positive effect. (The Reconquista and the later wars against the Ottomans are both in a different category.)

The muslims fought to gain control of all Christian occupied territory.

Not just Christian.

Once that was done, they would have set about forcing conversion by enslaving or killing those who refused.

How come they didn’t do this in the territory they actually conquered? How come there are still several million Christians in Egypt after 1500 years of Muslim rule? That fact alone gives the lie to your claims.

Their own teaching says that.

No, it doesn’t.

So I don’t know how anyone could ever think that the Crusades were not about Christian survival.

Because the Crusades weakened rather than helping the Byzantine Empire, and ultimately worsened the lot of Middle Eastern Christians living under Muslim rule. Western Europe wasn’t threatened at the time. So if the Crusades were about Christian survival, they should have strengthened the position of Eastern Christians. They clearly didn’t.

I don’t know where people get the idea that the Crusades were bad and it was just about the Catholic Church wanting to conquer non-Catholics.

The Crusades constituted an acceptance by Christians of the Islamic conception of holy war. That’s how I see it. I think this was a horrible mistake, although war to roll back Islamic aggression was justified.

And yes, it is simple. If the muslims had been destroyed as a major people back then, it stands to reason that they would probably not have the power to carry out attacks on Christians on the same level they do today.

So you justify exactly the kind of violence of which you accuse the Muslims? You think Muslims are evil because they enslave or kill Christians, but you think doing this to Muslims would have been a good thing? Can’t you see how warped this is?

Edwin

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

Cestusdei, why dont’ you tell us what is an acceptable method for “fighting back”?

Do you want to rescind your previous comments about nuclear weapons, or do you believe the use of nuclear weapons is justified in teh same way that the crusades were justified?

Islam has been a threat to the West/Christian World for over 1,000 years. Soviet Communism was a threat for only a single lifetime and Nazism less than that.

Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political and military force. When I see news reports showing Muslims around the world whipped-up in frenzy, I fear that Islam is more united than we. Are we as united around either the Cross or the Flag?

We - the entire Western world - better become united. Because after a period of dormancy, Islam is again on the move. We and Islam are on a collision course.

I don’t believe that we yet need to pre-emptively drop “the bomb”, but we will have to be prepared for the possibility of having to kill Muslims in great numbers.

Either that or just submit to Islam. Kind of like the old adage, “better Red than dead.”

 

[Contarini]

Murtad,

I’m not responding to any of your posts because they are so evil that I see no common ground on which to have a discussion. I have yet to see a single Muslim on this forum who has maintained views one half as vicious as yours. May God soften your heart and bring you to repentance.

Edwin

 

[SPH1]

contarini:

Bunk. Name one way in which the Crusades actually promoted Christian survival. Any long-term effect the Crusades in the Holy Land had on Christian survival was, as far as I can tell, negative. Arguably they didn’t have any effect either way. But I can’t see how they had a positive effect.

The positive effect of the Crusades isn’t applicable just to the Holy Land. In my view, the Crusades weakened Islam sufficiently to slow-down further Islamic incursion and conquest into Europe.

I think the Crusades were rather remarkable, considering how far some of the Christian armies had to travel during those times.

 

[SPH1]

pro_universal:

Can you quote me on justifying bombing kids at pizza joints in Israel???

We are far, far apart. I condemn all killing of innocents, and that includes muslim innocents.

Then everyone agrees: Killing the Muslim guilty is okay if and when it comes to it?

There is no gray area here for you hide in. If you cannot condemn calls to kill millions of people, you are off the Catholic radar screen.

Not if those are the “guilty”.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

The Crusades constituted an acceptance by Christians of the Islamic conception of holy war. That’s how I see it. I think this was a horrible mistake, although war to roll back Islamic aggression was justified.

War is never “holy” (unless of course we are referring to the battle of Armageddon), but war can be just. Things that happen in wars may not be justified, but that doesn’t mean the entire conflict itself wasn’t just.

 

[pro_universal]

SPH1,

Either that or just submit to Islam. Kind of like the old adage, “better Red than dead.”

This notion that muslims are about to conquer the US would be funny if it weren’t driving a push for “pre-emptive strikes” within so many minds.

Can you please explain to me how a unified islam (one that doesn’t exist, right now) poses a real threat to Europe and America? What muslim army is there capable of invading either? Terror attacks are evil, but do not even come close to the level of wiping out our civilization. Only we can do that by responding to terrorism with barbarism.

The positive effect of the Crusades isn’t applicable just to the Holy Land. In my view, the Crusades weakened Islam sufficiently to slow-down further Islamic incursion and conquest into Europe.

Then your view would be wrong.

Then everyone agrees: Killing the Muslim guilty is okay if and when it comes to it?

Guilt is individual, not collective. You need to abandon the idea that because Osama bin Laden says “I’m muslim”, some little girl in Iraq who also says “I’m muslim” is guilty for his crimes.

 

[pira114]

No one ever said that the muslims were about to conquer America. I don’t think the whole lot of them would be smart enough to pull it off. The reason for any pre-emptive strikes is to prevent future violence, not just the kind of violence that would be perceived as being capable of conquering a nation.

It’s no secret that muslims want to convert everyone. I wouldn’t have a problem with that goal if they tried to do it peacefully, and didn’t advocate killing all pagans and enslaving Christians. That IS what they are supposed to believe.

Edwin,
I see that you are Episcopalean. It’s no surprise then that you have a problem with the Crusades. The Crusades are one of the popular points of contention between Catholics and most other Protestants. I can only ask that you read a secular history book and put the issue to rest. The muslims desired to conquer the whole of Europe and eventually the world. They believe that Allah has given them the task of doing this. During the Crusades was the only time in history that they were almost capable of succeeding. At least in taking over Europe. Had the Crusades not happened, they would have been successful. The Crusades were poorly executed, but one could argue that they were at least successful in preventing the success of the muslims.

If your going to defend the muslims then you ought to just convert to islam now. They view you as nothing more than an infidel Christian and would have you enslaved if they had their way. Don’t take my word for it, I don’t care. Research it yourself. Just because they don’t sound evil, doesn’t mean they are not. And just because someone else takes a stand and refuses to be victimized by these idiots, doesn’t make him evil. If I were you, I’d be careful who you call evil.

The fact that I’d like to see islam disapear, through conversion or war, doesn’t make me evil. I would like to avoid the war, but it is the muslims trying to force the war into existence. So be it. I’m proud to call myself Catholic and a Christian. I’d gladly lay down my life in defense of that. I’d prefer, though, to lay down theirs.

 

[pro_universal]

It’s no secret that muslims want to convert everyone. I wouldn’t have a problem with that goal if they tried to do it peacefully, and didn’t advocate killing all pagans and enslaving Christians. That IS what they are supposed to believe

No it’s not, and traditionally they haven’t done it. Large Christian and Jewish populations persisted for centuries under Muslim rule. Your view of muslim attitudes towards Christians is wrong, and is not based on any historical evidence whatsoever.

I can only ask that you read a secular history book and put the issue to rest. The muslims desired to conquer the whole of Europe and eventually the world.

When I asked you before, you ignored the question, so I’ll ask again: What secular history book would you recommend to support your claims?

At least in taking over Europe. Had the Crusades not happened, they would have been successful. The Crusades were poorly executed, but one could argue that they were at least successful in preventing the success of the muslims.

This is completely false. The Muslims were able to destroy the last Christian empire in the Asia Minor because of the crusades, not in spite of them. And they were stronger and more unified after the end of the Crusades in many respects.

The Mongols stopped them from being a long term threat to Europe, not the Europeans, but most people don’t study history, so they don’t realize that the mongols even fit into the picture.

If your going to defend the muslims then you ought to just convert to islam now. They view you as nothing more than an infidel Christian and would have you enslaved if they had their way. Don’t take my word for it, I don’t care. Research it yourself.

I have researched it myself, and you are wrong. If you have some evidence (the “secular books” that you keep talking about would be nice), I’d sure like to see it.

Okay, here’s the crux of the problem:

You say Islam is evil because:

It’s no secret that muslims want to convert everyone. I wouldn’t have a problem with that goal if they tried to do it peacefully, and didn’t advocate killing all pagans and enslaving Christians.

Then you turn around and say:

The fact that I’d like to see islam disapear, through conversion or war, doesn’t make me evil.

Okay, so if a muslim says “eliminate christianity through conversion or war!”, it’s evil.

But when you say exactly the same thing in reverse, it’s moral?

What kind of twisted logic can possibly justify this sentiment?

I’m reminded of a quip I heard a while back:

“Defending freedom is what we do to them. Terrorism is the same thing, but when they do it to us.”

 

[pira114]

Guilt is individual, not collective. You need to abandon the idea that because Osama bin Laden says “I’m muslim”, some little girl in Iraq who also says “I’m muslim” is guilty for his crimes.

It is not the muslim who is guilty. It is islam itself.

islam itself should be, and someday will be, made to pay. They will be judged. I can only pray that God choses to use me as a tool of his judgement. islam has shed the blood of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, shall by man his blood be shed.

I’ve had enough of this. I’ll not participate in discussions with any damn muslims or their idiotic sympathisers any longer. I’m sure this will get deleted by some weak minded sympathizer, but I don’t care. I’m tired of being told to be nice to evil murderers. To hell with the whole lot of them.

 

[pro_universal]

pira114:

Guilt is individual, not collective. You need to abandon the idea that because Osama bin Laden says “I’m muslim”, some little girl in Iraq who also says “I’m muslim” is guilty for his crimes.

It is not the muslim who is guilty. It is islam itself.

islam itself should be, and someday will be, made to pay. They will be judged. I can only pray that God choses to use me as a tool of his judgement. islam has shed the blood of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, shall by man his blood be shed.

I’ve had enough of this. I’ll not participate in discussions with any damn muslims or their idiotic sympathisers any longer. I’m sure this will get deleted by some weak minded sympathizer, but I don’t care. I’m tired of being told to be nice to evil murderers. To hell with the whole lot of them.

What a great example of Christian charity and the message of Jesus you have given for the muslims.

I think you are frustrated because you realize that there is no rational defense for your hatred, and so now you’ve turned to the “oh, whatever, I won’t respond, I’ll just say nasty things” level of discussion.

You sir are a greater threat to our Church than the Muslims.

 

[pira114]

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

There ya go.

As for my statement about converting muslims or going to war, it is pretty much the same. It’s just that I’m fed up, and I want to have it out and settle it now and forever. So, yes, you got me there, but I wasn’t trying to hide it (obviously), I just worded it so it looked stupid. My fault.

This is my last post on this forum. I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear that. I just wanted to respond to the last two questions as I felt they deserved an answer.

Goodbye to all those true Christians and Catholics who I have enjoyed so much conversation with.

Moderater: Please cancel my account immediatly.

 

[exoflare]

pira114:

Goodbye to all those true Christians and Catholics who I have enjoyed so much conversation with.

Moderater: Please cancel my account immediatly.

God bless you, pira. May your bravely proclaimed zeal for truth serve as an example to us all… :crying: