• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Christian Crusades, God be with them 1065AD > 2017AD

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I agree with Metis. There are some far out professors but I've never talked or listened to any history professor worth their salt that fit what you're saying.

Tenure is worth more than all the salt in the ocean. It means if they have a bunch of it they can get by with practically anything short of murder. Man! so many pious liberal minded professors out there in Web land that love Christians and the conservative mind set etc ! I should ask for my money back!

; {>
 

Flame

Beware
Tenure is worth more than all the salt in the ocean. It means if they have a bunch of it they can get by with practically anything short of murder. Man! so many pious liberal minded professors out there in Web land that love Christians and the conservative mind set etc ! I should ask for my money back!

; {>

And professors on tenure have to earn it. :rolleyes:
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I may not be an expert on the Crusades however near east history has always held an interest for me. After becoming disillusioned with my atheistic world view I traveled and studied for over ten years eventually stealing a Theology related masters degree, and a few year later I became a Christian. Btw Wikipedia is a good resource, but I wouldn't write a thesis or desertion using information from it as an exclusive source.

Thanks for your reply~

: { >
This seems like a very round-about way to say "I am not as well-versed in the history of the Crusades as I ought to be in order to discuss this". Let's go through what you brought up earlier;

— The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews…forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates.
Forced conversions, plundering of peoples who don't believe the way they did, slaughtering non-believers...

Yeah, sorry, that's not gonna fly here. Muslims and Christians both are equally responsible for being murderous savages to people who did not worship the way they thought they should.

— The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont.
..No. The Catholic Church used the appeal for aid by the Byzantines as a fig-leaf to seize Jerusalem from them. The Western Church had countless opportunities prior to this to intervene and aid their Eastern cousins. They didn't because they were intentionally waiting for the Seljuks to weaker the Byzantines enough that they(the Byzantines) could not fight back when the CC decided to seize the Holy Land. The Byzantines were seeking aid in Anatolia. The Papacy instead invaded the Holy Land. It was naked aggression with a half-hearted attempt to make it seem like they were coming to the rescue of their brothers in the faith.

— The Crusades were a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering “Muslim lands’”. (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)
See the above.

— The Crusades were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a “peaceful”, native Muslim population. The Crusades were NOT for profit, but rather to recover the Holy Land brutally invaded and conquered by Muslims…who conquered for profit and as a notch on their superiority belt.
The Muslims were by no means peaceful. And it was for profit. Specifically to seize the Holy Land and use it as a base to recapture extremely lucrative trade routes. The Middle East was where goods from India and East Asia inevitably passed through before making it to Europe proper. Undoubtedly the rank-and-file of the Crusader armies thought they were on a holy mission. But the people at the top were exploiting the good will and faith of their people to increase their own wealth.

— The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.
The Byzantines withdrew their support because the Crusaders blatantly ignored where the Byzantines actually needed help.

I cannot stress this enough; if the Crusades were what you claim they were, why did they not actually aid the Byzantines? This is no different than what happened in the Baltic with the Teutonic Order. The King of Poland asked for aid, the Teutonic Order comes in and begins seizing land from the weakened Polish kingdom and refuses to turn it back over.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I traveled and studied for over ten years eventually stealing a Theology related masters degree
Out of curiosity, where did you travel to that impressed you one way or the other, and also what did you specialize in with your theology?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Btw, what did your college professors say about the reasons for crusades.
Pretty much always that it involved Islamic military expansion, the capturing of Jerusalem, and the West's/Church's efforts to reclaim it. Even the effects of trade between the West and East when all the trade routes were mostly controlled not just by Muslims in the sense of how Europe was Christian but heavily divided, but rather a unified Caliphate.
Were your liberal minded teachers religious friendly?
Actually, they tend to be both liberal minded (with some Conservative views) and mostly Christian (with several openly stating church attendance). But even the one Marxist professor that I know is very friendly and tolerant of religion. Yes, there is at least one who isn't, but I've encouraged students to put that in their reviews and file complaints (and have done so myself). I haven't experienced it myself, or done any research, but I'm willing to wager the average college is not going to resemble UC Berkely, which sits along the California coast.
 
However, the point of the thread was that if you ask a hundred people about the crusades 75% would not know that their crusade was retaliation for hundreds of years of Muslim aggression and to win back large areas of Christendom seized by war

Why else would they think they needed to 'win back' the Holy Lands if they hadn't been conquered in the first place?

They were elite warriors at least in skill, but had no clue to what Christianity was about

The first lot who went over in The Peasants Crusade were certainly not elite warriors but an incompetent rabble who were easily defeated by the Turks.

The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.

They were turned into Kingdoms under Norman and Frankish nobles though. Europe benefitted a lot from these Crusader states die to increased access to trade routes than had been diminished after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Islamic Empires.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Why else would they think they needed to 'win back' the Holy Lands if they hadn't been conquered in the first place?

I mentioned that because at least I was taught as was most that I see on line and speak to was claimed/suggested by academia that the crusades where little more than an expansionist war party.

The first lot who went over in The Peasants Crusade were certainly not elite warriors but an incompetent rabble who were easily defeated by the Turks.

If you are talking about the the first Crusade it was created because the Pope wanted to assist the Eastern Christians against the Muslims. They won, but true to their questionable morals the crusader leadership did not return the lands won as promised, instead they in 1099 after forming the crusader states set themselves as leaders.

They were turned into Kingdoms under Norman and Frankish nobles though. Europe benefitted a lot from these Crusader states die to increased access to trade routes than had been diminished after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Islamic Empires.

Are you referencing the created the Kingdom of Jerusalem (by crusader leaders), the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, and the County of Tripoli?

Actually many of the crusades were not successful, again the history of the crusaders were not the point of te OT. Thanks for your reply though!

; { >
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Pretty much always that it involved Islamic military expansion, the capturing of Jerusalem, and the West's/Church's efforts to reclaim it. Even the effects of trade between the West and East when all the trade routes were mostly controlled not just by Muslims in the sense of how Europe was Christian but heavily divided, but rather a unified Caliphate.

Actually, they tend to be both liberal minded (with some Conservative views) and mostly Christian (with several openly stating church attendance). But even the one Marxist professor that I know is very friendly and tolerant of religion. Yes, there is at least one who isn't, but I've encouraged students to put that in their reviews and file complaints (and have done so myself). I haven't experienced it myself, or done any research, but I'm willing to wager the average college is not going to resemble UC Berkely, which sits along the California coast.


Cool, not I feel violated lol! I would like to sit in one of their lectures etc. That mix would be what I would consider the ideal. Maybe in another life eh? I will be honest. Those professors the and my hormones gave me a chip on my shoulder that hindered me through out my life to this day. Still have a look at the web, I am sure you are aware of the problem.

; {>
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Out of curiosity, where did you travel to that impressed you one way or the other, and also what did you specialize in with your theology?

I was born a poor black child, no lol that was Steve Martins character. But I was poor. Man I cant tell you how many times Iall we had to eat was pinto beans corn bread! I had enoug of poverty so I learned a skilled trade journeyman Ironworker and by the grace of God went to work with a international company (Fluor Service Group). The company demanded travel, usually a year was the job commitment. I was going stir crazy, didn't like clubs, so I began going to school after work at first for my own reasons then as an undergrad. I took many classes I didn't really need, kind of floundering around but with no goals at first I took just enough required courses and loaded up on electives that I enjoyed. For example cosmology and the arts ie art history graphic design etc but made sure all hours were from accredited schools. I finally earned enough hours for the degrees even if it took me more than ten years! But my job paid very well. After earning the BA, I thought I would attempt a MA with some sort of astronomy/cosmology as a major area of study, but after becoming christian curious I began study of religious subjects. The official title of my degree is Master of Arts in Comparative Religion & Philosophy. I didn't think I would make it through the Philosophy courses, but I did enjoy them. I thought about going for a PhD for about a nano second, then H*** NO!!! lol. I really didn't use the MA degree, I instead became a NP owner assisting the poor in accessing entitlements etc here in Appalachia, where the need is still great.Are you sorry you asked?

; {>
 
Last edited:

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
This seems like a very round-about way to say "I am not as well-versed in the history of the Crusades as I ought to be in order to discuss this". Let's go through what you brought up earlier;

If you say so, lol.

Forced conversions, plundering of peoples who don't believe the way they did, slaughtering non-believers...

Again (for the umphteemth time) I said I did not condone the crusaders atrocities, not at all never ever! What do I have to do to get those of you that do not read the OT etc? As for forced conversions Ummm' maybe I should have been clearer, I was referencing today's forced conversions. In other words yes christian warriors were awful but we dont have those now Islam does.

Yeah, sorry, that's not gonna fly here. Muslims and Christians both are equally responsible for being murderous savages to people who did not worship the way they thought they should.

Yes I already said that. Today the Muslim terrorists are still chopping heads off and murdering thousands of innocents in one action.

..No. The Catholic Church used the appeal for aid by the Byzantines as a fig-leaf to seize Jerusalem from them. The Western Church had countless opportunities prior to this to intervene and aid their Eastern cousins. They didn't because they were intentionally waiting for the Seljuks to weaker the Byzantines enough that they(the Byzantines) could not fight back when the CC decided to seize the Holy Land. The Byzantines were seeking aid in Anatolia. The Papacy instead invaded the Holy Land. It was naked aggression with a half-hearted attempt to make it seem like they were coming to the rescue of their brothers in the faith.

We disagree. i have already laid out my opinion. I feel the first Crusade was a preemptive strike with side issues, like getting back assets, lol. Also it was to send a message to the citizenship that were doing something to protect them....


The Muslims were by no means peaceful. And it was for profit. Specifically to seize the Holy Land and use it as a base to recapture extremely lucrative trade routes. The Middle East was where goods from India and East Asia inevitably passed through before making it to Europe proper. Undoubtedly the rank-and-file of the Crusader armies thought they were on a holy mission. But the people at the top were exploiting the good will and faith of their people to increase their own wealth.

I can agree with that. I am no fan of most organized religion including some christian churches. Largess creates greed and greed is a very powerful evil.

The Byzantines withdrew their support because the Crusaders blatantly ignored where the Byzantines actually needed help.

Imagine that!

[quoteI cannot stress this enough; if the Crusades were what you claim they were, why did they not actually aid the Byzantines? This is no different than what happened in the Baltic with the Teutonic Order. The King of Poland asked for aid, the Teutonic Order comes in and begins seizing land from the weakened Polish kingdom and refuses to turn it back over.[/QUOTE]

Who do I say the crusaders are? I said they were not good people. I said they were evil. I said I don't condone their ways of murder rape and pillage. They looked cool, and they were the delta force for military groups of their day. As I said I believe I created some confusion about the point of this thread. It was not intentional......

God bless me for writing so many replies, lol!

: { ) >
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
There is still crusade. I believe Jesus will break the backs of the final crusaders because they are blasphemous.

I agree, but not like you may think! The apocalyptic books Revelation of John etc.tells us that three or four world powers will attack Israel in an alliance and lose two thirds of their army each in the first skirmish. Scripture references that near the time of Jesus return Christians will be beheaded for not rejecting Jesus etc. and its obvious who that scripture is pointing, the Islamic theocracies. But to get back to the return of Jesus, the big players of the last wars are China, Russia and an Islamic power. China will field a 300 million man army and march them across a dried up Euphrates to come against Israel in a coordinated attack. The bible doesn't say which Islamic state will perish with their allies so maybe all the Islamic states will be involved which I believe will lead the world to Armageddon. Jesus will return in time to save what is left of the worlds population which prophesy says will be about an eighth of today's population.

; {>
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
All I know about the Crusades is that the Knight's Templar were barbaric thugs and that Orlando Bloom was a hero to the people of Jerusalem.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Are you sorry you asked?

; {>
Not at all, so thanks for telling about about this.

I taught a comparative religions course for two years and Christian theology for 14 years, but I don't have the educational level that you have in theology. My main area of study was in the history of early (2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries) Christianity, but my interest went into a very different theological direction over the last two plus decades.

Take care.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Again (for the umphteemth time) I said I did not condone the crusaders atrocities, not at all never ever! What do I have to do to get those of you that do not read the OT etc? As for forced conversions Ummm' maybe I should have been clearer, I was referencing today's forced conversions. In other words yes christian warriors were awful but we dont have those now Islam does.
You just want to ignore what Christians are doing now in modern Africa, India, and Korea?

Yes I already said that. Today the Muslim terrorists are still chopping heads off and murdering thousands of innocents in one action.
They're acting no different than a number of Christian groups active in Africa.

We disagree. i have already laid out my opinion. I feel the first Crusade was a preemptive strike with side issues, like getting back assets, lol. Also it was to send a message to the citizenship that were doing something to protect them....
...what?

Either the Crusades were a defensive action or a pre-emptive strike. You can't have it both ways. One precludes the other.

Who do I say the crusaders are? I said they were not good people. I said they were evil. I said I don't condone their ways of murder rape and pillage. They looked cool, and they were the delta force for military groups of their day.
The majority of those in the Crusader armies were poor peasants, much like every other army of the era.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Not at all, so thanks for telling about about this.

I taught a comparative religions course for two years and Christian theology for 14 years, but I don't have the educational level that you have in theology. My main area of study was in the history of early (2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries) Christianity, but my interest went into a very different theological direction over the last two plus decades.

Take care.


note to forum the following is mostly a light off topic story so if you don't like those sort of things skip it ~


The story of the Joe Dirt effect

I am impressed! The quality of your education was probably much better than mine because you had 'continuity' ie the common sense to stay at one school (I am guessing). Lol, compared to most others with equal 'academic credentials' I have many gaps and holes in my knowledge base due to my unorthodox methods of schooling I suppose. I get 'high anxiety' if asked to debate or speak in real time because of those holes. While I am spilling my innards' I might as well confess even my high school ed suffered due to weird 'Joe Dirt' events.

That is due to the fact that back in the day (just out of middle school) my girl friend said I made her pregnant. I had no job skills and Uncle Sam was the only game in this town I also dropped out of high school a week into the freshman semester, lied about my age (fake IDs were cheap and ID fraud was not the crime it is today). Stayed in for the combat tour period (two years), however before AIT she divorced me while I was in basic, silly me she wasn't even pregnant! About this time I was feeling like Joe Dirt! Anyway, I aced the GED while in active service but still my lack of a good high school ed shows in my awful writing skills and other areas where didn't learn the basics. Anyway are you up for a tutoring session, I need to brush up on my English grammar, lol. And thanks for sharing Metis.

I gotta' ask did you enjoy teaching?

th


: {>
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter

Come on now ! You are vetting my claims that the world wide radical Islamic propaganda campaign is indoctrinating many into the terrorist fold. Btw again notice the 'r' prefix in front of Islam or Muslim.I use that to differentiate the good moderate Muslims from the radical Islamic terrorists that have hijacked Islam. What about Africa? I know compared to some groups with loose ties to a fabricated from of 'christian' belief, none of it vetted by new testament scripture have been running amuck there so what does that have to do with the point of my OT? FYI In modern Africa r-muslim warlords have slaughter millions. That said I condemn any violence committed in the name of Joe Dirt, Jesus Christ, or Mohammad or Allah lord Buddha or support Hindu violence against their Buddhist brothers and sisters. I only approve of violence if its the last resort for my own personal self defense and defense of my families. Even then its questionable if killing is forgivable.

...what?
Either the Crusades were a defensive action or a pre-emptive strike. You can't have it both ways. One precludes the other.

The 1st Crusade was an effort to win back the lands taken from Christendom.

The majority of those in the Crusader armies were poor peasants, much like every other army of the era.

In the first crusades both Knights (read as superb military elitist shock troops) AND peasants took part. I would not want to attempt to attack a Knight of the Crusade unless I had my firearms preferably the AK and .45..from a distance of a half mile so include the Rem 700. You may be confusing the Crusades with the Knights templar....at first they were a poor order vowed to poverty... man did that change!

; {>
 
Top