Who were responsible for the crusades.?

[Jeremiah Ames]

I want to get some opinions on a matter which has bothered me a bit.

The bother is because there seems to be an illogical conclusion regarding the crusades which many people assume to be true.

I'd actually prefer to see thoughtful responses from non-Christians, but, of course, any discussion is welcomed.


So here I go.


"The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus."

That is from Wikipedia. These books describe the character of Jesus, as well as many things that he spoke and did. It is not necessary to believe in the gospels or even in Jesus to answer my question. Just know that Christians do believe in them. I think this is a fact that should not be disputed.


I think Christians would agree that the character traits of Jesus include but are not limited to the following:

Love, joy, peace, patience, friendship, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassionate, and more.

Christians would also agree that He would not be violent, hateful, unforgiving, unkind, etc. Also, He would be considered a pacifist, not a warrior. Ok, you got my point. Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus had the character traits I mentioned, you only need to believe that Christians believe it.


Theses verses from Matthew 7 are some of my favorites.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

When people say they are something, I remember the above and weigh whether their actions affirm their words.


Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

 

[DavidFirth]

Some were true Christians, many were not. The Church erred, no doubt. Fighting against evil with swords is wrong, as you have said.

Some of them were deceived into thinking they were fighting for Christ. Remember that only the upper class had copies of scripture, the lower classes had no access to the Bible.

 

[Kemosloby]

I want to get some opinions on a matter which has bothered me a bit.

The bother is because there seems to be an illogical conclusion regarding the crusades which many people assume to be true.

I'd actually prefer to see thoughtful responses from non-Christians, but, of course, any discussion is welcomed.


So here I go.


"The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus."

That is from Wikipedia. These books describe the character of Jesus, as well as many things that he spoke and did. It is not necessary to believe in the gospels or even in Jesus to answer my question. Just know that Christians do believe in them. I think this is a fact that should not be disputed.


I think Christians would agree that the character traits of Jesus include but are not limited to the following:

Love, joy, peace, patience, friendship, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassionate, and more.

Christians would also agree that He would not be violent, hateful, unforgiving, unkind, etc. Also, He would be considered a pacifist, not a warrior. Ok, you got my point. Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus had the character traits I mentioned, you only need to believe that Christians believe it.


Theses verses from Matthew 7 are some of my favorites.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

When people say they are something, I remember the above and weigh whether their actions affirm their words.


Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

Sure, Jesus said to obey the governing authorities, serve them as you would the Christ. He didn't exclude soliders, they were baptized the same as prisoners. He commanded the soldier to be happy with their pay. So Jesus did not forbid war. and if it was his kingdom he would have done it himself. "If it were my kingdom my people would fight" So who were the crusades fighting for in the name of Christ? Those in authority at the time, the rich people and probably the bankers...so they could get richer probably.

 

[DavidFirth]

We have to be careful here because we are assuming motive when we really just don't know. Maybe some of the popes thought it was the right thing do (it wasn't), maybe not. The truth is we just don't know exactly what they were thinking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

It's a period in history that interests me, and I've read plenty about the Crusades. Happy to talk in more depth, but a few initial takeaways from my point of view;

The various Crusades weren't universal in their motivations. Assuming you're talking about the First Crusade, it largely depends how charitable you are towards the motivations of the church. Ostensibly, the Crusade was fought around access to the Holy Land, and this has historically been important for both Christians and Muslims. Support for the Eastern Church (or less kindly, the hope to re-unify the Church under Western Papacy) should also be considered.
Contrast that to the Fourth Crusade, which included the sack of Constantinople, hub of the Eastern Church, and you can see that considering the motivations of the 'Crusades' as a whole is pretty much impossible.

However, I would consider them more from the point of view of the Church, rather than the qualities of Jesus you have stated. Whether those goals were honest reflections of their beliefs, cynical and politically motivated, or some varying combination of the two, it all makes much more sense then.

 

[siti]

He commanded the soldier to be happy with their pay.

Actually that was John the Baptist - which perhaps shows one possible reason why many Christians through the ages have failed to live up to the scriptural example of Christ - they just don't know what it says. And you certainly don't have to go all the way back to the Crusades to find decidedly un-Christ-like "Christians" on the battlefield with the blessing and encouragement of the decidedly un-Christ-like "priesthood"...

...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I know very little about the crusades, except they were war campaigns. If you will recall in the gospels Jesus heals the servant of a centurion, following in the footsteps of Elisha who heals Naaman the Assyrian general. Caesar rules with soldiers and oppresses Jews, and Jesus comments on whether its right to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus says "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." When a soldier comes to Jesus and asks him "What should I do?" Jesus does not say "Stop being a soldier!" He says to that soldier, "Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay." So the gospels do not themselves demand no war. They aim to end war eventually, but they tolerate the presence of human governments and pay them respect.

 

[siti]

When a soldier comes to Jesus and asks him "What should I do?" Jesus does not say "Stop being a soldier!" He says to that soldier, "Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."

Actually that was...ahh yes...I have just done that one haven't I...but the repetition kinda reinforces my case don't you think?

 

[Kemosloby]

Actually that was John the Baptist - which perhaps shows one possible reason why many Christians through the ages have failed to live up to the scriptural example of Christ - they just don't know what it says. And you certainly don't have to go all the way back to the Crusades to find decidedly un-Christ-like "Christians" on the battlefield with blessing of the decidedly un-Christ-like "priesthood"...

...

That's sort of nitpicking that John the Baptist said it, who Jesus called the greatest man who ever lived. And I'm sure everybody in Germany had to salute Hitler...But if you can show the Catholic Church overthrew the previous authorities in order to bring Hitler to power..then you have something.

 

[sun rise]

I think this is a good intro to the first crusade http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jerusalem-captured-in-first-crusade

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually that was...ahh yes...I have just done that one haven't I...but the repetition kinda reinforces my case don't you think?

Oops! Ya got me!

 

[siti]

That's sort of nitpicking that John the Baptist said it, who Jesus called the greatest man who ever lived. And I'm sure everybody in Germany had to salute Hitler...But if you can show the Catholic Church overthrew the previous authorities in order to bring Hitler to power..then you have something.

Nitpicking? I think not. Jesus actually said: "blessed are the peacemakers", "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", "if my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting...but...my kingdom is not of this realm"..."put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword".(Matthew 5:9, 39, 44, John 18:36, Matthew 26:52)

Now you show me one verse where Jesus actually advocates violence or military action. Claiming J the B's failure to censure soldiers as Christ's tacit approval of military violence is a complete misrepresentation of what the scriptural Christ actually taught. J the B was not "the Prince of Peace" - that was not his role - but it was Christ's and Christians are called to be Christ-like, not John the Baptist-like. Is that nitpicking? Or can I just choose to imitate any Biblical character that happens to coincide with my moral, ethical or political views?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

It's a period in history that interests me, and I've read plenty about the Crusades. Happy to talk in more depth, but a few initial takeaways from my point of view;

The various Crusades weren't universal in their motivations. Assuming you're talking about the First Crusade, it largely depends how charitable you are towards the motivations of the church. Ostensibly, the Crusade was fought around access to the Holy Land, and this has historically been important for both Christians and Muslims. Support for the Eastern Church (or less kindly, the hope to re-unify the Church under Western Papacy) should also be considered.
Contrast that to the Fourth Crusade, which included the sack of Constantinople, hub of the Eastern Church, and you can see that considering the motivations of the 'Crusades' as a whole is pretty much impossible.

However, I would consider them more from the point of view of the Church, rather than the qualities of Jesus you have stated. Whether those goals were honest reflections of their beliefs, cynical and politically motivated, or some varying combination of the two, it all makes much more sense then.

The qualities of Jesus should be seen in the papacy as well as the soldiers in my opinion.
However, I think, from little I've read, the motives of the papacy and the soldiers were not the same.
It seems like the soldiers were pretty much paid murderers (only doing for what they would get), and the papacy had political and power motives.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The qualities of Jesus should be seen in the papacy as well as the soldiers in my opinion.
However, I think, from little I've read, the motives of the papacy and the soldiers were not the same.
It seems like the soldiers were pretty much paid murderers (only doing for what they would get), and the papacy had political and power motives.

I think it's worth allowing for the fact that even amongst the soldiers there was a variety of reasons.
Soldiers commonly served their Lords in a feudal world, and those Lords served higher Lords. The reason for the wars appears very political to me, but it appears certain that some were doing it due to an honest belief that they were doing the Lord's work, and that this included the freeing of the Holy Lands.

However, there was certainly a high level of brutality which is hard to reconcile with a message of Love, I completely agree.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Actually that was John the Baptist - which perhaps shows one possible reason why many Christians through the ages have failed to live up to the scriptural example of Christ - they just don't know what it says. And you certainly don't have to go all the way back to the Crusades to find decidedly un-Christ-like "Christians" on the battlefield with the blessing and encouragement of the decidedly un-Christ-like "priesthood"...

...

I totally agree.
The crusades is something that comes to mind to many people when we are having a religious discussion and yet I find very few really know much about them.

 

[Kemosloby]

Nitpicking? I think not. Jesus actually said: "blessed are the peacemakers", "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", "if my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting...but...my kingdom is not of this realm"..."put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword".(Matthew 5:9, 39, 44, John 18:36, Matthew 26:52)

Now you show me one verse where Jesus actually advocates violence or military action. Claiming J the B's failure to censure soldiers as Christ's tacit approval of military violence is a complete misrepresentation of what the scriptural Christ actually taught. J the B was not "the Prince of Peace" - that was not his role - but it was Christ's and Christians are called to be Christ-like, not John the Baptist-like. Is that nitpicking? Or can I just choose to imitate any Biblical character that happens to coincide with my moral, ethical or political views?

There would be a difference if Christians drew their swords against the authorities such as Peter cutting off the ear of the guard who arrested Jesus. In that case Jesus said to put away his sword. Jesus does not advocate violence for his sake but says to serve the governing authorities as you would the Christ. When Jesus commands his army of angels to fight, would they ask Jesus, Hey but aren't you the peacemaker?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Nitpicking? I think not. Jesus actually said: "blessed are the peacemakers", "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", "if my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting...but...my kingdom is not of this realm"..."put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword".(Matthew 5:9, 39, 44, John 18:36, Matthew 26:52)

Now you show me one verse where Jesus actually advocates violence or military action. Claiming J the B's failure to censure soldiers as Christ's tacit approval of military violence is a complete misrepresentation of what the scriptural Christ actually taught. J the B was not "the Prince of Peace" - that was not his role - but it was Christ's and Christians are called to be Christ-like, not John the Baptist-like. Is that nitpicking? Or can I just choose to imitate any Biblical character that happens to coincide with my moral, ethical or political views?

Very well said.
A Christian has no excuse for violence and war, in my opinion. I believe God has a plan for my life.
My "way of life" (a human concept for this world) does not need protecting through endless war and murder.
Hitler was probably a fine leader all the way up until he decided his "way of life" was being threatened, then he chose the wrong path (violence murder and war).

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

There would be a difference if Christians drew their swords against the authorities such as Peter cutting off the ear of the guard who arrested Jesus. In that case Jesus said to put away his sword. Jesus does not advocate violence for his sake but says to serve the governing authorities as you would the Christ. When Jesus commands his army of angels to fight, would they ask Jesus, Hey but aren't you the peacemaker?

Sorry to disagree.
No where do I find that Jesus says to break His holy commandments in order to follow human authorities.

 

[Kemosloby]

Sorry to disagree.
No where do I find that Jesus says to break His holy commandments in order to follow human authorities.

Nowhere does he tell soldiers to stop being soldiers. As the scriptures say we serve not by a written code but by the spirit. So the spirit of the law, and any manner of common sense tells me Jesus did not forbid Christians from being soldiers.

And what was the purpose for serving the authorities? The purpose was for the sake of Christians, so that they would be allowed to live without persecution. Therefore going to war against authorities who forbid Christianity or persecute Christians would seem to serve that purpose.

 

[leibowde84]

I want to get some opinions on a matter which has bothered me a bit.

The bother is because there seems to be an illogical conclusion regarding the crusades which many people assume to be true.

I'd actually prefer to see thoughtful responses from non-Christians, but, of course, any discussion is welcomed.


So here I go.


"The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus."

That is from Wikipedia. These books describe the character of Jesus, as well as many things that he spoke and did. It is not necessary to believe in the gospels or even in Jesus to answer my question. Just know that Christians do believe in them. I think this is a fact that should not be disputed.


I think Christians would agree that the character traits of Jesus include but are not limited to the following:

Love, joy, peace, patience, friendship, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassionate, and more.

Christians would also agree that He would not be violent, hateful, unforgiving, unkind, etc. Also, He would be considered a pacifist, not a warrior. Ok, you got my point. Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus had the character traits I mentioned, you only need to believe that Christians believe it.


Theses verses from Matthew 7 are some of my favorites.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

When people say they are something, I remember the above and weigh whether their actions affirm their words.


Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

It seems like you are trying to use the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy by insinuating that these Crusaders weren't "real Christians". A "christian" is simply a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Others might try to demand more, but that would be nothing more than their own opinion on the matter.

The fact is that many Christians participated in the crusades. I agree that it went against the teachings of Jesus, but that is nothing new. Just look at the Vatican. Do you really think Jesus would want that much money spent on the Catholic Hierarchy? So the pope can live like a king? I doubt it.