• 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!

Who were responsible for the crusades.?

UpperLimits

Active Member
So the Christian thing to do is to carry a gun just in case and shoot anybody you suspect might be armed or have malicious intent. Which verse is that based on?
Being armed is certainly not prohibited. But it's your free choice if you want to do so. (following local laws, mind you....)
 

UpperLimits

Active Member
And which "powers" do you suppose Paul was admonishing Christians to be subject to? Clue - 1st century, Letter to the Romans - correct - he was admonishing Christians to be subject to and (as far as it depended on them) at peace with their oppressors. How many of the early Christian martyrs died "bearing the sword" against Roman oppression? They died subject to the "bearer of the sword" - just as Christ had done earlier, setting the model for them to follow. Was their sacrifice in vain? Or was it to be avenged by "Christian" armies? Was Christ's death to be avenged? What value does the sacrifice have if it is avenged? Your position is not logical at all - if anything, it makes a mockery of the central dogma of the Christian faith - the redeeming sacrifice of the Prince of Peace.

(PS - I am not a Christian, but I think I have a reasonable grasp of the tenets).
Unless you slice and dice the passage, it's pretty obvious the context refers to rulers (and governments) in general.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Unless you slice and dice the passage, it's pretty obvious the context refers to rulers (and governments) in general.
Well OK - so I presume that would at least include oppressive pagan Rome if (as in the case of the first recipients of Paul's counsel) that's where you happened to be practicing your Christian submissiveness, and of course, the Fatimid Caliphate if you happened to live in that government's territory. It would, by extension also include (I presume) communist China, Nazi Germany and Kim Jong Un's current dictatorial rulership in North Korea. You can't have your cake and ha'penny I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
The powers that be, are called that because they control things. In past times, there wasn't a clear separation of church and state (Church of England etc.). If you read the very beginning of KJV Bible, there is a note from the scribe, translator, what have you, that apologizes repeatedly for some of the translations, as at that time the King was considered to be a direct descendant of God and he was afraid that king could have him executed.
When the early church decided to put the bible together, they cherry picked the information that would be included. They completely left out the "Gnostic Gospels". Biblical Scholars have stated that (with the KJV being recognized as the closest) there are more than 20,000 changes in the text, just from the oldest Hebrew writings.
As far as the church (Catholic), following the teachings of Jesus, is secondary to the belief in the resurrection. When the ossuary of James, was found there was a major uproar and I heard a Cardinal state unequivocally that if the bones were to be proven to be those of Jesus, that the entire church would crumble. The idea of life everlasting, in a paradise was irresistible bait to the downtrodden masses of the time.
Organized religion (organized.) is all about control. So, in a situation where the State (read King) and the Church (read Pope) are of the same authority, (secular and spiritual) then the interests of those powers becomes law.
I would say overall, that while the Crusades were attributed to the Christian's, what it really meant was that the powers behind the church were to blame, not the individuals following the faith. Certainly not anyone who was following the teaching of Jesus.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I am sorry, I did Not realize I was using sarcasm. Please point out to me the sarcasm so that won't happen again.
I sincerely do apologize to you, and I sincerely do want to know your thoughts about Acts, Titus and Romans.
It was your first sentence in your post #89, which I assumed was aimed at me.

As far as Acts, Titus, and Romans are concerned, I didn't refer to those as my reference was to why it appears through variable verses that Jesus' statements appear to be contradictory with each other, and then I offered what could be a possible solution but you don't seem to be much interested. Plus, right now, I'm a bit strapped for time.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That begs the question though, if Jesus is the real deal what makes people think that he is bound to their books?
I think it's because they want certainty that they're right, so the minute one questions the accuracy of the Bible or provides alternative interpretations, this feeds into an uncertainty that really bothers some people. Since my main area is in science, we get very used to being uncertain.

How about you?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I think it's because they want certainty that they're right, so the minute one questions the accuracy of the Bible or provides alternative interpretations, this feeds into an uncertainty that really bothers some people. Since my main area is in science, we get very used to being uncertain.

How about you?
I embraced my uncertainty many years ago.

For example, ultimately the answer to who was responsible for the Crusades is Muslims are responsible due to the Islamic conquests that seized formally "Christian" lands over several hundred years. That the Crusades were less than noble attempts to take these area back is another discussion entirely but due the rationale at the time they certainly felt they were within their rights to do so.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
For example, ultimately the answer to who was responsible for the Crusades is Muslims are responsible due to the Islamic conquests that seized formally "Christian" lands over several hundred years. That the Crusades were less than noble attempts to take these area back is another discussion entirely but due the rationale at the time they certainly felt they were within their rights to do so.
Yes, but then one could come back and bring in the element of Christian conquests during and after Constantine that were centuries prior to the emergence of Islam.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Yes, but then one could come back and bring in the element of Christian conquests during and after Constantine that were centuries prior to the emergence of Islam.
Indeed. We could play that game all day, LOL. The point is that the "land" belongs to whoever can hold it against any who oppose such occupation. This is pretty well the rule until the modern era where we created neat little boundaries and all agreed, more or less, to stay on their side of a given line.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
And how exactly do you propose that is to be done?
So, a guy comes to attack my wife, and I walk up to him and say, "Attack me instead." So then, he takes out a gun, shoots me dead, and then proceeds, now unhindered by anything, to attack my spouse. A fat lot of good THAT did!!!
It should probably be noted that the repelling of a force requires, at very least, an equal response.

I hope you are Not serious about anyone going up to an attacker and saying attack me instead.
I would imagine in the above scenairo if the attacker's sole purpose was to single out your wife with you being there he would Not hesitate to neutralize you first, attack you first. So, how would possessing a gun guarantee you would Not be a victim. I would imagine an intruder would enter by surprise. If your wife was threatened by a gun-possessing assailant he might not hesitate to use it first on you before you could use a gun to shoot him. When No escape is possible there is No biblical teaching against reasonably defending oneself or another. In other words, to stop the attack by taking defensive action but without killing the person if at all possible. Any thoughts about Exodus 22:2-3.

There are No guarantees that we would never face violent attacks. Throughout history God's people have faced violent crime as found at Genesis 4:8; Job 1:14-15,17 but Scripture wants us to think ahead and do the best we can do to avoid potential situations that could lead to, or put us in a bad position needing the use of violent acts as per Proverbs 16:32; 1 Peter 3:11.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes, but then one could come back and bring in the element of Christian conquests during and after Constantine that were centuries prior to the emergence of Islam.

Christian or so-called Christian. Gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that after the apostles would be off the scene that false shepherds would be fleecing the flock of God.
That ties in with Jesus' illustration about how genuine ' wheat ' Christians would grow together over the centuries with the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians until the Harvest Time, or the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as found at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Christian or so-called Christian. Gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that after the apostles would be off the scene that false shepherds would be fleecing the flock of God.
That ties in with Jesus' illustration about how genuine ' wheat ' Christians would grow together over the centuries with the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians until the Harvest Time, or the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as found at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
Then maybe throw your Bible away because it was under Constantine's directive that led to the canon you use, compiled by Catholic bishops that took over 1/2 century to complete.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
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?
no. but for money, they would participate.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Then maybe throw your Bible away because it was under Constantine's directive that led to the canon you use, compiled by Catholic bishops that took over 1/2 century to complete.

Not quite sure I understand ' throw your Bible away ' because Church customs, or Church traditions, are taught as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture, so I can understand ' throw your customs outside of your Bible away '.
In other words, having the Bible and following the Bible can be do different things.
Gospel writer Luke forewarned at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that there would be false shepherds.
At 2 Timothy 4:3 informs that people would have teachers to have their ' ears tickled ' so that their clergy would say what they want to hear over what Scripture says.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not quite sure I understand ' throw your Bible away ' because Church customs, or Church traditions, are taught as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture, so I can understand ' throw your customs outside of your Bible away '.
I'm talking about the actual selection of the canon, not anything that was done with variable interpretations nor the subsequent traditions.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
metis, your response here demonstrates what I have been trying to get across all along.....

There is no command from Christ to take up arms at all. If there was a need to "protect" his disciples, don't you think he would have prevented the suffering and death of his own apostles? There is little mention of how they died in the Bible, but in John 21:18-19 Jesus says to the apostle Peter..."Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.”

Paul was probably executed too but not before he suffered much as a disciple of Christ.
"For all things,” he said, “I have the strength by virtue of him who imparts power to me.” (Phillipians 4:13) He endured much but did not complain. When comparing his experiences with those of others, he wrote (about 55 C.E.): “In labors more plentifully, in prisons more plentifully, in blows to an excess, in near-deaths often. By Jews I five times received forty strokes less one, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I experienced shipwreck, a night and a day I have spent in the deep; in journeys often, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from highwaymen, in dangers from my own race, in dangers from the nations, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers among false brothers, in labor and toil, in sleepless nights often, in hunger and thirst, in abstinence from food many times, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day, the anxiety for all the congregations.” (2 Corinthians 11:23-28;6:4-10; 7:5) Who protected Paul?

Consider also other Christian martyrs whose lives were taken in horrific fashion for the entertainment of the Romans. Many of them were whole families with children, torn apart by wild beasts. Who protected them? Didn't Jesus say that his disciples had to endure to the death? So many of them did....and with incredible courage.

It is one thing to "protect" one's family members in a non-violent way, but quite another to "live by the sword" as is done in gun-obsessed countries like America. If you have no weapons, you cannot be tempted to used them, incurring bloodguilt before God. (Isaiah 1:15)



This is theory of the church to justify their involvement in the conflicts of their nation. But tell me please whose position was "just" in a war that had nothing to do with God? Did he not tell his disciples to be NO part of this world because, as James wrote, "Friendship with the world is enmity with God". (James 4:4) He likened it to "adultery".

When Catholics and Protestants on one side, were killing fellow Catholics and Protestants on the other...whose side was God on? The answer is neither. Both were going against a direct command of the Christ.

Matthew 5:43-45...."You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous."

How is killing your "brother" a Christian act? (1 John 4:20-21) The churches do not have a scriptural leg to stand on because the war is not "just" to God.....only to men. (Romans 12:17-21)

Very nicely said.
Thank you, brother.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Then maybe throw your Bible away because it was under Constantine's directive that led to the canon you use, compiled by Catholic bishops that took over 1/2 century to complete.

It is God's word metis.....it is not a product of the Catholic Church. The apocryphal books were included by them, but are not accepted as scripture by many of the world's Christians.....so it isn't a Catholic Bible because not a single Catholic wrote a word in it.

God can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will....even his enemies. He used Babylon to conquer his own people as a punishment for their unfaithfulness, yet he later destroyed Babylon for their own iniquities. It was all foretold by Daniel.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is God's word metis.....it is not a product of the Catholic Church. The apocryphal books were included by them, but are not accepted as scripture by many of the world's Christians.....so it isn't a Catholic Bible because not a single Catholic wrote a word in it.
I've linked you to sites that show the history of the selection of the canon but, as usual, you just ignore what they say and produce no objective sources to support your contention. This is why having any discussion with you is fruitless, largely because your hate-filled bigotry prevents you from accepting real historical information that goes against what you continuously spew forth.

However, as fruitless as it is, let me again recommend you link up to historical sources, and you can even start with these:

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Also, it seems you're totally unaware or are in a state of denial of the simple fact that "the Way" eventually adopted a new name in the 2nd century, and guess which name that was?

But you're just going to ignore this and continue wallowing in your prejudices, so I'm going to move on.
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
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?
I think it would depend what role they played. Many joined to get out of jail and many joined for other Catholic benefits, if I remember correctly. Not all were there because of duty to country. Not all engaged in mass slaughters, but for those who did, it definitely wasn't Christian. It was macabre. But to be fair, those whom they were fighting against we're equally in the wrong. Both sides should share the guilt of the bloodshed that occurred doing those years.
 
Top