Just a little question.

[rojse]

Once again im not trying to smear anything here. Since you believe that, are christians really that ashamed of it? I only ask this because i have never heard a christian openly talk about the crusades.

What do they have to be ashamed of? They didn't do anything.

 

[Tyr]

Than why don't they talk about it? I would not be ashamed of it either it's a huge part of history, but if it is brought up it gets viewed as an assault on christians.

 

[rojse]

Than why don't they talk about it? I would not be ashamed of it either it's a huge part of history, but if it is brought up it gets viewed as an assault on christians.

Well, when you use it in the manner that you have. . .

 

[Storm]

The most common answer I have gotten is that those who enacted the crusades were not "True" Christians.

While it's usually just a thoughtless cop-out, I think it may be justified. As pointed out in the OP, the Crusaders were in violation of many of the teachings of Christianity. If someone is completely going against x religion with y action, is it fair to consider y typical of x?

Or not.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

While it's usually just a thoughtless cop-out, I think it may be justified. As pointed out in the OP, the Crusaders were in violation of many of the teachings of Christianity. If someone is completely going against x religion with y action, is it fair to consider y typical of x?

Or not.

You can certainly compare tenets of the faith with actions of the faithful. And quickly reach the cheap and obvious conclusion that they are often contradictory. But so what? This is hardly any new or profound observation.

For all its self-righteous prostrations it is clear the christian faith does not necessarily have a more "uplifting" influence on human behavior than belief in unicorns or the Great Spirit or FSM or Athena. Altruistic actions are neither unique to nor universal among believers in ANY of those mythologies.

 

[Kathryn]

Bruce - You are probably oversimplifying things. That's about like saying, "Some (Yankee) Americans stopped in Shiloh to murder some (Southern) Americans on their way to Atlanta."

 

[Tyr]

This was not meant in any hostile manner to clear up any confusion..

 

[sputnik323]

Being German does not make one a Nazi. Many/most Christians today would absolutely denounce the actions of Crusaders (and have). Which I think was summed up well by the discussion on the first page.

The more fundamental problem I see is answering which points of doctrine and history are credible coming from a disavowed organization. --- so in other words, if the Crusaders and the leaders who sanctioned it are not Christians, then how come many Christians believe in their works. For example, they were the ones to print/copy scriptures and choose which books/passages to be added in and taken out of the bible. (they were the keepers of the faith for 300 years)

The problem seems to be that Christians can either claim to be something new, but by doing so lose credibility in what they take from history (doctrine, philosophy, scriptures), or they can hold to their history and take the baggage that comes with it. I can see why it would be a touchy subject.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

the Crusades were to establish the freedom of the Holy Lands for Christian pilgrims.
On another front it was a series of wars against Islamic conquerors, threatening most of Europe and the known world.

In the context of the times One side was no better than the other.

Today with the shrinkage of western religions including all branches of Christianity, any war between the middle eastern nations ( who happen to be Muslim) and the West, will not be a religious war from a western perspective. Though it might become a war of ideology.
It would also be far bloodier than the crusades.

 

[Kathryn]

Sputnik, the canon of the bible was in place LONG before the Crusades.

Christendom has translations of the Bible that are intact from long before the Crusades as well.

So Christians are not and never have relied on Crusaders from that era to develop, translate, or determine the canon of the Bible.

 

[England my lionheart]

THE CRUSADES! A big scar on the face of christianity, contradicts a lot of the bibles teachings. What i would like to know is how christians view it? The phrase cried while slaughtering the infidels "God wills it!". An order to commit mass murder sanctioned by the pope? I invite every one to participate in this, all views would be greatly appreciated. :bow:

Then they were not "true" Christians,just as a suicide bomber cries out "Allah Akbhar" isn't a true Muslim.

 

[sputnik323]

In the context of the times One side was no better than the other.

So the Christian God changes with the times?


Kathryn, I know you can't always rely on wiki, but just look up "bible translations" there. There were so many versions banned and reprinted and then later banned all throughout its history. Its not that Christians rely on them... but that the people during that time were the bearer's of the faith and either people must disown them for a new faith, or take them as a part of their history.

For example - Christians I know do not read or accept the Apocrypha as scripture. WHy? because the early catholic church did not. But protestants aren't catholic... so should they still not accept it? Because of one point of history of a faith no longer claimed some books are left out of the bible. Historically, protestant sects did not disavow the Catholic church until the reformation, meaning they aren't separate until after the Crusades.

Then they were not "true" Christians,just as a suicide bomber cries out "Allah Akbhar" isn't a true Muslim.

While I totally agree with you... I think the popes of that time would be very offended you think they aren't true Christians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Once again im not trying to smear anything here.

Of course you are. The OP reeks of "guilt by association," and its cutesy title is little more than bait.

 

[England my lionheart]

So the Christian God changes with the times?


Kathryn, I know you can't always rely on wiki, but just look up "bible translations" there. There were so many versions banned and reprinted and then later banned all throughout its history. Its not that Christians rely on them... but that the people during that time were the bearer's of the faith and either people must disown them for a new faith, or take them as a part of their history.

For example - Christians I know do not read or accept the Apocrypha as scripture. WHy? because the early catholic church did not. But protestants aren't catholic... so should they still not accept it? Because of one point of history of a faith no longer claimed some books are left out of the bible. Historically, protestant sects did not disavow the Catholic church until the reformation, meaning they aren't separate until after the Crusades.



While I totally agree with you... I think the popes of that time would be very offended you think they aren't true Christians.

And i agree that Pope Urban believed he was a Christian but i think its difficult to define what is a true Christian,Muslim,Buddist etc,is a Christian a true one because he adheres to the scriptures literally or adheres to the moral lessons in his/her faith.

 

[ChristineES]

I did not participate in the Crusades, and wouldn't if they were to happen again (hopefully they won't), so what Sola'lor said about it being irrelevant is very true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Why the idiosyncratic spelling of Yeshua?)

 

[Humanistheart]

To me it is irrelevant what others do with the title Christian. Their actions don't reflect me. The only thing that matters is that I do my best follow Christ's teachings.

Exept that no one can agree on what that means, nor has there been a christ yet.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So the Christian God changes with the times?

I did not say that... You are the first to mention it.

However mans "perception of God" has changed since the dawn of time, and with the establishment of each successive religion.

As God exists "out side of time" and is not bound by it, I doubt he changes at all. as change is a function of time.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The Crusades ended? What about the ironically self-titled "pro-life" crowd?
The willful ignorance of the creationists?
The idiocy of ID?

 

[Kathryn]

Oh yes, those violent creationists, those violent IDers - Lordamercy, it's just like the Crusades all over again...

OH THE HUMANITY...!