Dr. Kahn said:
Then you're saying that the wars of the Cross {armagedion} 200 years of death in and around Isreal is glorious. Yet we see none of this behavior in any of his apostles. Even today the crusades (cross) is considered by everyone to be an abomination. And every cross at a grave site speaks to us.
Jeremiah 10:14-16
Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.
The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Isreal is the rod of his inheritance : The Lord of hosts is his name.
there is also Phillipians 3:17-19
The sign of a true believer is a new creature; (let your light shine... which glorying is in Christ.) For I tell you the truth that they that boast in Jesus become what is written of them. I used to listen to the PTL club when it was in the beginning and if there was nothing that Jim Baker did was right then when He closed his program each day with Romans 10:9-10, then at least he did that andit was right and it is good, because in this verse is the complete work and operation of God. Which is to continually confess that which is eternal, that that might remain in you which is the Word of God.
Reply With Quote
Dr. Kahn, that wasn't a very good start. If the Crusades are your objection, then you neglect several things. First, the Early Church clearly venerated the cross. Justin Martyr in the second century goes to great pains to demonstrate the cross as a sign of nature, and from this, to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Jesus demanded His followers take up their cross and follow Him (10.38). St. Paul goes so far as to make the symbol of the cross synonomous with the Gospel "
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect" in I Cor. 1.17. In the same book Paul asserts "
For I am determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (2.2).
The cross is a part of Scripture, and it's an important part. The next thing your response forgets is not all of the Christian bishops footed an army. I would like you to name the Orthodox bishop who did so. Further, Christians were victemized by the Crusades. They were massacred in the Holy Land, and the holy city of Constantinople was mercilessly sacked and pillaged. All the victems venerated the cross. Why focus on the agresors alone and not the victems? The cross predates the Crusades, survives afterwards, and was used by all Christians.
There is also the problem of the Bible. The
Bible was used by the Crusaders to justify the Crusades. The logic you're using above would also make the Bible an evil symbol on the same level. You obviously do not feel the same way about the Bible. In fact, while the cross was used to mark shields the Bible was used to justify it. Why condemn what was painted and accept what was preached and quoted from?
Lastly, you need to look at the Crusades as a real political event in a real time. It wasn't simply a bunch of guys saying, "Hey, there's infidels over there! KILL!!!" Rather, no holy war had been launched by Christianity, and Islam had been attacking it for 300 years before the first crusader came out. What sparked them was a combination of several things. Islam was expanding militarily, and they seemed to be well-nigh unstoppable when approached defensively. In fact, not long before the Crusades the Turks took a significant amount of land from the Roman Empire and had taken a good portion of Spain. This sort of militarism made people scared. It made them
really scared. Further, the Muslims were destroying holy sites and killing pilgrims. If you want a parallel, look at the Cold War. They were no less scared, and this was in a far more aggressive age. The soldiers didn't need persuading; they thought they were fighting for their very survival, and I'd wager that there was lots of talk at the dinner table that they were doing more for Christ with their swords than the priests in the services.
Does any of that make it better? No it doesn't. The Crusades were deplorable and brought terrible suffering on Eastern Christianity. Were they wrong? Clearly.However in condemning them, you are doing so from centuries after the fact, and are at a very warm safe distance. It's much easier to cast stones from this distance than when you have reason to believe your very civilization was in danger.