1. 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!

Featured Who were responsible for the crusades.?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Jeremiah Ames, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,233
    Religion:
    Christian
    You're examples we've already been through. In that situation the Christians would have been taking up arms against the authorities, but they were not to fight with the authorities with swords, they showed the authorities they were not against them and the authorities ended up converting to Christianity. But the governing authorities still need the power of the sword and to serve them as soldiers would not be wrong.
     
  2. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,318
    Ratings:
    +19,127
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    But true and genuine Christians according to Luke 22:36 just might.

    The Bible: it has something for everyone!

    So it isn't that a Christian world leader would order the armies at his command to go on a crusade; it's that a Christian would never get enough power and influence to become a world leader in the first place?
     
  3. David1967

    David1967 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,851
    Ratings:
    +6,945
    Religion:
    Christian
    If they were following the example of Christ then no. Jesus would have said to take that money and help the poor. Not to pick at Catholics, Protestant Televangelists and their like are just as guilty.
     
  4. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    So until then its OK for Christians to kill each other (let alone non-Christians) in war? Show me any place where Jesus said that.
     
  5. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,233
    Religion:
    Christian
    Being Christian didn't mean they quit their day jobs. Paul made tents for the Roman army and preached in the evenings. Somebody has to be a soldier and I wouldn't look good if Christians refused that kind of work while benefiting from it.
     
  6. UpperLimits

    UpperLimits Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +97
    Religion:
    Christian
    I find it interesting that people (typically outside of Christianity) always seem to have this attitude that Christians are supposed to act like doormats.

    As has been pointed out, the reasons behind the crusades were varied, but one thing I find consistently overlooked by everyone who criticizes Christianity for the crusades, is the fact of 400 years of continual Muslim aggression. We simply would not have the freedoms we enjoy today had it not been for the Christian church keeping the Islamic world out of Europe. The crusades were an inseparable part of that plan.

    The other part of the equation has to do with the "God of the Old Testament." It is obvious from the reading of scripture that in many instances, God commanded war as a direct affront to evil itself, and as a tool of punishment to both Israel and the nations that surrounded her.

    Certain factions of Christianity like to engage in pacifism and say things like, "Jesus would 'never' do this, or that...." But in saying so, they neglect that Jesus also claimed to be the God of the Old Testament revealed in human flesh. Thus, while we can clearly see the compassion and love of God revealed in Christ, it is at the same time impossible to separate Him from the actions of the Old Testament God of anger and punishment.

    One also has to wonder about the prophecies in the Book of the Revelation. Christ will return and destroy - as in; kill - His enemies and throw them into the lake of fire for all eternity. After all, Armageddon doesn't exactly end in a big group hug, now does it?

    While I agree that we are to be generally peaceful, the Bible does limit the action of being peaceful to the extent that such is reasonably possible. (Romans 12:18) Distasteful, or not; Sometimes you just have to get out there and kick somebodies a**!! Besides, how does one (Isaiah 1:17) "Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, (and) Plead for the widow." if you don't get out there and rile a few people once in a while?
     
  7. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,501
    Ratings:
    +11,461
    Religion:
    none
    That was Charles 'the hammer' Martell (Charlemagne's grandfather) at the Battle of Tours in the 8th C.

    'War crimes' is completely anachronistic, and no 'misunderstanding' was necessary.

    What they did was par for the course in medieval warfare. Was common to kill or enslave people in captured cities because you had to hold those cities too and couldn't do so with a load of hostiles in the midst.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,146
    Ratings:
    +614
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Sure it was common tactics in Europe at the time, but the some of the wars themselves were hardly necessary. The idea that the Christians needed to go out and conquer lands was an idea that was implanted into them by the Church. The Romuva Pagans weren't a threat that needed the Baltic Crusades to address. No random peasant living in Eastern Europe considered invading Livonia until the Church got involved.
     
  9. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,501
    Ratings:
    +11,461
    Religion:
    none
    'Random peasants' weren't responsible for the Northern crusades, it was the kings of the HRE, Poland, etc.

    Kings have been conquering lands since time immemorial and certainly didn't need the Church to put the idea into their head. These wars had started before the Church issued a decree legitimising them.

    While the Church doesn't come out of this episode covered in glory and moral authority, the wars would have happened even if the Church had stayed silent on the issue.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,456
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Agreed.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,146
    Ratings:
    +614
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Sure they were responsible, or did the Polish King and Holy Roman Emperor take the Baltic without any levies whatsoever??

    My original comment was that these individual soldiers were not culpable, the culpability for these actions were the kings and clergy that put the Crusade ideas into their heads. And on that point it looks like we are in agreement.

    Forgive me, it seems I have made a mistake in assuming that your reply to mine had something to do with my original point.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  12. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,501
    Ratings:
    +11,461
    Religion:
    none
    Levies didn't have any choice in the matter, it was the feudal form of conscription.

    King wants a war, king gets his levies. And the King wanted a war even before the Church got involved.

    About as culpable in any non-Crusade war where they behaved similarly.
     
  13. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,146
    Ratings:
    +614
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Sure they did. You need to convince the majority of your military, conscription or not, to go along with your plans or else you get a coup.

    Sure there are people who were press-ganged into war but the majority of the military has to agree with the wars they fight, or else the military turns on the ruler. The military is one of the prime keys to power in the state.

    But the majority of levies in the Crusades believed what they were doing was right, and that's a contributing factor behind why they fought. Because there was a clear propaganda campaign that convinced them of the virtues of those wars.

    And yeah, that's not at all dissimilar to the non-Crusade wars that were fought. That point was irrelevant to mine, my point again being that conscript levies could indeed be good people who still participated in the Crusades.

    So we agree?? Conscript levies could be good people.
     
  14. Jeremiah Ames

    Jeremiah Ames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,810
    Ratings:
    +1,493
    Religion:
    Areligious Christian
    Thank you for your thoughtful response.
    I must say I had a more black and white view before reading it.
    I now agree that there were likely some who genuinely followed Jesus but were misled. They were probably convinced or pressured to go along, and did so without knowledge of what the Catholic church had planned. In that case, they would likely be as appalled with the result as most of us are today.
     
  15. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +2,498
    Did the authorities convert to Christianity, or rather to Christendom ( so-called Christian but mostly in name only ).
    Corrupted Christianity was the Christianity of Constantine's day. So, those who converted to the teachings of 1st-century Christianity would give up being a soldier. Many today throughout the world are punished or jailed for Not taking up the sword as Jesus instructed at Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10, otherwise a Christian living in one country could end up killing a Christian 'brother' of another country.
    To take up the sword would conflict with Acts of the Apostles 5:29 to obey God over Man.
    In other words, when Caesar's Law would Not conflict with God's Law then Christians obey Caesar.
    God has the absolute authority whereas Caesar was given relative authority in position to God's absolute authority.
     
  16. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +2,498
    Jesus is Not a pacifist but his allegiance is only to God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44.
    In Revelation 19:14-16 No humans do the fighting. Jesus with angelic armies do the Armageddon fighting.
    Christians will follow the advise found at Isaiah 26:20.
    To 'kick' (literal) would be against loving one's enemies, and against the Golden Rule.
    The definition of the lake of fire is: second death.
    Jesus will destroy Satan according to Hebrews 2:14 b.
    So, ' second death ' is a fitting term for destruction, or being destroyed forever as Psalms 92:7 says the wicked will be destroyed forever (annihilated).

    It would seem to me that Isaiah 1:17 applied within the congregation, within the one nation of ancient Israel.
    Rebuke, defend, plead does Not have to mean physical fighting or warfare.
    - see also Deuteronomy 10:18; Jeremiah 22:3; Proverbs 31:9
     
  17. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,233
    Religion:
    Christian
    But God's authority says to obey Caesar's authority. So if Caesar says to fight you fight. If you kill a brother their blood is not on your hands. I don't see why Christians who benefit from the security of the armed forces should not serve in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical not to.
     
  18. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +2,498
    I find Luke 22:36 has nothing to do with taking up war arms.
    By having a sword present Jesus was showing that although a sword was present it was Not to be used as shown at Luke 22:49-51.

    Even when Jesus was offered political office (to be king/president) he declined as shown at John 6:15.
    In other words, Jesus and his followers would Not govern on Earth at this time frame as per John 17:14.
    Jesus comes as 'world leader', so to speak, at the coming time of Revelation 19:14-16.
    Jesus' 'time of glory' starts with the 'time of separation' to take place on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
     
  19. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35,724
    Ratings:
    +17,125
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    We have to remember that spreading "the word" by the sword was not at all unusual back then-- it was the norm in pretty much every major religion. And because it typically involved war, and because the attitude was typically "to the victors belong the spoils", the Crusades were just one manifestation of this.

    For examples, we can see much the same with the spread of Islam, the movement of Protestantism into North America that resulted in the decimation of millions of Amerindians, the Shogun Era under Buddhist control, the killing of Muslims by Hindus at the end of the Raj, etc.

    IOW, religious tolerance was not the norm then, and for some not even now.
     
  20. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +2,498
    I read at Acts of the Apostles 5:29 that we ought to obey God as Ruler rather than men.
    In other words, God has the Absolute say in matters. We are in a relative position to ' Caesar'.
    I notice when told to stop talking about Jesus his followers properly refused at Acts of the Apostles 4:17-19.
    The Golden Rule does Not allow a Christian of one country to kill a Christian of another country.
    That is what happened in Christendom during the world wars when Catholics of one country killed Catholics of another country and Protestants killed Protestants of another country.
    Christians, according to Jesus at Matthew 5:44 are to love their enemies.
    Christian identity is having the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has according to John 13:34-35.
    I can't find anywhere in Scripture that Jesus would take up arms against anyone, and Christians are to be footstep followers of Jesus as Jesus being their example or model to follow according to 1 Peter 2:21.
     
Loading...