Kingdom of Heaven

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Fri May 27, 2005 4:42 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:You'll find that if you step back and look at what had been going on in the "church" for the past 700 years, you'll find point 1 to be quite well-grounded. From its origins to its traditions to its actions, the RCC(especially pre-1500s) is not the church established by Christ, and its adherents were mostly non-Christians with no knowledge of the truth of salvation through Christ independent from works. The occasional silent Christian or splinter group doesn't do anything to change this.

The second point is also valid. They were under the impression that by reclaiming the Holy Land, they would somehow be looked upon with favor by God and given a place in heaven. Pilgrimages are not a Christian tradition, and the Holy Land was never a Christian land. There were many Jewish Christians at one point, yes, but the Jewish people for the most part rejected Christ. And the people who drove the Jews out of Israel and scattered them were also not Christians.

It seems to me that the Crusades were just lie after lie after lie. It's no wonder they were a spectacular failure.

Except you said those were the premises for the crusades when they weren't. It is irrelevant if they are true or not. They DID NOT go to war because they wanted to go to heaven or because the church was "corrupt". They went to war because Islam asked for it. This is historical fact. If you want to allow your anti catholic ignorance to blind you go ahead but you're doing Christianity a disservice.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Fri May 27, 2005 6:08 pm

Actually the original purpose of the crusades was to help the Byzantine Empire defend against the turks. It was only until later, after many stunning victories, did the crusader commanders turn their attention to Jerusalem. Many did it out of wicked lust for power, but there was one (I can't remember his name) man who was truly walking in God's path. He spared the lives of islamic soldiers and the such. The crusades isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It was nescessary in history because it delayed the Byzantine Empires fall, and stifled the spread of Islam which would have overtaken an even larger portion of the world had it not been for the crusaders.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Fri May 27, 2005 9:32 pm

Mastermind wrote:Except you said those were the premises for the crusades when they weren't. It is irrelevant if they are true or not. They DID NOT go to war because they wanted to go to heaven or because the church was "corrupt". They went to war because Islam asked for it. This is historical fact. If you want to allow your anti catholic ignorance to blind you go ahead but you're doing Christianity a disservice.

I dunno about this, Master. I've always thought, with my cursory-at-best research, that the Crusades were nothing but secular decisions under secular motives that used the label "Christian!!" as a shield.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Mon May 30, 2005 5:23 pm

Forge wrote:
Mastermind wrote:Except you said those were the premises for the crusades when they weren't. It is irrelevant if they are true or not. They DID NOT go to war because they wanted to go to heaven or because the church was "corrupt". They went to war because Islam asked for it. This is historical fact. If you want to allow your anti catholic ignorance to blind you go ahead but you're doing Christianity a disservice.
I dunno about this, Master. I've always thought, with my cursory-at-best research, that the Crusades were nothing but secular decisions under secular motives that used the label "Christian!!" as a shield.

A bit of that as well, of course, but the reasons for the Crusades were justified IMO.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:08 pm

Mastermind wrote: A bit of that as well, of course, but the reasons for the Crusades were justified IMO.

Those lands were once held by Christians and Jews, so the reason may have been justified in that case, but the killing of civilians on both sides was not. Also, the Fourth, Albigensian, and Northern Crusades were directed at other Europeans, not Muslims.

The Crusaders failed to achieve their main goals, but their expeditions helped enrich European life.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:21 pm

ochotseat wrote:
Mastermind wrote: A bit of that as well, of course, but the reasons for the Crusades were justified IMO.
Those lands were once held by Christians and Jews, so the reason may have been justified in that case, but the killing of civilians on both sides was not. Also, the Fourth, Albigensian, and Northern Crusades were directed at other Europeans, not Muslims.

The Crusaders failed to achieve their main goals, but their expeditions helped enrich European life.

Civillians always die in wars (except WW1). It's how it's usually been.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:35 pm

Mastermind wrote: Civillians always die in wars (except WW1). It's how it's usually been.

Accidental and deliberate civilian deaths are not analogous.
The Crusades weren't entirely justifiable.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:05 pm

ochotseat wrote:
Mastermind wrote: Civillians always die in wars (except WW1). It's how it's usually been.
Accidental and deliberate civilian deaths are not analogous.
The Crusades weren't entirely justifiable.

The justification for the crusades was not "let's go kill civillians". The death of civillians is a side effect.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:54 pm

Mastermind wrote: The justification for the crusades was not "let's go kill civillians". The death of civillians is a side effect.

The Crusades were not wholly justifiable.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:33 am

ochotseat wrote:
Mastermind wrote: The justification for the crusades was not "let's go kill civillians". The death of civillians is a side effect.
The Crusades were not wholly justifiable.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:26 pm

Mastermind wrote:

No comment I see.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:11 am

A picture is worth a thousand words. You're like the Duracell bunny, you keep going and going, beating the same drum all day.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:10 pm

Mastermind wrote:A picture is worth a thousand words. You're like the Duracell bunny, you keep going and going, beating the same drum all day.

And you're trying to justify all the Crusades that ever happened, which most Christians probably would not do.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:42 am

ochotseat wrote:
Mastermind wrote:A picture is worth a thousand words. You're like the Duracell bunny, you keep going and going, beating the same drum all day.
And you're trying to justify all the Crusades that ever happened, which most Christians probably would not do.

No, just the ones that involved Jerusalem. I'm not familiar with the other ones. The third crusade isn't to my liking either since the moron in charge tried to betray Saladin and lost Jerusalem because of it.

ochotseat · Post by **ochotseat** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:35 pm

Mastermind wrote: No, just the ones that involved Jerusalem.
.

Too bad some of the Crusaders fought amongst each other and killed fellow Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire.

Mastermind wrote: I'm not familiar with the other ones.
.

I had a wind of it.