Why did we have Crusades?

Festus

Quite simply, Muslim aggression not dissimilar to their aggression of today.

There were mistakes and apologies made

e.g.

"The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart."

more here

it is worth reminding ourselves of this salient point and not what revisionists say

"From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction."

PDN

We didn't have the Crusades. They are nothing to do with anything I recognise as Christianity.

I find the whole notion that the Lordship of Jesus Christ can be advanced by going to other parts of the world and killing people to be morally repugnant.

Crusades were not only waged against Muslims, but against heretics such as the Cathars, against a Spanish king of Aragon, against an anti-pope in Belgium, and even against the Stedingers (a group of German Catholics who refused to pay taxes to the Archbishop of Bremen).

Bannasidhe

Festus wrote: »

Quite simply, Muslim aggression not dissimilar to their aggression of today.

There were mistakes and apologies made

e.g.

"The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart."

more here

it is worth reminding ourselves of this salient point and not what revisionists say

"From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction."

Christian Europe continued to engage in slavery until the 19th century.
Define 'respect' for women - if you include women losing control of all of their personal property upon marriage, women becoming the property of their husband, women being denied even basic voting rights (Women did not get the vote in France until the 1940s, in some Swiss cantons it was the 1970s) as showing 'respect' then yes, women were 'respected'. My interpretation would be that Christianity oppressed women and condoned slavery.

As for Muslim aggression - what about European Christian aggression in the Americas? Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and Britain all engaged in genocide of the native people while claiming to save their souls.

You complain about Revisionists - so read this eyewitness account by a participant in the First Crusade and then tell me about Muslim aggression (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/Fulk3.asp)

Manach

Offhand in my scholarly opinion, The Crusades were a self-defensive response in the light of centuries of Islamic aggressive invasion in the Levant to recover former Imperial territory/shrines.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

Offhand in my scholarly opinion, The Crusades were a self-defensive response in the light of centuries of Islamic aggressive invasion in the Levant to recover former Imperial territory/shrines.

So the Crusades were an effort by European Christians to regain territory previously held by Imperial Rome some 400 years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire?

Rome invaded the region too you know - and while there they executed the founder of Christianity for treason (being a scholar you are of course aware that crucifixion was reserved for those found guilty of treason against Imperial Rome ) and during the brutal suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD were responsible for the Diaspora.

So Imperial Rome created a religious vacuum in the region, some 150 odd years after the Fall of Rome this vacuum began to be filled by the expansion of Islam - most of the converts to which were descended from Abraham via Ishmael. Some 250 years later European Christians decided to reclaim this land from these descendants of Abraham and create a Christian kingdom where none had previously existed. Plus - those shrines were just as sacred to Judiasm and Islam and since both were native to the region their territorial claim on them was far more valid then that of Christian Normans and Franks. It's not like the Crusaders spared the Jewish population....:)

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

We didn't have the Crusades. They are nothing to do with anything I recognise as Christianity.

I find the whole notion that the Lordship of Jesus Christ can be advanced by going to other parts of the world and killing people to be morally repugnant.

Crusades were not only waged against Muslims, but against heretics such as the Cathars, against a Spanish king of Aragon, against an anti-pope in Belgium, and even against the Stedingers (a group of German Catholics who refused to pay taxes to the Archbishop of Bremen).

Who is the "We" you refer to PDN?

The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by so called infallible Popes. So they really had everything to do with Christianity. Or are you saying a Pope could be fallible? In which case every decision and every comment made by subsequent Popes needs to be questioned.

Bannasidhe

Twin-go wrote: »

Who is the "We" you refer to PDN?

The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by so called infallible Popes. So they really had everything to do with Christianity. Or are you saying a Pope could be fallible? In which case every decision and every comment made by subsequent Popes needs to be questioned.

The concept of Papal Infallibilty doesn't really apply here as it was only formally adopted in the 19th century plus it refers to matters of doctrinal faith only.

While you are correct to say the Crusades were religious wars - there was also a large political component to them. The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in the early 13th century had as much to do with French territorial expansionism as it had to do with religion.

One of the 'reasons' for the First Crusade was simply that the nobility of Europe whose whole reason for existence was military 'service' were beating the living daylights out of each other across the Continent as there simply wasn't enough land available to support all of these Knights - so petty wars were happening everywhere. Shipping all of these hot blooded knights off the Outremer to fight Muslims was an expedient measure to bring some peace to Europe.

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by so called infallible Popes. So they really had everything to do with Christianity. Or are you saying a Pope could be fallible? In which case every decision and every comment made by subsequent Popes needs to be questioned.

That is a naive understanding of history and of Christianity.

Additionally, you obviously don't understand what papal infallibility means. Nor, for that matter, do you appear to be aware that the Crusades predate the doctrine of papal infallibility by several hundred years.

Finally, your "do you still beat your wife" style question has little meaning to Christians who aren't Roman Catholic.

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a naive understanding of history and of Christianity.

Additionally, you obviously don't understand what papal infallibility means. Nor, for that matter, do you appear to be aware that the Crusades predate the doctrine of papal infallibility by several hundred years.

True.

Finally, your "do you still beat your wife" style question has little meaning to Christians who aren't Roman Catholic.

The crusades happened prior to the reformation? ...and the simile 'do you still beat your wife' is as old as both...Sorry - bad simile!

Bannasidhe

lmaopml wrote: »

True.



The crusades happened prior to the reformation?

First Crusade 1096 - 1099.

Ninth Crusade 1271 - 1272

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crusades-timeline.htm

Some historians would also consider the Reconquista of Spain and expulsion of the Moors by Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castille completed in 1492 as a Crusade - Their Catholic Majesties certainly did.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/timeline.html

The Last Crusade - and only one to occur after the Protestant Reformation (considered to have begun in 1517 though it must be noted Reform movements had existed as far back as the 11th Century) was the disastrous one led by Sebastian I of Portugal in 1578 to North Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_of_Portugal

Among Sebastian's force was English Catholic Thomas Stukely - Stukely had been an Elizabethan adventurer in Ireland but sided with James FitzMaurice Fitzgerald's Rebellion (commonly known as the First Desmond Rebellion 1569-1573) which was the first in Ireland to use religion as a battle cry.

In 1576, FitzMaurice and Stukley successfully petitioned Pope Gregory XIII for Papel dispensation for a Crusade against Elizabeth I, plus funds and troops to invade England but the death of Don John of Austria meant a change of plans and a Crusade in Ireland was planned. While on route to Ireland, Stukley sailed to Lisbon and instead of continuing on to Ireland joined Sebastian's Crusade against Islam in North Africa - taking most of the 4,000 troops intended for Ireland to Morocco instead. Stukely died there, the Second Desmond Rebellion was brutally suppressed and led to the Munster Plantation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stukley#Ireland

Keylem

An extract from a book I'm currently reading. (7 lies about Catholic History)

If ever here were a topic apparently tailor-made for historical liars, it is the Crusades.

History of Crusade bashing, a collection of falsehoods and half-truths going back a long way. Not surprisingly post-Reformation England produced a number of historians eager to bash the Catholic Crusades. One was the seventeeth-century scholar Thomas Fuller, who drew up a list of arguments for and against the Crusades. His cons outweigh the pros, though he does raise the issue of the defense of the Eastern Empire and resistance to Muslim agression. His objections to the Crusades include practical points such as the terrible cost of such wars in both money and lives. He also argues, however, that God might want the Muslims to posess the Holy Lands since He had allowed them to hold them for so long, and he adds that pilgrimages are generally supstitious anyway. In sum, "These reasons have moved the most moderate and refined Papists and all Protestants generally in their judgments to fight against this Holy War."
The following century, the eighteen and the so-called Age of Englightenment, found anti-Catholic thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot, and Hume scribbling more attacks on the Crusades.
A good example from this period is Edward Gibbon, who wrote about the Crusades with his pen dipped, as usual, in anti-Catholic venom.

[ The most authentic information of St. Bernard must be drawn from his own writings, published in a correct edition by Pere Mabillon, and reprinted at Venice, 1750, in six volumes in folio. Whatever friendship could recollect, or superstition could add, is contained in the two lives, by his disciples, in the vith volume: whatever learning and criticism could ascertain, may be found in the prefaces of the Benedictine editor] [ Gibbon, whose account of the crusades is perhaps the least accurate and satisfactory chapter in his History, has here failed in that lucid arrangement, which in general gives perspicuity to his most condensed and crowded narratives. He has unaccountably, and to the great perplexity of the reader, placed the preaching of St Bernard after the second crusade to which i led. - M.]

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_gibbon_6_III.htm

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a naive understanding of history and of Christianity.

Additionally, you obviously don't understand what papal infallibility means. Nor, for that matter, do you appear to be aware that the Crusades predate the doctrine of papal infallibility by several hundred years.

Finally, your "do you still beat your wife" style question has little meaning to Christians who aren't Roman Catholic.

I admit I am not a scholar of The Crusades or the Papacy. I was not aware that the Pope was fallible (in matters Doctrine) up to the 1800s.

Were the Crusades faught in the name of Christianity or not? Who are the one true Christian faith? They can't all be right.

Do you think the media should stop refering to the 9/11 hijackers as Muslim terrorists because they are not true Muslims?

Lets face it. Religion, all of it, is a poison on the planet.

Bannasidhe

Keylem wrote: »

An extract from a book I'm currently reading. (7 lies about Catholic History)

Or you could just read the words of those who were actually involved rather then someone's later interpretation which has a specific agenda.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook1k.asp#The First Crusade


'history' with an agenda is not History - it is propaganda regardless of the author - be it Bernard of Clarivaux or Edward Gibbons.

Keylem

Are you to assume that the book I'm reading from doesn't have info from reliable sources, and eyewitnesses?

Bannasidhe

Keylem wrote: »

Are you to assume that the book I'm reading from doesn't have info from reliable sources, and eyewitnesses?

I am saying if a work's reason for existence is to expose what it terms 'lies' it is unlikely to be either balanced or objective. Two of the most important criteria for a work of History.

The quote you provided contained the phrase ' the so-called Age of Englightenment (sic)' - hardly objective.

Keylem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am saying if a work's reason for existence is to expose what it terms 'lies' it is unlikely to be either balanced or objective. Two of the most important criteria for a work of History.

The quote you provided contained the phrase ' the so-called Age of Englightenment (sic)' - hardly objective.

The "enlightenment" was a load of half-truths!

Bannasidhe

Keylem wrote: »

The "enlightenment" was a load of half-truths!

The Enlightenment is a term historians apply to a historical period when philosopher's sought to apply reason and logic to understanding the world. There was no specific Enlightened philosophy - it wasn't a club with rules or a religion with doctrine. Enlightened Philosopher's differed widely in the conclusions they reached - same as economists do today.



For you to so easily dismiss those whose conclusions you disagree with as 'liars' leads me to suspect you have no interest in objective study but wish only to hear that which confirms your existing world view.

For the sake of debate exactly which half of the Enlightenment was half-truths?

JimiTime

Twin-go wrote: »

Were the Crusades faught in the name of Christianity or not?

They were. Doesn't mean they were Christian though. If I go murder people in the name of Coca Cola, it doesn't mean that I actually represent Coca Cola.

Who are the one true Christian faith?

Those people who Jesus chooses and recognise his voice. Best thing is to look to Jesus as to how to identify his people. 'By their fruits you shall know them'.

Do you think the media should stop refering to the 9/11 hijackers as Muslim terrorists because they are not true Muslims?

Best ask that on the muslim forum. Christians have Jesus and the apostles showing them how to identify ACTUAL followers of Christ. I don't know if Muslims have the same.

Lets face it. Religion, all of it, is a poison on the planet.

A lot of hatred is born of ignorance. Your comment above is just lazy mindedness. A desire to be able to put something into a neat little box so that you don't actually have to think. Your ignorance has already been exposed here, best to humbly reassess your conclusions, and educate yourself a bit before making ignorant proclamations.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

I admit I am not a scholar of The Crusades or the Papacy. I was not aware that the Pope was fallible (in matters Doctrine) up to the 1800s.

And the so-called infallibility of the Pope is a bit irrelevant to throw at someone like myself who, not being Roman Catholic, thinks the Pope to be extremely fallible.

Were the Crusades faught in the name of Christianity or not? Who are the one true Christian faith? They can't all be right.

Lots of things are done in lots of names. The Provos blew people up in the name of Ireland - but I reject their right to speak on my behalf just as much as I reject the right of a Pope to do anything in my name.

Do you think the media should stop refering to the 9/11 hijackers as Muslim terrorists because they are not true Muslims?

We're not talking about how the media refer to anything. We are debating the Crusades in the Christianity Forum.

PDN

Keylem wrote: »

The "enlightenment" was a load of half-truths!

Yeah, all that rubbish like steam engines and electricity. A bunch of damned liars that wouldn't let us stay happily in the Dark Ages.

Now excuse me while I go find some Luddites to smash this laptop I'm using to type this post.

Twin-go

JimiTime wrote: »

They were. Doesn't mean they were Christian though. If I go murder people in the name of Coca Cola, it doesn't mean that I actually represent Coca Cola.

Above is not like for like with the Crusades. If you murdered people in the name of Coca Cola and got the blessing of the CEO to do so. Then you would be representing the Coca Cola company with your actions.

JimiTime wrote: »

Those people who Jesus chooses and recognise his voice. Best thing is to look to Jesus as to how to identify his people. 'By their fruits you shall know them'.

There are too many non Christians who "by their fruits" have done good. Ghandi for example, but according to the Bible he is in Hell.

JimiTime wrote: »

Best ask that on the muslim forum. Christians have Jesus and the apostles showing them how to identify ACTUAL followers of Christ. I don't know if Muslims have the same.

I would think in this world Actual followers of Christ are as rare as Hens teeth. Even if you take just the people on this Island how many claim to be Christian (of what ever dinomination) and live truely 100% according to Christian teachings. A lot choose from the al la carte menu.

Muslims on the other hand seem to give all or nothing to their faith. This is why I beleave their faith seems stronger.

JimiTime wrote: »

A lot of hatred is born of ignorance. Your comment above is just lazy mindedness. A desire to be able to put something into a neat little box so that you don't actually have to think. Your ignorance has already been exposed here, best to humbly reassess your conclusions, and educate yourself a bit before making ignorant proclamations.

Actually I think a lot about how religion affects our world. To date it does not seem to be a force for good, quite the opposite in fact.

The scary thing is the biggest religion in the world predects Armogedden that will distroy the world. The tensions between the Muslim and Christian faiths could lead to a final religious war and a self fullfilling prophecy.

Religion has the potential to destroy everything.

Manach

The half-truths of the enlightenment referred to might be based on those expounded by Rousseau that without the crust of modern civilisation, that the simpler natural lifestyles of early man were more innocent.
This "half-truth" was one of the key ideological underpinings of the French Revolution, an attempt to right the wrongs of the ancient regeime by re-setting French society based on enlightment principles, with those opposed to the new regeime deemed enemies of the state. . That event did not end well for many Catholics. - (source :"The French Revolution" by A Goodwin & "Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution" by R.Scurr).

For the main crusades, in response to Bannasidhe, I should have clarified it was the Byzantine Imperial territories. Prior to the battle of Manizert in 1071(?) they would have been the dominant empire in the region, and would have had a policy of re-conquering lost lands based on the precedent of Justinian (source: The Life Of Belisarius by Mahon)

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

And the so-called infallibility of the Pope is a bit irrelevant to throw at someone like myself who, not being Roman Catholic, thinks the Pope to be extremely fallible.

Who is the leader of your Church?

PDN wrote: »

Lots of things are done in lots of names. The Provos blew people up in the name of Ireland - but I reject their right to speak on my behalf just as much as I reject the right of a Pope to do anything in my name.

If this is the case no one should belong to any religion what so ever. Like it or not, right or wrong the Crusades were done in the name or Christianity

PDN wrote: »

We're not talking about how the media refer to anything. We are debating the Crusades in the Christianity Forum.

Festus wrote:

Quite simply, Muslim aggression not dissimilar to their aggression of today.

The Muslim "aggression" of today as mentioned is what we preceive through reports in the media. I think referencing the media is relevent.

Bannasidhe

Twin-go wrote: »

Muslims on the other hand seem to give all or nothing to their faith. This is why I beleave their faith seems stronger.


.

I'm afraid there are quite a few á la Carte Muslims as well. I have personally seen Muslims eating bacon sandwiches, having a quick snifter etc.
I once asked a friend of mine who for years used to 'visit' me every lunch time during Ramadam (month of fasting) so he could eat his lunch and more importantly smoke his brains out for 50 minutes where he could safely hide from his wife and mother (he was in his 30s!) - he said he didn't really believe in 'all that crap' but his life wouldn't be worth living if he said so.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

The half-truths of the enlightenment referred to might be based on those expounded by Rousseau that without the crust of modern civilisation, that the simpler natural lifestyles of early man were more innocent.
This "half-truth" was one of the key ideological underpinings of the French Revolution, an attempt to right the wrongs of the ancient regeime by re-setting French society based on enlightment principles, with those opposed to the new regeime deemed enemies of the state. . That event did not end well for many Catholics. - (source :"The French Revolution" by A Goodwin & "Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution" by R.Scurr).

For the main crusades, in response to Bannasidhe, I should have clarified it was the Byzantine Imperial territories. Prior to the battle of Manizert in 1071(?) they would have been the dominant empire in the region, and would have had a policy of re-conquering lost lands based on the precedent of Justinian (source: The Life Of Belisarius by Mahon)

The French Revolution also referenced Montesque, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, Burke and Locke. I don't think poor old Rousseau should be held responsible for Robespierre's Reign of Terror.

Technically everyone in France was Catholic after Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685 making France officially a single religion state.

Thank you for clarifying re: Byzantine Empire - but as this was just the 'Eastern' half of the old Imperial Roman Empire (and Justanian was obsessed with re-creating the fractured Roman Empire) I think my comments on the legitimacy of Christian European using Imperial Rome's conquest of the region to provide legitimacy for an invasion stands.

Manach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The French Revolution also referenced Montesque, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, Burke and Locke. I don't think poor old Rousseau should be held responsible for Robespierre's Reign of Terror.
.

Very true, with the possible exception of Mr. Edmund Burke who might find himself puzzled to be in such company as M. Voltaire.

JimiTime

Twin-go wrote: »

Above is not like for like with the Crusades. If you murdered people in the name of Coca Cola and got the blessing of the CEO to do so. Then you would be representing the Coca Cola company with your actions.

Well, to continue the corporate analogy, Jesus would be the CEO, but you are saying its the Pope. The Pope represents Roman Catholicism, which claims to represent Christ. So again, I refer you to the ACTUAl 'CEO', 'By their fruits you shall know them'.

There are too many non Christians who "by their fruits" have done good. Ghandi for example, but according to the Bible he is in Hell.

Again, I recommend you do some basic reading on Christian theology before making proclamations in ignorance.

I would think in this world Actual followers of Christ are as rare as Hens teeth.

Aha, progress. This is evidence that you actually do have discernment when it comes to what is Christian, and what is simply saying that you are Christian.

Even if you take just the people on this Island how many claim to be Christian (of what ever dinomination) and live truely 100% according to Christian teachings. A lot choose from the al la carte menu.

Correct.

Muslims on the other hand seem to give all or nothing to their faith. This is why I beleave their faith seems stronger.

Maybe there are more faithful Muslims than Christians, I don't know, maybe you are right. In my experience, there are plenty of a la carte muslims, but I'm certainly in no position to make declarations like you did above. Its not relevant though.

Actually I think a lot about how religion affects our world. To date it does not seem to be a force for good, quite the opposite in fact.

Aww, and we're back to putting things in boxes again.

The scary thing is the biggest religion in the world predects Armogedden that will distroy the world. The tensions between the Muslim and Christian faiths could lead to a final religious war and a self fullfilling prophecy.

Religion has the potential to destroy everything.

Ignorance leads to Fear leads to Hate. Hate leads to the DARK SIDE!!

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

Who is the leader of your Church?

If you're talking about the entire Church of Jesus Christ, it doesn't have any one leader other than Jesus Christ.

If you're talking about the denomination to which I belong, not that it's relevant to this thread or to the Crusades, all the ordained ministers vote and elect a General Overseer to serve a four year term.

If this is the case no one should belong to any religion what so ever. Like it or not, right or wrong the Crusades were done in the name or Christianity

Are you genuinely unable to construct a logical argument, or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

The fact that a movement (Roman Catholicism) claimed to do things in the name of Christianity does not mean that no-one should therefore belong to any religion whatsoever. :rolleyes: That is a complete non sequitur.

Like it or not, right or wrong the Crusades were done in the name or Christianity

I neither like it nor dislike it. It's totally irrelevant - just as if I decided to start killing people in the name of Twin-go.

Festus

Twin-go wrote: »

The Muslim "aggression" of today as mentioned is what we preceive through reports in the media. I think referencing the media is relevent.

I'll defer to someone who would appear to be more along your frame of mind for a response to that and hopefully you will find his words relevant to both then and now.

J. Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, pp. 100-101 wrote:

“In tandem with this great importance of the political power there is, of course, the importance and glorification of war as a means of spreading the faith. Such war is a duty for all Muslims. Islam has to become universal. The true faith, not the power, has to be taken to every people by every means, including by military force. This makes the political power important, for it is warlike by nature. The two things are closely related. The political head wages war on behalf of the faith. He is thus the religious head, and as the sole representative of God he must fight to extend Islam. This enormous importance of war has been totally obliterated today in intellectual circles that admire Islam and want to take it afresh as a model. War is inherent in Islam. It is inscribed in its teaching. It is a fact of its civilization and also a religious fact; the two cannot be separated. It is coherent with its conception of the Dhar al ahrb, that the whole world is destined to become Muslim by Arab conquests. The proof of all this is not just theological; it is historical: hardly has the Islamic faith been preached when an immediate military conquest begins. From 632 to 651, in the twenty years after the death of the prophet, we have a lightning war of conquest with the invasion of Egypt and Cyrenaica to the west, Arabia in the center, Armenia, Syria, and Persia to the east. In the following century all North Africa and Spain are taken over, along with India and Turkey to the east. The conquests are not achieved by sanctity, but by war.
For three centuries Christianity spread by preaching, kindliness, example, morality, and encouragement of the poor. When the empire became Christian, war was hardly tolerated by the Christians. Even when waged by a Christian emperor it was a dubious business and was assessed unfavorably. It was often condemned. Christians were accused of undermining the political force and military might of the empire from within. In practice Christians would remain critical of war until the flamboyant image of the holy war came on the scene. In other words, no matter what atrocities have been committed in wars waged by so-called Christian nations, war has always been in essential contradiction to the gospel. Christians have always been more or less aware of this. They have judged war and questioned it.
In Islam, on the contrary, war was always just and constituted a sacred duty. The war that was meant to convert infidels was just and legitimate, for, as Muslim thinking repeats, Islam is the only religion that conforms perfectly to nature. In a natural state we would all be Muslims. If we are not, it is because we have been led astray and diverted from the true faith. In making war to force people to become Muslims the faithful are bringing them back to their true nature. Q.E.D. Furthermore, a war of this kind is a jihad, a holy war. Let us make no mistake, the word jihad has two complementary senses. It may denote a spiritual war that is moral and inward. Muslims have to wage this war within themselves in the fight against demons and evil forces, in the effort to achieve better obedience to God’s will, in the struggle for perfect submission. But at the same time and in a wholly consistent way the jihad is also the war against external demons. To spread the faith, it is necessary to destroy false religions. This war, then, is always a religious war, a holy war.”

tommy2bad

Festus thats a scary quote.
Is J. Ellul a Muslim and who cares anyway Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian and look at his opinion.
Have you asked any Muslims what they want, really want? Do you even know any Muslims?
Has it occurred to you that the oppression you see in Muslim countries is born out off fear rather than faith. And considering our history they might have justification ?

Festus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Festus thats a scary quote.
Is J. Ellul a Muslim and who cares anyway Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian and look at his opinion.
Have you asked any Muslims what they want, really want? Do you even know any Muslims?
Has it occurred to you that the oppression you see in Muslim countries is born out off fear rather than faith. And considering our history they might have justification ?

I guess you are as acquinted with Islam and Muslims as you are with Google.

In short I don't agree that oppresion in Muslim countries is borne out of fear rather than faith, at least not for Muslims oppressing Muslims. In the case of the oppressed Christians who live in Muslim states it is the Muslim faith that drives Muslims to oppress and put fear onto their Christian brothers and sisters.