-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
M
Well I think at least one aspect of the Crusades that was wrong was the fact that the Catholic Church essentially told people they could earn their salvation by killing pagans on the behalf of God! That is total nonsense. Salvation only comes through accepting Jesus Christ as you Lord and personal Saviour.
S
The Crusades are one of those things we have to look at through the context of history and not our modern world view. The idea of doing something like this today would be highly looked down upon. I'd say the First Crusade went pretty good, but the rest are questionable, and the sacking of Constantinople was completely horrible. To this day, that sacking is an event that the Orthodox still hold against the Catholic church as one of a few reasons not to rush into re-unification.
But there is one thing to keep in mind: justified or not, had the Crusades not happened, there is a good chance Europe would have become substantially Muslim, if not entirely Muslim. Remember, many parts of the Middle East were once very Christian. The expansion of Empires with Islam as their main religion changed that. The Crusades were, in part, and attempt to keep the same from happening to Europe and to reverse this trend where it has happened. I'd say it succeeded in Europe, but obviously, not in the Holy Land. As Christians, we can't be 100% proud of the Crusades, but I sure am glad I'm Christian and not Muslim to be honest with you.
But there is one thing to keep in mind: justified or not, had the Crusades not happened, there is a good chance Europe would have become substantially Muslim, if not entirely Muslim. Remember, many parts of the Middle East were once very Christian. The expansion of Empires with Islam as their main religion changed that. The Crusades were, in part, and attempt to keep the same from happening to Europe and to reverse this trend where it has happened. I'd say it succeeded in Europe, but obviously, not in the Holy Land. As Christians, we can't be 100% proud of the Crusades, but I sure am glad I'm Christian and not Muslim to be honest with you.
C
Another point to remember is that much of the looting and murder had already occurred before the Crusaders reached the outer posts of Christendom, or lands that had already fallen to Islam - such as Spain, Asia Minor, the Crusaders got the blame, when in fact the position would have been far worse if they had not arrived.
C
Just in regard to Constantinople, which I think was the Fourth crusade, the Crusaders claimed that they were led astray and betrayed by what should have been their Greek allies, so they attacked the city. The Crusaders were condemned for this by their own Roman Catholic Church and felt doubly betrayed. This event well and truly shut out any hope of reunification between eastern and western Church's
M
I must admit I think of the Crusades in a rather romantic fashion, kind of like Winston Chruchill, who had a romantic view of war (although the reality is there is nothing romantic about war whatsoever!). The brave Christian soldiers of Europe conquering in the name of Christianity, fighting the evil hordes, etc. It was a time when Christianinty stood up and said, RIGHT! We are not going to tolerate this anymore! I wish they were around today, we need to true Christian soldiers to fight not only the Islamic hordes but also the 'enemy within'!
K
No offense but I find you using the phrase "Islamic hordes" incrediably narrow minded and offensive and borderline racist.
Why are you focusing solely on Islam? What about Maoism? Buddhism? Shintoism (and even more worse in my opinion) twisted 'christian' cults?
How about loving people first and foremost regardless of what they believe in? You aint going to make many friends let alone lead others to Christ by calling other peoples 'hordes' as if their some kind of savage.
Speaking as a history student - do you know what the early christian church and govt did to convince people to join the crusade? Money and lost christian relics that the muslims were supposedly 'harbouring.' People believed them and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings. Preventing the spread of Islam is total bull. During that period in history the entire middle east was a hub of peace compared to the tiny country of Rome on its own. While the East were gaining sophiscated technology and methods of travel and exploring, Europe was learning new ways of killing each other and how to spread the plague.
Why are you focusing solely on Islam? What about Maoism? Buddhism? Shintoism (and even more worse in my opinion) twisted 'christian' cults?
How about loving people first and foremost regardless of what they believe in? You aint going to make many friends let alone lead others to Christ by calling other peoples 'hordes' as if their some kind of savage.
Speaking as a history student - do you know what the early christian church and govt did to convince people to join the crusade? Money and lost christian relics that the muslims were supposedly 'harbouring.' People believed them and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings. Preventing the spread of Islam is total bull. During that period in history the entire middle east was a hub of peace compared to the tiny country of Rome on its own. While the East were gaining sophiscated technology and methods of travel and exploring, Europe was learning new ways of killing each other and how to spread the plague.
Not sure what Maoism or Shintoism is, but Buddhism (and I'm guessing the other two) don't seem to expand as quickly as islam. If you look at the rate of expansion, islam was created in 600 or so? And within a few centuries islam and the empires that were formed from it controlled the bottom half of the mediteranean including large parts of Spain, parts of Sicily and large parts of formerly byzantine territory(yeah I knwo thats general... sorry) That's pretty rapid expansion & threat to christian Europe.
The Crusade was a response to a request by the Byzantine empire for the (I think... plz correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've read this stuff) for help against the turks as they were putting a lot of presure on them. For a visual thing this is the map of the Byzantine empire before the first crusade - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg I can't find a pic of after the first crusade but you can imagine the extent of territory they reclaimed considering where the crusader states were formed. - It set islam back a long way, it isn't as well known but there were also crusades into Spain which helped reclaim territory there.
Also... just on this point Kiwi "People believed them and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings." I'm pretty sure that under islamic rule at that time you were not allowed to preach christianity & there was harsh punishment for doing so... They tolerated and permitted other religions in the places they conquered but they did not permit them to preach the gospel or try and convert muslims to christianity... Correct me if I'm wrong though i'm not 100% on this.
So were the crusades a response to islamic aggression and expansion? Well... in my opinion yes although there were other political forces involved of course & I've seen it argued that the first crusade was just a papal grab for power. Don't really agree with taht one myself... I think it was motivated by religion.
I will agree with you on the point that there would have been false reasons given to the population to convince them to go and preaching 'salvation for an armed pilgrimage' was definately wrong of the church. Anyway, it's far too late & I'm probably going to wake up in a few hours and think what the heck did I write so I'm going to sleep.
Overall in my opinoin it was motivated my christianity but it wasn't exactly christian in the way in which it was conducted... dunno. Fascinating period of history though.
PS: Also, the plague wasn't until later
.
The Crusade was a response to a request by the Byzantine empire for the (I think... plz correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've read this stuff) for help against the turks as they were putting a lot of presure on them. For a visual thing this is the map of the Byzantine empire before the first crusade - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg I can't find a pic of after the first crusade but you can imagine the extent of territory they reclaimed considering where the crusader states were formed. - It set islam back a long way, it isn't as well known but there were also crusades into Spain which helped reclaim territory there.
Also... just on this point Kiwi "People believed them and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings." I'm pretty sure that under islamic rule at that time you were not allowed to preach christianity & there was harsh punishment for doing so... They tolerated and permitted other religions in the places they conquered but they did not permit them to preach the gospel or try and convert muslims to christianity... Correct me if I'm wrong though i'm not 100% on this.
So were the crusades a response to islamic aggression and expansion? Well... in my opinion yes although there were other political forces involved of course & I've seen it argued that the first crusade was just a papal grab for power. Don't really agree with taht one myself... I think it was motivated by religion.
I will agree with you on the point that there would have been false reasons given to the population to convince them to go and preaching 'salvation for an armed pilgrimage' was definately wrong of the church. Anyway, it's far too late & I'm probably going to wake up in a few hours and think what the heck did I write so I'm going to sleep.
Overall in my opinoin it was motivated my christianity but it wasn't exactly christian in the way in which it was conducted... dunno. Fascinating period of history though.
PS: Also, the plague wasn't until later
.
M
The point of the crusades was not to drive back the muslim hordes it was the catholic church deciding they wanted to take back the city of jerusalem, which had been in muslim hands for ages. They felt they had the right to the city of Jerusalem and so they decided to take it. War is never justified, and most of the reasons for war are stupidity at its best.
G
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36). Unfortunately, many Christians since that time have conquered land in the name of Christ, killed in the name of Christ, etc. This goes against everything Jesus taught and everything the New Testament taught. If you disagree with me, please provide some scriptures that indicate Christians are to engage in military acts. I can certainly provide verses to the contrary, since that message is one that is at the core of New Testament teaching.
M
Hello kiwi_OT,
Firstly, I cannot help it if you find such terminology offensive. It is not racist. I used the term in the spirit of how it probably would have been used back during the Crusades. And if you find Christian Cults worse than the current threat of Islam, then I disagree absolutely. I was focusing soley on Islam because as far as I am aware that's the collective that the Crusaders were trying to defeat! The other eastern religions that you refer to are not missionary styled religions as are Christianity and Islam.
I am well aware of what the Catholic Chruch did to convince people to join the Crusades. I don't condone it. As I said before (more or less) war is not a pleasant business! In terms of "hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings". That I think is entirely questionable! The middle east not long before the crusades was largely Christian, then Islamic armies went around conquering parts of the middle east and converting people to Islam. I will just say here that I don't believe in mass murder or forced conversions! It is ironic that you mention the Vikings, who were notoriously violent and at one stage conquered territories to convert people to Christianity!
And yes Jordan9 is was speaking figuratively.
Firstly, I cannot help it if you find such terminology offensive. It is not racist. I used the term in the spirit of how it probably would have been used back during the Crusades. And if you find Christian Cults worse than the current threat of Islam, then I disagree absolutely. I was focusing soley on Islam because as far as I am aware that's the collective that the Crusaders were trying to defeat! The other eastern religions that you refer to are not missionary styled religions as are Christianity and Islam.
I am well aware of what the Catholic Chruch did to convince people to join the Crusades. I don't condone it. As I said before (more or less) war is not a pleasant business! In terms of "hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and decent men were murdered who could have been quietly converted by normal missionaries who could have tried to adapt Christianity into their culture like with the Celts and Vikings". That I think is entirely questionable! The middle east not long before the crusades was largely Christian, then Islamic armies went around conquering parts of the middle east and converting people to Islam. I will just say here that I don't believe in mass murder or forced conversions! It is ironic that you mention the Vikings, who were notoriously violent and at one stage conquered territories to convert people to Christianity!
And yes Jordan9 is was speaking figuratively.
C
Interestingly the Christian Vikings were going to attack Jerusalem in 1030 AD, they had captured dozens of Arab outposts and were marching toward Jerusalem, they made a deal with the Muslims, that pilgrimage routes should be safe and secure for Christains. This was a very fair deal as the Vikings could have continued on and easily sacked Jerusalem. However as we know the Muslims we're not true to their word, and later the Vikings joined in the first Crusades.
The crusades started when the eastern roman empire asked for help from the west to defend their territory against invading muslims. I don't see a difference between that and the Vietnam, Korean, Iraq and Afghanistani wars. The latter two which are all about a clash of religions and idealogies between christian and muslim.
- Status