Crusaders?

[MahogonySnail]

I agree that God is love but Jesus said we are to do good to our enemies and love our enemies so that we will be like God who is love. Are you or are you not a child of God,? and as a child of God you must love your enemies as your Father loves His enemies. God loves sinners and God loves His enemies like the anti-christ that's why we must also love them.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

I agree that God is love but Jesus said we are to do good to our enemies and love our enemies so that we will be like God who is love. Are you or are you not a child of God,? and as a child of God you must love your enemies as your Father loves His enemies. God loves sinners and God loves His enemies like the anti-christ that's why we must also love them.

You did not answer my questions, no matter;

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven, Think not that I come to bring peace on the earth: I come not to send peace but a sword"

"Every kingdom that is divided against itself is brought into desolation; every city or house that is divided against itself shall not stand"

"He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

"The field is the world; the good seed (sperm of God) are the children of the kingdom (from heaven); but the tares are the children of the wicked one. the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is at the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

Matthew adresses this point over and over again. God's enemies are not from Him, the Son of Man did not sow them, they're not His, they are children of the devil, God does not love them, He is going to rip them up and destroy them in His eternal fire. They are not from Him - this seed is from the Devil and this is as John says the spirit of the antichrist - manifest in those that perish and this is NOT the spirit of love, therefore if your enemy be an antichrist there can be no love between you because God is love, He gives love and He only loves His own, otherwise His kingdom will fall, because it cannot stand if it is divided. I don't know if your getting this? Look 'Snail if you want to love the devil and the world, go right ahead, i've told you as much as I possibly can.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Romans 5: 10 says we were God's enemies:

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

And God loved His enemies so much that He sent His only begotten Son...


But Cup of Ruin says:

God does not love them, He is going to rip them up and destroy them in His eternal fire

Either God loves His enemies or doesn't, which is it? The bible says God loves His enemies and as children of God we should also:

Matt 5:44:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.


It is obviously talking about the righteous and unrighteous i.e. christians and non-christians, not fellow believers although they are included as well, So Cup of Ruin you are completely wrong about this and I think your views are anti-love and therefore anti-Christ.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Romans 5: 10 says we were God's enemies:

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

And God loved His enemies so much that He sent His only begotten Son...


But Cup of Ruin says:




Either God loves His enemies or doesn't, which is it? The bible says God loves His enemies and as children of God we should also:

Matt 5:44:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.


It is obviously talking about the righteous and unrighteous i.e. christians and non-christians, not fellow believers although they are included as well, So Cup of Ruin you are completely wrong about this and I think your views are anti-love and therefore anti-Christ.

Is Paul not the eternal seed of God?

I have a note here from E.W. Bullinger concerning Romans 5:10; catabasis....then Application verse 6 - 'For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly - then 'commanding His love towards us'. - without strength, sinners, enemies. then reconciled katallasso a more intensive word than allaso.

Well this is interesting there is a note to 1 Corinthians 7:11, in regard to 'reconciled' katallasso.

"Let not the wife depart from her husband: But if she does depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife,"

So E.W. Bullinger solves the problem here, what does it say about the church being God's wife, and before she was Israel, Israel was left, we know that, but God reconciled her through Christ according to His own law, that He never put her away, so this is what Paul means!

Whats God is God's, it is from Him and always was, as I told you 'Snail before if you want to love antichrists, you have no scripture to stand on whatsoever, you don't understand the Greek that Paul is using and the manner in which he speaks, can you not use the holy spirit to find out? He says while we (Christians) were sinners without strength - enemies by divorce, but not cast out because God cannot break His own law, now in Christ that has come we (Christians) are katallaso reconciled back to Him.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Ah, yes I knew there was something else from Paul that would confirm what I am saying, in comparing an enemy of man and the divorced sons of God, there is a difference and what does Paul say about the enemies of the Cross, or the enemies of Jesus Christ;

"Brethren be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so ye have us as an example. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now I even tell you weeping, that they are the enemies of the Cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction." Philippians 3:17-18

This point frustrated Paul to tears, bcause its difficult to explain, but it absolutely vital for the children of God to understand, that the enemies of the Cross of Christ - there end is destruction. And Paul also says to the Colossians who were decended from the lost tribes of Israel i.e. ethnos, "And you that were sometime alienated (apallotrio) and enemies in your own minds- by wicked works yet now He hath reconciled" So again we see the breach of contract between God and Israel being renewed through Christ, because Israel was divorced, but now Christian according to Hebrews 8:8-12 is reconciled and reunited.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Matt 5:44:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.



Is or is not Matt 5: 44 referring to the righteous (believers) and unrighteous (unbelievers) ? It appears so, unlike your view which says it is only referring to brethren. I don't think Christian brethren are normally called "the unrighteous" or evil, do you? Therefore you are wrong.


Col 1:21 And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled


By the way your views regarding the crusades are totally contrary to the scriptures such as this:

Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as far as is in you, being in peace with all men.
Rom 12:19 not avenging yourselves, beloved, but giving place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20 Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Christ showed his love for his enemies by praying for them while he hung on the cross, Stephen displayed love for his (and God's) enemies also.


Enemies are enemies, what is the difference if they become enemies by divorce or not? They are enemies, it doesn't do any justice to your argument.

BTW it was Israel whom God divorced not Gentiles. Every gentile can truly claim to be formerly an enemy of God and not by divorce. But you could argue the reconciliation point from the point of view of mankind going back to Adam and Eve, - every human being is reconciled to God in Christ, in the sense of humankind.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Matt 5:44:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.



Is or is not Matt 5: 44 referring to the righteous (believers) and unrighteous (unbelievers) ? It appears so, unlike your view which says it is only referring to brethren. I don't think Christian brethren are normally called "the unrighteous" or evil, do you? Therefore you are wrong.


Col 1:21 And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled


By the way your views regarding the crusades are totally contrary to the scriptures such as this:

Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as far as is in you, being in peace with all men.
Rom 12:19 not avenging yourselves, beloved, but giving place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20 Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Christ showed his love for his enemies by praying for them while he hung on the cross, Stephen displayed love for his (and God's) enemies also.


Enemies are enemies, what is the difference if they become enemies by divorce or not? They are enemies, it doesn't do any justice to your argument.

BTW it was Israel whom God divorced not Gentiles. Every gentile can truly claim to be formerly an enemy of God and not by divorce. But you could argue the reconciliation point from the point of view of mankind going back to Adam and Eve, - every human being is reconciled to God in Christ, in the sense of humankind.

ethnos - GENS - Gentiles= of a like tribe, of the same clan, of high noble birth.

You dont even know what the words mean anymore, I just explained to you the difference btween enemies of man within Christ, divorced sons of God sown from seed by the Father, and those that are not His seed but are of the devil and enemies of the Cross of Christ that end in destruction. God divorced Israel, He cannot put away His wife, that's against His law, so the breach is healed in Christ Jesus and those alienated are reconciled back to Christ, this is His chosen line, His children. Romans is addressing those within the body of Christ. See Rome was settled by Trojans, and Trojans were settled by runaways from Israel and Judah, like Darda, divorced you see from their God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, These Trojans are counted as lost sheep - Gentiles ethnos (Gene), do you know what Gene means 'Snail?, what about Genus or Gentry, or Gentleman, do you even understand the english language? Do you know where our language comes from? Look does not matter, you obviously have no idea what I am talking about.

"a friend of the world is an enemy of God" Jas 4:4

"Fire proceedeth...and devoureth their enemy." Rev. 11:5

 

[greatkraw]

Seriously?

Thank you for your response, Snail.



At the end of Matthew Jesus said ... 'Low, I am with you always....'

 

[MahogonySnail]

Cup of Ruin I should have guessed your views would have something to do with your British Israelism like views. So you dont believe that anyone who isn't descended from Israel will be saved?

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Rom 12:20 Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.

This is a good one, I will interpret it for you. Ask yourself how by giving your enemy actual literal food and drink will be like pouring hot coals on their head, knowing that enemies have god in their belly, if you feed them your food and give them water when they thirst they will be quite happy to take it of you, being enemies they will seek to take it off you anway, so if you give it freely how is that heaping hot coals on their head? Lets use the Spirit.

Paul quotes Solomon Proverbs 25:21-22 in Romans 12:20...So what is Solomon talking about? The reference here is of course 1 Sam. 24:6; 26:9 + Azariah, Berachiah, 2 Chron. 28:12-15; Elisha 2 Kings 6:19-23.

And in all these instances, it is God's annoited, and of course anybody that knows the terminology knows that bread and water is Jesus Christ and knowledge of God which can only be recieved by the elect "I am the bread of life" John 6:48, "Give us this day our daily bread", "Indeed My blood is drink indeed" John 6:55, "let him come unto me and drink"...

So this is a theme built up throught Scripture and it has its end and begining in Jesus Christ, so this is what Solomon means by 'pouring hot coals on their head' by giving them the word of God, just like I gave it to you know, I gave you bread and drink, I gave you the word of God, and it was like hot coals upon your head...

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup of Ruin I should have guessed your views would have something to do with your British Israelism like views. So you dont believe that anyone who isn't descended from Israel will be saved?

You do not have to be Israel or Judah to be saved, but you do have to be sown by the Son of Man, you have to be the seed of God, there is no salvation for the Devil and his children, they will not be in the Kingdom, God will save all those He has chosen, He had to save Judah and Israel first to heal the breach, once that was done the Covenant is extended to all Hebrews (Book of Hebrews) that all decended from Eber, and then after that He counts all flesh as dust like Adams, so it extends to all men as long as they are born of God and not the devil, because Satan has sown His own seed. There are two seedlines that God is balancing like a sinewave, this is part of His plan, the destruction part for Satan's seed and his rebel angels is by God's refining fire, after this age is done in the fire, we don't know what happens to them, they just won't be in the Kingdom for the next age, and to us this olam - which beyond human sight, and we cannot look through the veil into pre-existence, so we cannot see the eternal result of their rebellion, it's olam, you see, another God age, yet to be revealed.

 

[Peacefulcrusader]

Thankyou Magnus for your constructive criticism and I humbly accept it. You probably know more than me anyway. Technically Im a health student but I study history on the side, and I havent taken a paper on the crusades so I apologise for that and my lack of knowledge. The reason I wrote it (which admittedly was in anger) at the remark before mine. My previous statements were also made to back up Meriadoc's thoughts on why violence is unnecessary.

Hi again Kiwi.

It's difficult to say who of us knows the most about this topic, but I believe that I know at least some. You don't need to apologize for anything, as many of your claims were quite important, at least for this particular debate(thread) - which I so far haven't found to be too balanced. I understand that an important reason for your own comment was to react to the previous one.

An interesting point which you indirectly point to as well, is that the debate over the crusades consists of many different aspects. The one I was commenting myself was that concerning history etc. Another one which should be very relevant for us as Christians - and in a Christian forum - is the one dealing with the theological basis for such a venture - crusade. In short, I would say that as a Christian and looking at the teaching of Christ and the Apostles (and the Bible generally), I can't really find any good apologies for going on a crusade. Concerning the historical aspect, and trying to understand the political and human aspect of it, I can understand much more why the crusades were carried out - without personally agreeing as already noted.

An important note in the end is that the crusades consisted of several different elements and types. The "worst" crusades were those carried out in Northern and Eastern Europe, and which had the only goal to force-convert (or kill) "Pagans". The some of the crusades were assaults on Eastern Christians, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople around 1200 AD. The most "famous" kind of crusades were those carried out against the Muslim occupied Middle East, and the Holy Land especially. The defensive campaigns carried out against the Ottomans were yet another kind of "crusades", and the reconquest of Spain a similar one. So looking at all this, there are indeed many "kinds" of crusades. The one I find to be least good is the one to convert Pagans in Europe, then the attack on Constantinople, then the attack on the Holy Land, and then the reconquista and the defensive campaigns to stop the Ottomans. Anyway, it only shows that "crusades" is a term which involves a lot...

And to "Marcus", was it? Good point.

 

[Marcus2x2]

And to "Marcus", was it? Good point.

Pardon Peacefulcrusader?

 

[suaso]

"It says in the Bible not to wrestle your neighbor." - Nacho Libre

 

[Ancilla]

Were the crusades justified? Why or why not?..... speak your mind.

As usual, I'm jumping the gun and not reading the rest of the thread, but I have just one question:

What crusades are you talking about???? I think you should really think twice before you toss around a word like "crusade" because people will think you mean what Wikipedia describes as "The Crusades were a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire." The Crusades are a terrible stain on the reputation of the Roman Church. If I remember correctly from first year university history, crusaders were told by the pope (since this was basically an extermination of political enemies of the pope) that people who they killed in the crusades wouldn't count as sin and that they could do this to get time off their Purgatory or something. I'm not great at history so if I get any of my facts straight, feel free to correct me. But obviously, no Christian could possibly think Jesus would be ok with us slaughtering our political enemies. It's like saying "Was the holocaust justified?" And hearing in response: "How can you possibly think that the slaughter of 6 million Jews plus countless other minority groups be justfied??????" and then saying "No, not THE Holocaust, as in the one that happened under Nazi rule during World War II, I mean a different holocaust."

But let me tell what I learned about The Crusades. When I was at the Urbana mission conference at the University of Illinois in Urbana Champaine in 2000, we saw an animation about Christianity since Jesus, basically it started in Isreal, and then expanded from there, mostly northward, but all over. Then after that the Christians in the Middle East dissapeared and for a long time Christianity was centred in Europe. What happened to the Christians in the Middle East? They were slaughtered in the Crusades!!!! Now, I'm not sure if the Crusaders knew they were slaughtering brothers in Christ along with the Muslims or if it was intentional because they weren't Roman Christians and therefore no friend of theirs, I've heard both so if anyone knows, please let me know.

I was thinking the other day about how different the world would be if the Crusades never happened. There'd probably be a lot more Christians in the Middle East, that's for sure, and Christian/Islamic relations would be a lot warmer. See, I saw a cover of a magazine once that said "The future belongs to Islam." I think that's an overstatement, but one of the big reasons is that Muslims are free to seek converts in countries where Christians are the largest religion, but Christian missionaries aren't welcome in Islamic countries. You know, I saw Muslim men handing out pro-Muslim literature in one of the most croweded intersections in the biggest city in Canada. I toyed with the idea of asking them if they had any advice for me if I wanted to hand out Bibles in a major city of Saudi Arabia. I wonder what they'd say. Now, I wouldn't mean to imply that they should keep their religion in their country and leave ours alone. I like that Canadians have freedom of religion and people are able to preach on the street corner without persecution. However, if they were honest with me they'd probably tell me that I wouldn't have the freedom to walk around with my blazing red hair showing, let alone preach the Gospel. But that would beg the question: why isn't there much freedom in Islamic countries and what does that say about Islam? I mean, yeah, Europe medelled in their buisness and that didn't help, but they also medeled in a lot of other countries that enjoy more freedom today than Islamic countries. Have you seen the movie Presepolis? It's a great movie, check it out. But basically, it's about a little girl in Iran in the 1970s when Iran was ruled by the Shaw. The original Shaw was a British puppet. He (or maybe it was his son) tried to modernize Iran but things weren't great, so they overthrew him and had an Islamic revolution, and things where more oppressive than ever.

So, ironically, in the long run (the very long run) the Crusades were good for Islam, because it got rid of most of the Christians in the Middle East and probably solidified their opionions of Christians as bad guys that remains 1000 years later.

 

[Ancilla]

I must admit I think of the Crusades in a rather romantic fashion,

You're not the only one. I learned in university that in 1212 some teenagers thought they could go to the Middle East and peacefully appeal to the Muslims in what became known as The Children's Crusade. The crusade as a disaster and most of the kids were sold into slavery and/or prostitution. What those kids did wasn't wrong, it was just really, really naive. Hey, maybe that's what this thread is supposed to be about. Of course, it's so hard to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the Children's Crusade.

 

[Marcus2x2]

You raise some interesting points Ancilla. What you said about the Pope as far as I am aware is perfectly true (Saying that killing pagans is not a sin, etc.).
I'm not so sure though that the Crusaders wiped out the Christians in the Middle East. I'm reasonably certain that they were decimated by Islamic armies prior to the Crusades, particualrly as the Byzantines (Orthodox Chrisitans) were under threat by the Turks (Muslims).

One can only speculate as to how the world would have been if there were no Crusades. For all we know something similar could have been started by another Pope or a European King, or all out war might have occured between Europe proper and the Turks if the Turks took total control of the Byzantine Empire ... who knows?

In terms of contemporary Islam, I have no doubt that there is a fundamemtalist furvor electrifying most of the Islamic world, comparable, dare I say, to the zeal of the Crusaders! In regards to you question: "... why isn't there much freedom in Islamic countries and what does that say about Islam?", I think Samuel P Huntington answered it best when he said:
"Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power".

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

As usual, I'm jumping the gun and not reading the rest of the thread, but I have just one question:

What crusades are you talking about???? I think you should really think twice before you toss around a word like "crusade" because people will think you mean what Wikipedia describes as "The Crusades were a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire." The Crusades are a terrible stain on the reputation of the Roman Church. If I remember correctly from first year university history, crusaders were told by the pope (since this was basically an extermination of political enemies of the pope) that people who they killed in the crusades wouldn't count as sin and that they could do this to get time off their Purgatory or something. I'm not great at history so if I get any of my facts straight, feel free to correct me.

Firstly Wikipedia is a popular opinion site and links page, it not reference that can can be accepted.

You are wrong about the motivation behind the Crusades.

But obviously, no Christian could possibly think Jesus would be ok with us slaughtering our political enemies.

Primary reason behind the Crusades was based upon self defence.

even still Jesus said; "But those mine enemies which would not that I reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

This is before His entry in to Jerusalem and His armed attack with His diciples on the Temple - Luke 19:45-48

It's like saying "Was the holocaust justified?" And hearing in response: "How can you possibly think that the slaughter of 6 million Jews plus countless other minority groups be justfied??????" and then saying "No, not THE Holocaust, as in the one that happened under Nazi rule during World War II, I mean a different holocaust."

This is a poor comparison, two events are completely unrelated.

But let me tell what I learned about The Crusades. When I was at the Urbana mission conference at the University of Illinois in Urbana Champaine in 2000, we saw an animation about Christianity since Jesus, basically it started in Isreal, and then expanded from there, mostly northward, but all over. Then after that the Christians in the Middle East dissapeared and for a long time Christianity was centred in Europe. What happened to the Christians in the Middle East? They were slaughtered in the Crusades!!!! Now, I'm not sure if the Crusaders knew they were slaughtering brothers in Christ along with the Muslims or if it was intentional because they weren't Roman Christians and therefore no friend of theirs, I've heard both so if anyone knows, please let me know.

I don't know about the 'animation' you watched, but the information sounds incorrect.

I was thinking the other day about how different the world would be if the Crusades never happened.

It would be different, it would be an Islamic world.

There'd probably be a lot more Christians in the Middle East,

No there would be less.

that's for sure, and Christian/Islamic relations would be a lot warmer.

No they would not be.

See, I saw a cover of a magazine once that said "The future belongs to Islam." I think that's an overstatement, but one of the big reasons is that Muslims are free to seek converts in countries where Christians are the largest religion, but Christian missionaries aren't welcome in Islamic countries. You know, I saw Muslim men handing out pro-Muslim literature in one of the most croweded intersections in the biggest city in Canada.

Kind of answered your previous question there.

I toyed with the idea of asking them if they had any advice for me if I wanted to hand out Bibles in a major city of Saudi Arabia. I wonder what they'd say. Now, I wouldn't mean to imply that they should keep their religion in their country and leave ours alone. I like that Canadians have freedom of religion and people are able to preach on the street corner without persecution. However, if they were honest with me they'd probably tell me that I wouldn't have the freedom to walk around with my blazing red hair showing, let alone preach the Gospel. But that would beg the question: why isn't there much freedom in Islamic countries and what does that say about Islam? I mean, yeah, Europe medelled in their buisness and that didn't help, but they also medeled in a lot of other countries that enjoy more freedom today than Islamic countries. Have you seen the movie Presepolis? It's a great movie, check it out. But basically, it's about a little girl in Iran in the 1970s when Iran was ruled by the Shaw. The original Shaw was a British puppet. He (or maybe it was his son) tried to modernize Iran but things weren't great, so they overthrew him and had an Islamic revolution, and things where more oppressive than ever.

Best not to get your sources of information from the movie industry.

So, ironically, in the long run (the very long run) the Crusades were good for Islam,

???????

because it got rid of most of the Christians in the Middle East and probably solidified their opionions of Christians as bad guys that remains 1000 years later.

This is simply not true.

 

[Ancilla]

I'm not so sure though that the Crusaders wiped out the Christians in the Middle East. I'm reasonably certain that they were decimated by Islamic armies prior to the Crusades, particualrly as the Byzantines (Orthodox Chrisitans) were under threat by the Turks (Muslims).

You should look into it. I heard in two very reliable places that there were middle eastern Christians killed by Crusaders. Wikipedia says that the Crusaders campained against Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians and cites The Oxford History of the Crusades New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, and books published by university presses are generally pretty reliable. I heard that the Crusaders unintentionally slaughtered Arab Christians along with Arab Muslims, at the Royal Ontario Museum's exibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the research for it was done by historians and archiologists who really know they're stuff and was suprvised by Jews, Christians and Muslims. That being said, I'm not saying that the Byzantines hadn't already been surpressed by the Turks. My Byzantine history is pretty foggy and I think there was some kind of Muslim threat of the area that triggered the Crusades. Like, while studying history we look for events that trigger other events. Stuff just doesn't happen for no reason.

One can only speculate as to how the world would have been if there were no Crusades. For all we know something similar could have been started by another Pope or a European King, or all out war might have occured between Europe proper and the Turks if the Turks took total control of the Byzantine Empire ... who knows?

Ah yes, we don't know for sure what would happen if something in history happened differently. And you're totally right that if there had been no Crusades something similar could have happened. Maybe they would have invaded and slaughtered Europe. What bothers me is that Crusades is not what Jesus would have done, and so we can only reget that.

In terms of contemporary Islam, I have no doubt that there is a fundamemtalist furvor electrifying most of the Islamic world, comparable, dare I say, to the zeal of the Crusaders! In regards to you question: "... why isn't there much freedom in Islamic countries and what does that say about Islam?", I think Samuel P Huntington answered it best when he said:
"Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power".

Well, something I wonder but never out loud is "If Islam is so great why are Muslims leaving Islamic countries?" Now, non-Muslims leaving Muslim countries makes sense to me. Muslims leaving countries that are especially poor makes sense. But when they leave countries that are not that poor, I just can't understand why. Now, granted there are probably a lot more people emigrating from Pakistan than from Kuwait or UAE, but if you're Muslim, why leave Saudi Arabia? In fact, I'd like to ask everyone here other than the Aboriginals why they or their ansestors came here. There's a story in my heratiage about coming to Canada that is so interesting it was once published in The London Times. But, you never know how someone will react to such a question, so it's best not to ask.

 

[Marcus2x2]

I think that the Crusaders probably did kill some Middle East Christians. However, as I said before, most I think were decimated or converted by Islamic armies. The Crusaders most certainly did kill Orthodox Christians when they sacked Constantinople.
Despite the appaling loss of life during all the Crusades, there were some long-term benefits. It particularly opened up trade from Europe to the Middle East and made both "sides" wealthier. It helped further develop Europe: being able to take advantage of the acquired knowledge of the Islamic world in terms of some of it inventions like the wheel burrow (I think!) and of course thier considerable knowledge in maths.