Christian Forums

Did the Crusades do more harm or good? Your opinion?
The purpose of this thread is to have an open debate on whether the Crusades did more good or harm.
 
What is your opinion about the Crusades?
You are surely ashamed of the atrocities, as I am.

These might not seem like advantages to you, but they clearly benefited the Christians of that time,
The failed Crusades at the Holy land caused the Muslims to concentrate their forces at the Holy land rather than being able to concentrate forces on conquering mainland European countries.

The First Crusade achieved its military objectives, postponing the Muslim expansionists for many years.
Crusades brought Christendom into contact with more advanced east that they learned much from.
New priceless relics from the Holy land were taken back to Europe.
New supplies and inventions from the East were brought back to Europe.

Also, because of the Crusades, Christians were able to have control of the Holy Sepulchre and other pilgrimage sites which they still had control over up until the 20th century.
I don't understand this because the Crusades cost so much, but the wealth and power of the Church increased dramatically during and because of the Crusades, according to what I read.

Improved navigational knowledge allowed Europeans such as Marco Polo to explore more of the world and to have better trade routs to Asia.
Western hygiene improved.
Thousands of the crusaders, returning broken in spirits and in health, having seen their brethren die,
realized how short, fragile and vain this life is, and began entering monasteries and becoming consecrated religious brothers, priests, and deacons.

War usually produces more vocations. For example, after World War 2 there was a huge boom in religious vocations.
In addition to this, the increase of piety, prayer, and penance among Europeans back home exploded with unprecedented fervor and religious enthusiasm that dominated this period in Church History.

Even in the failed Crusade to save the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople, by repeatedly repelling the advancing Turks, the fall of Constantinople was postponed for more than three centuries.
This gave the early Christian civilization of Germany time to acquire sufficient strength to defeat the tide of Mohammedan invaders who assaulted Europe in the fifteenth century.

The Crusades also humbled Christians and brought back many men who had great sympathy for their enemies.
They brought these sympathies back to Christendom which prevented future mistakes, and still exists to this day.
Well, the Christian armies that went on the Crusades hadn't come from countries that had been evangelized much, and the Church still had a lot of growing to do.

Many of the soldiers who went on the Crusades had a lust for luxury, Glory, and adventure.
They were not going there for God or with purity of intention. And for the most part, many of them were Christian by name and not by deed.

In fact, when they sacked Constantinople, they were disobeying the orders of the Pope. God let it become a disaster just like he let the Israelites fall into military disasters when they were unfaithful and disobedient.
However, many of the Crusaders, who were corrupt and immoral men before the Crusades, found God, repented, and lived penitential lives as a result of the Crusades.

Consider this, the Crusades defeated the Muslim expansionists at Spain, France, Italy, and Austria.
Spain and France literally had to be reconquered.
Had there been no organized military force to combat the Muslims, Europe would today be Muslim.

Also, the feast of our Lady of the Rosary was instituted on the Day (Oct 7) that the Christians defeated the Turks at Lepanto, saving Rome from being conquered.
It was God and our Lady's will that the Christians should win that battle.
This proves that God was at least some of the time, on the side of the Crusaders.

Saint Louis IX, king, confessor of the Faith, a leader of a crusade and model of a Catholic head of state, died fighting for this cause.
Could it be that great Saints were lead into fighting and dying for an evil cause or an unjust war?

People accuse the Crusades as being unprovoked aggressors.
Interesting, the Crusades were all fought on Christian soil or land that had been Christian and was conquered by the Muslims.
Long before the Crusades began the Muslims had conquered more than 25% of Christendom. In fact, Muslims have been unceasingly at war.

War that began when Mohammed was alive and continues to this day in many countries.
Shouldn't it be considered just for people to defend themselves?
And does the Church not to this day believe in a just war.

I personally think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Christians soldiers who payed the ultimate sacrifice which prevented all of Christendom from being conquered, our religion made illegal, and the Koran replacing the Bible.

Please refute whatever you may object to.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 12:27:53
Did the Crusades do more harm or good? Your opinion?
The purpose of this thread is to have an open debate on whether the Crusades did more good or harm.
 
What is your opinion about the Crusades?
You are surely ashamed of the atrocities, as I am.

These might not seem like advantages to you, but they clearly benefited the Christians of that time,
The failed Crusades at the Holy land caused the Muslims to concentrate their forces at the Holy land rather than being able to concentrate forces on conquering mainland European countries.

The First Crusade achieved its military objectives, postponing the Muslim expansionists for many years.
Crusades brought Christendom into contact with more advanced east that they learned much from.
New priceless relics from the Holy land were taken back to Europe.
New supplies and inventions from the East were brought back to Europe.

Also, because of the Crusades, Christians were able to have control of the Holy Sepulchre and other pilgrimage sites which they still had control over up until the 20th century.
I don't understand this because the Crusades cost so much, but the wealth and power of the Church increased dramatically during and because of the Crusades, according to what I read.

Improved navigational knowledge allowed Europeans such as Marco Polo to explore more of the world and to have better trade routs to Asia.
Western hygiene improved.
Thousands of the crusaders, returning broken in spirits and in health, having seen their brethren die,
realized how short, fragile and vain this life is, and began entering monasteries and becoming consecrated religious brothers, priests, and deacons.

War usually produces more vocations. For example, after World War 2 there was a huge boom in religious vocations.
In addition to this, the increase of piety, prayer, and penance among Europeans back home exploded with unprecedented fervor and religious enthusiasm that dominated this period in Church History.

Even in the failed Crusade to save the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople, by repeatedly repelling the advancing Turks, the fall of Constantinople was postponed for more than three centuries.
This gave the early Christian civilization of Germany time to acquire sufficient strength to defeat the tide of Mohammedan invaders who assaulted Europe in the fifteenth century.

The Crusades also humbled Christians and brought back many men who had great sympathy for their enemies.
They brought these sympathies back to Christendom which prevented future mistakes, and still exists to this day.
Well, the Christian armies that went on the Crusades hadn't come from countries that had been evangelized much, and the Church still had a lot of growing to do.

Many of the soldiers who went on the Crusades had a lust for luxury, Glory, and adventure.
They were not going there for God or with purity of intention. And for the most part, many of them were Christian by name and not by deed.

In fact, when they sacked Constantinople, they were disobeying the orders of the Pope. God let it become a disaster just like he let the Israelites fall into military disasters when they were unfaithful and disobedient.
However, many of the Crusaders, who were corrupt and immoral men before the Crusades, found God, repented, and lived penitential lives as a result of the Crusades.

Consider this, the Crusades defeated the Muslim expansionists at Spain, France, Italy, and Austria.
Spain and France literally had to be reconquered.
Had there been no organized military force to combat the Muslims, Europe would today be Muslim.

Also, the feast of our Lady of the Rosary was instituted on the Day (Oct 7) that the Christians defeated the Turks at Lepanto, saving Rome from being conquered.
It was God and our Lady's will that the Christians should win that battle.
This proves that God was at least some of the time, on the side of the Crusaders.

Saint Louis IX, king, confessor of the Faith, a leader of a crusade and model of a Catholic head of state, died fighting for this cause.
Could it be that great Saints were lead into fighting and dying for an evil cause or an unjust war?

People accuse the Crusades as being unprovoked aggressors.
Interesting, the Crusades were all fought on Christian soil or land that had been Christian and was conquered by the Muslims.
Long before the Crusades began the Muslims had conquered more than 25% of Christendom. In fact, Muslims have been unceasingly at war.

War that began when Mohammed was alive and continues to this day in many countries.
Shouldn't it be considered just for people to defend themselves?
And does the Church not to this day believe in a just war.

I personally think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Christians soldiers who payed the ultimate sacrifice which prevented all of Christendom from being conquered, our religion made illegal, and the Koran replacing the Bible.

Please refute whatever you may object to.

There is simply no opinion here. The crusades were not of Christ but of men. we are not taking the world by force then or now. Jesus nor the apsotles ever taught that his church was to raise up an army relgious or politically to fight anyone. Did the apostles or any of the persecuted early believers take up arms?. No! The church of Jesus Christ was never to be a religious political power rulling empires and building armies. There is no good or bad to reflect on or any justification. The church that did this was not Christs true church but one that was far from Him.

Perhaps the Church should have taken up the Bible instead of the sword.

had it not been for the Crusades the Muslims would have conquered Europe and the Koran would have replaced the Bible

According to your logic we should have never fought Hitler.
We should have just let him conquer the world
Isnt that what you're saying?  It's not okay for people to defend their lands from invaders?
If an enemy conquers many nations from someone else is it wrong to counter attack and try to get some of that back?

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 20:17:23
had it not been for the Crusades the Muslims would have conquered Europe and the Koran would have replaced the Bible

According to your logic we should have never fought Hitler.
We should have just let him conquer the world
Isnt that what you're saying?  It's not okay for people to defend their lands from invaders?
If an enemy conquers many nations from someone else is it wrong to counter attack and try to get some of that back?

Nope. What I am saying is the Church should have gone out and bring the Gospel to the Muslims instead of showing them the sharp edge of the sword. The Koran could not have replaced the Bible if the Muslims would have accepted Jesus.

En Facto, the violent response of the Church to the rise of Islam may have contributed substantially to the totalitarian unacceptance and misunderstanding of Christianity in arab society.

Many Missionaries died trying to peacefully evangelize the Muslims
St. Francis met with the Muslim Sultan, the Saracens orignially wanted to kill him for preaching about Jesus,
However the Muslim Sultan liked him too much.
The Sultan Loved Francis but had no desire to accept Jesus as a greater prophet than Muhammed.
The Crusades didnt take place until the Muslims had conquered a huge portion of Christianity, were invading mainland Europe, and were intent on Conquering all of Christendom.
Dont assume that the Church didnt try other means before using military might.

Now adays look at how many Christian Countries make it illegal for a Muslim to practice their faith.
Look at how many Muslim countries where it is illegal to practice Christianity or preach the Gospel.
That might tell you a little about who was being more unreasonable during the long war between Christianity and Islam
A war that many Muslims would like to see continue until all infidels (Christians, Jews, and non Muslims) are converted or destroyed.

If Israel laid down their arms and stopped using military might they would quickly be slaughtered by their Arab enemies.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 22:09:38
Many Missionaries died trying to peacefully evangelize the Muslims
St. Francis met with the Muslim Sultan, the Saracens orignially wanted to kill him for preaching about Jesus,
However the Muslim Sultan liked him too much.
The Sultan Loved Francis but had no desire to accept Jesus as a greater prophet than Muhammed.
The Crusades didnt take place until the Muslims had conquered a huge portion of Christianity, were invading mainland Europe, and were intent on Conquering all of Christendom.
Dont assume that the Church didnt try other means before using military might.

Now adays look at how many Christian Countries make it illegal for a Muslim to practice their faith.
Look at how many Muslim countries where it is illegal to practice Christianity or preach the Gospel.
That might tell you a little about who was being more unreasonable during the long war between Christianity and Islam
A war that many Muslims would like to see continue until all infidels (Christians, Jews, and non Muslims) are converted or destroyed.

If Israel laid down their arms and stopped using military might they would quickly be slaughtered by their Arab enemies.

Well then, looking at the above the crusades seems to have had little tono effect on peace, as well as freedom of religion.
That should sufficiently answer the question whether the crusades were a good or bad occurance.

Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 23:22:51
Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Kind of weird observation.
The whole point of the crusades was to kill Muslims and disallow them freedom of religion.

No all of the Crusades were either fought on Christian land in mainland Europe or Christian land that the Muslims had conquered (the holy land)
It wasnt about killing Muslims as much as it was about defending Christendom from those who were taking it with force

Quote from: matt1 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 - 19:21:40
No all of the Crusades were either fought on Christian land in mainland Europe or Christian land that the Muslims had conquered (the holy land)
It wasnt about killing Muslims as much as it was about defending Christendom from those who were taking it with force

There you go again.
Your notion that there is something like "Christian land" in itself already proves my point that the Church by force insited to keep this land "Christian".

Christian land does not exist, and neither does Muslim land. Land is land.

It baffles me to some extend that you still maintain the stance that it is better to wage war over religion, than it is to keep th epeace and preach the gospel.
What would Jesus have done would you say? Grab a sword and kill the muslims?

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 - 20:05:21

Quote from: matt1 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 - 19:21:40
No all of the Crusades were either fought on Christian land in mainland Europe or Christian land that the Muslims had conquered (the holy land)
It wasnt about killing Muslims as much as it was about defending Christendom from those who were taking it with force

There you go again.
Your notion that there is something like "Christian land" in itself already proves my point that the Church by force insited to keep this land "Christian".

Christian land does not exist, and neither does Muslim land. Land is land.

It baffles me to some extend that you still maintain the stance that it is better to wage war over religion, than it is to keep th epeace and preach the gospel.
What would Jesus have done would you say? Grab a sword and kill the muslims?

I tend to agree with AVZ on this one matt1. I think you are equating "good" in this sense to what was the advantage of the winners (the Cruasders) and their beneficators (those citizens who remained unconquered by Ottoman powers). Consider your own analogy about Hitler. Say Hitler never betrayed the Soviets and thus he would never have lost his military might to the brutality of a Russian winter front. Its safe to calculate that Hitler would have successfully conquered all of Europe.

Consider a modern day Nazi saying that slaughtering all those Jews and enslaving the European continent Russia and parts of Africa did more good than bad. I doubt you would consider the indvidual a rational or sane human being. No matter what comes out of such actions those actions are still despicable crimes. The ends do not justify the means.

Now do not misundertsand me. I am in no way painting the cruel Ottoman Empire as some sort of victum. In truth the entire establishment was a monster in its core. However religious wars should never exist for those who all themselves Christians especially those who call themselves Catholics (no disrespect intended AVZ).

This is true. Peter could have done more serious damage in the Garden on behalf of Jesus. He was swinging a sword to defend the faith and Jesus the savior. But, Jesus told him to put down the sword.

Jesus died for salvation, the crusades consisted of killing for the faith. The conclusion is simple.

But it was okay to fight the Nazi's who were bent on world domination and genocide of the Jews
According to the non violence logic we should have laid down our arms and let them conquer the world and annihilate entire races of people
The majority of the People who were fighting in that war who belonged to the Allies (Russia not included) were Christian

Quote from: matt1 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 06:53:33
But it was okay to fight the Nazi's who were bent on world domination and genocide of the Jews
According to the non violence logic we should have laid down our arms and let them conquer the world and annihilate entire races of people
The majority of the People who were fighting in that war who belonged to the Allies (Russia not included) were Christian

World War II was not fought for any religious reasons. You can't compare it to the Crusades.

Quote from: LightHammer on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 09:34:30

Quote from: matt1 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 06:53:33
But it was okay to fight the Nazi's who were bent on world domination and genocide of the Jews
According to the non violence logic we should have laid down our arms and let them conquer the world and annihilate entire races of people
The majority of the People who were fighting in that war who belonged to the Allies (Russia not included) were Christian

World War II was not fought for any religious reasons. You can't compare it to the Crusades.

For once I shake your hand LH  Hebrews says  live in peace with all men. Romans 12:18 ..If it is possible as much as lieth in you live peacebly with all men. We may have to fight in an army but christians don't make war with anyone

Agreed but it could be argued that the Crusades were just as political as they were religious
A foreign army had conquered or was conquering lands in the middle East, North Africa, Turkey, Spain, France and Italy
Whether they were Muslims, Mongols, atheists, or other Christians, the fact remains that one Empire was destroying and invading another.
Put the religious aspect aside and we have a just war.  The War against Hitler was a just War because he was conquering Europe and forcing all kinds of injustice on the people
The Muslims were doing the same thing it just so happens that they were Muslims so now we can say the Church was forcing their beliefs on another Religion
Well, the battles were fought in Christian countries and the wars fought in the Holy Land were to reclaim one of many Christian Countries that had been conquered

Quote from: matt1 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 11:25:59
Agreed but it could be argued that the Crusades were just as political as they were religious
A foreign army had conquered or was conquering lands in the middle East, North Africa, Turkey, Spain, France and Italy
Whether they were Muslims, Mongols, atheists, or other Christians, the fact remains that one Empire was destroying and invading another.
Put the religious aspect aside and we have a just war.  The War against Hitler was a just War because he was conquering Europe and forcing all kinds of injustice on the people
The Muslims were doing the same thing it just so happens that they were Muslims so now we can say the Church was forcing their beliefs on another Religion
Well, the battles were fought in Christian countries and the wars fought in the Holy Land were to reclaim one of many Christian Countries that had been conquered

Jesus said that no war is just.
"If someone hits you on the cheek, turn him the other as well. If someone steals your coat, give him the other as well".

Although you could say that Peter was justified when he took the sword to defend Jesus, Jesus still asked him to put his sword away.

There is no justification for evil.

My point again,
does that mean we as Christians shouldnt have fought against the Nazi's in WW2
That might be correct im not saying it isnt
Im just asking your oppinion

Quote from: matt1 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 11:42:44
My point again,
does that mean we as Christians shouldnt have fought against the Nazi's in WW2
That might be correct im not saying it isnt
Im just asking your oppinion

Theologicallyu that is indeed correct. If we had the faith to let the Lord fight for us, He would have ended WWII for us in His own way.

I actually agree with you there
in fact if after WOrld war 2 ended in 1917 if half the world was praying and fasting regularly
God would have bestowed so much grace upon the world that I would be shocked if there was a second World War at all
If people have enough Faith there is nothing impossible
Yes I agree
and I think (my oppinion) that if Europeans had more Faith and virtuous living that GOd would have prevented the Muslims from ever invading Europe in the first place
just my opinion
I also believe the plagues that decimated so much of Europe were also a consequence of sin
God chastises those whom he loves
We see this repeatedly in the Scriptures

Quote from: AVZ on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 15:28:34

Quote from: matt1 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 11:42:44
My point again,
does that mean we as Christians shouldnt have fought against the Nazi's in WW2
That might be correct im not saying it isnt
Im just asking your oppinion

Theologicallyu that is indeed correct. If we had the faith to let the Lord fight for us, He would have ended WWII for us in His own way.

Somewhere in the scriptures depict an army a worldly kingdom. Who is used to defeat those who came up against Israel.

Not entirely supernatural to the eyes of man, compared to fire from heaven, but yet God ordained commanded word.

Stalins Russia was used during world war 2 to defeat Nazi. Unfair perhaps but God is the one who sets up life and takes it away, if he judges he does it rightoeusly.

I do not claim to say, that event was God spoken, but given the scenario it seems likely his hand was involved.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 23:22:51
Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Interesting you bring this topic up. I have though of this subject as of late.

I agree I think.

A christian missionary to bring the gospel via the word of God would require substantial preperation.

1. Learn Arab/Turk language, would take a few years to educate 100's of missionaries
2. Translate the gospel
3. Travel to the middle east _ No jets = Months of travel


By the time this campaign of evangelism takes place the Ottoman empire would continue to spread into Europe

Destroying all books and libaries just as the libary of Alexandria.

Destroying all the work and labour of the saints past .

You are absolutely right 

Quote from: FireSword on Sun Jun 10, 2012 - 15:32:49

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 23:22:51
Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Interesting you bring this topic up. I have though of this subject as of late.

I agree I think.

A christian missionary to bring the gospel via the word of God would require substantial preperation.

1. Learn Arab/Turk language, would take a few years to educate 100's of missionaries
2. Translate the gospel
3. Travel to the middle east _ No jets = Months of travel


By the time this campaign of evangelism takes place the Ottoman empire would continue to spread into Europe

Destroying all books and libaries just as the libary of Alexandria.

Destroying all the work and labour of the saints past .

Jesus said while we are in this world we would have tribulations. There would always be wars and conflicts because sin is in the world. It just goes and will continue untill Jesus retruns. The church exists in this wicked world to be a ligiht for salvation and hope and love.  True there are just wars that must be fought and Christians may be called to fight just as any citizen would be called to fight. But the Cusades was different. First the church became a relgious political order with temporal powers. This was not ordained of Christ, nor was the crusaders who wore the cross representing the christian church under the authority of popes.  We are not taking the world by force fighting wars in the name of Christ. If we do as the world does then what light for Christ are we. While the world has hate jelousy and those who want to concour the example of Christ is to live in peace and obey the powers that be.  

Well, even if Europe had not been Christian the Crusades would have happened they just would have had a different name and been more brutal.
If Europe had been communist, the Spanish, the French, the Italians, the Austrians, and those who lived in Turkey would have defended and reconquered their territory.
they would have attempted a reconquest of conquered territories like Palestine
and they would have been more successful because Communism forces their people to fight.

Should Christians under Stalin just have walked out to concentration camps like sheep to be slaughtered by the tens of millions
What if they decided to fight.
Would God be angry at them?
If you think 6 million Jews getting killed was an atrocity how about the more than 100 million people (probably mostly Christian) who were killed in Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Poland, Ukraine, Cuba, South America, and east Berlin by the Communists?
Maybe if Christians had fought the evil with arms there would have been less bloodshed and the Communist Governments overthrown
Either way, God liberated many of those countries, so God be praised!

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 00:39:43

Quote from: FireSword on Sun Jun 10, 2012 - 15:32:49

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 23:22:51
Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Interesting you bring this topic up. I have though of this subject as of late.

I agree I think.

A christian missionary to bring the gospel via the word of God would require substantial preperation.

1. Learn Arab/Turk language, would take a few years to educate 100's of missionaries
2. Translate the gospel
3. Travel to the middle east _ No jets = Months of travel


By the time this campaign of evangelism takes place the Ottoman empire would continue to spread into Europe

Destroying all books and libaries just as the libary of Alexandria.

Destroying all the work and labour of the saints past .

Jesus said while we are in this world we would have tribulations. There would always be wars and conflicts because sin is in the world. It just goes and will continue untill Jesus retruns. The church exists in this wicked world to be a ligiht for salvation and hope and love.  True there are just wars that must be fought and Christians may be called to fight just as any citizen would be called to fight. But the Cusades was different. First the church became a relgious political order with temporal powers. This was not ordained of Christ, nor was the crusaders who wore the cross representing the christian church under the authority of popes.  We are not taking the world by force fighting wars in the name of Christ. If we do as the world does then what light for Christ are we. While the world has hate jelousy and those who want to concour the example of Christ is to live in peace and obey the powers that be.  

Wasn't the pope the leader of the holy Roman empire? Therefore had the responsiblity as king over his citizens to protect.

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 07:38:08

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 00:39:43

Quote from: FireSword on Sun Jun 10, 2012 - 15:32:49

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 23:22:51
Without the Crusades there would be no freedom of Religion
The muslims would have turned Europe into another Middle East and it would be illegal to practice Christianity.
So, actually, the Crusades did much to help Religious freedom from the Christian angle

Interesting you bring this topic up. I have though of this subject as of late.

I agree I think.

A christian missionary to bring the gospel via the word of God would require substantial preperation.

1. Learn Arab/Turk language, would take a few years to educate 100's of missionaries
2. Translate the gospel
3. Travel to the middle east _ No jets = Months of travel


By the time this campaign of evangelism takes place the Ottoman empire would continue to spread into Europe

Destroying all books and libaries just as the libary of Alexandria.

Destroying all the work and labour of the saints past .

Jesus said while we are in this world we would have tribulations. There would always be wars and conflicts because sin is in the world. It just goes and will continue untill Jesus retruns. The church exists in this wicked world to be a ligiht for salvation and hope and love.  True there are just wars that must be fought and Christians may be called to fight just as any citizen would be called to fight. But the Cusades was different. First the church became a relgious political order with temporal powers. This was not ordained of Christ, nor was the crusaders who wore the cross representing the christian church under the authority of popes.  We are not taking the world by force fighting wars in the name of Christ. If we do as the world does then what light for Christ are we. While the world has hate jelousy and those who want to concour the example of Christ is to live in peace and obey the powers that be.  

Wasn't the pope the leader of the holy Roman empire? Therefore had the responsiblity as king over his citizens to protect.

Firesword i perciece you have much you need to learn. First who was Jesus and what was his sacrifice and message. You should study the New testament and ask for understanding. When Jesus esatablished the church and it was born on the day of pentecost there was no political agenda or mandate to rule empires. The papacy was not of Christ but of men. Bishops who lost sight of who the church really was and becames ambitious. It may take some time for you to see this.

Okay, the Papacy is an institution of men?
Tell me, which man instituted it, and who was the first Pope?
I cant wait to hear your answer...

Also, do you think after the present state of Israel was established in 1948, they should have not used military force against their enemies?

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 20:17:23
had it not been for the Crusades the Muslims would have conquered Europe and the Koran would have replaced the Bible

You of course could be right about that.  However, it is only conjecture.  But we have no direction from the Bible, specifically the NT, for the church [speaking here of the church of Jesus Christ, the body of believers, not the RCC] to take up arms.  That is the role of governments not the church.  Those in the church may support the taking up of arms or not.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 20:17:23
According to your logic we should have never fought Hitler.
We should have just let him conquer the world
Isnt that what you're saying?  It's not okay for people to defend their lands from invaders?
If an enemy conquers many nations from someone else is it wrong to counter attack and try to get some of that back?

It was not the church that fought Hitler.  The church, in whatever way you wish to think of the church, had little to do with it. And if you are thinking about the RCC, some would argue that they were much to complicit in what Hitler did.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 11:37:53
Okay, the Papacy is an institution of men?
Tell me, which man instituted it, and who was the first Pope?
I cant wait to hear your answer...

Also, do you think after the present state of Israel was established in 1948, they should have not used military force against their enemies?

Jesus did not institute men of war. but of peace. You say Peter was your first pope. What did Jesus tell him when the centurians came for Him after he drew his sword. What pope first formed the the Crusaders and when.  When I use the term of men I mean men who are not of Christ but led only by their carnal instinks.

What about the Isreal?  They are a nation as any other nation. when nations feel threatened they go to war. What has this to do with the New terstament Church of jesus Christ. The Jews don't follow Him

It depend on how one sees the crusades.

If one sees it as a force in order to convert people via the sword rather than evangelism, then this is clearly not a biblical mandate.

But if the crusades was a force to defend the existence of God's words and peoples, then why are we compelled to defend the destroyers.

Quote from: matt1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 11:37:53
Also, do you think after the present state of Israel was established in 1948, they should have not used military force against their enemies?

You are speculating.

The state of Israel arose from the ashes of the holocaust. Humanly speaking, if there would have been no holocaust, Isreal most likely would never have been established.

This basically means that God used the holocaust to fulfill His plan.
But God would have fulfilled His plan anyway, with or without human interference.
It doesn't matter is Isreal defends itself or not. God's plan is at work and will happen either way.

"Vengeance is Mine" says the Lord.
David understood that very well when he had the opportunity to kill Saul when he was sleeping in the cave.
Yet David decided not to interfere in God's plan. David trusted God to fulfill His promise in His time.

Your question and the conclusions you pull from the crusades are moot.
If you think it was OK for the church, or for Christians, to take up the sword and liberate the holy land from Islam, what is holding you back today?

There is a mosque standing right in the middle of Jerusalem, on top where once was the temple.
Half of Jerusalem is in the hands of Muslims.
Bethlehem is in hands of Muslims and so are many other places.

I would say, take out your tanks, rockets and guns. Islam still is the same "threat" to Christianity today as it was centuries ago.
Let's dispose of a few million Muslims in name of our Saviour.
There will be plenty of people like you who'll give you their thumbs up.

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 14:56:58
It depend on how one sees the crusades.

If one sees it as a force in order to convert people via the sword rather than evangelism, then this is clearly not a biblical mandate.

But if the crusades was a force to defend the existence of God's words and peoples, then why are we compelled to defend the destroyers.

You need to go back and truly learn about Jesus and his Gospel. Jesus could have called down a legion of angels to defend him and save Him from the cross. clearly you do not understand.

No if I could see the Crusades for the Holy Land never happen I would be greatful
However, the fact remains, it seemed God worked some miracles when the Muslims were defeated at Spain, France, Italy, and Austria.
Im grateful that some brave men chose to fight rather than let their wives and children get raped, sodomized, enslaved, and murdered.
The Turks especially were into selling children to the sex trade where they would be raped every way possible by hundreds of men and die of STD's and be buried in a shallow unmarked grave without honor or a Christian burial.

Oh so if somebody was coming after your son/daughter to rape/murder him/her and you had the oppurtunity to protect her/him, would you do so?
Even if it meant firing a gun?
I understand turning the other cheek, but I think a man who chooses not to defend those who cannot defend themselves, when no one is there to defend them, is not much of a man.