Reason for The Crusades explained
- Thread starter Debp
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I’m not a Jew, and neither is Reverend Watts (post #1760).
I’m a Jewish monotheist; a primitive Christian. Reverend Watts isn’t.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
Islamic territories before the Crusades
625 just around Mecca
A rapid expansion in less than 175 years, waging Jihad war against peaceful Christians everywhere who were not ready for war
And then further into Africa and to the east
In a comparative timeline we look at the peaceful Papal territories
The Papal territories were acquired peacefully in the mid 8th century when Islam was already waging Jihad against Christianity
As we can see the Papal states acquired very little land. It was acquired peacefully. And while they were being raided by the evil Muslims they remained peaceful. But after being hammered for centuries by Islam who killed, tortured and enslaved millions of Christians they finally had to do something and defend Christianity itself.
625 just around Mecca
A rapid expansion in less than 175 years, waging Jihad war against peaceful Christians everywhere who were not ready for war
And then further into Africa and to the east
In a comparative timeline we look at the peaceful Papal territories
The Papal territories were acquired peacefully in the mid 8th century when Islam was already waging Jihad against Christianity
As we can see the Papal states acquired very little land. It was acquired peacefully. And while they were being raided by the evil Muslims they remained peaceful. But after being hammered for centuries by Islam who killed, tortured and enslaved millions of Christians they finally had to do something and defend Christianity itself.
Would it be fair to say that you are a Roman Catholic apologist / sympathizer?
I am and it does. (I registered as a “Christian” member and later changed my registration to “Other Faith”. I’ve explained why I changed my registration of several occasions.)
You’re wrong.
A link to the story behind my change in registration here:
Post in thread 'Continuing Education'
Continuing Education
I publicly discussed it with moderators and administration. I made a proposal to change my registration - they didn’t ask me to, nor did they require me to - and after some public dialogue between them and me, they approved my proposal and honored my request. The conversation is preserved on the forum for anyone who wants to see it. Believe them.
Hardly.
@Wrangler is a unitarian. He is registered here as a “Christian“ member. Some “Christian” members object to the Board allowing him (or any other non-trinitarian) to have that registration. Do you?
I made the decision to change my registration. He made the decision not to change his.
The spectrum of Christianity is broad, and Jewish monotheism is a part of it, as is unitarianism.
All Jewish monotheists are unitarians. Not all unitarians are Jewish monotheists. (As a matter of fact, the majority of unitarians aren’t Jewish monotheists.)
I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Son of the living God. Not all Jewish monotheists believe that he is.
@Wrangler doesn’t want you, me or anyone else here to know the name of the church he attends @Armour of God but he hasn’t concealed from anyone the fact that he is a unitarian, as you can see from the screen shot.
He and I have much in common. How we are to treat our enemies isn’t one of them.
Had he and I been alive at the time and come into contact with the Crusaders, they would have killed both of us. A weapon of the world would have been found in his dead hands, not in mine.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 20,731
- 8,987
- 113
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Yes, foolish people think they’re doing good by opposing the one side who is reacting to evil. Initiating evil is beyond reproach.
How many posts did he write in this thread with the same passion and condemnation against Jihadi’s? ZERO.
You are bearing false witness against me. I’m willing to believe at the moment that you are doing it out of ignorance. I’ve told you the truth about my registration designation and you can verify for yourself that what I told you is the truth. If you continue to bear false witness against me then I will have to conclude that you aren’t doing it out of ignorance.
Either way -
”I will not permit any man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.” - Booker T. Washington
What he said.
P.S.
I’ve known @Wrangler for years, on this forum and others. He knows that what you‘re saying about me are false.
Last edited:
Pacifists actively oppose evil, no matter who is committing it. See the example of Jesus and the Apostles in scripture. See the example of the early Christians, including, but not limited to, the martyrs.
Read my posts. I have written “with the same passion and condemnation against Jihadi’s” in this thread (and in others).
If it isn’t clear to my readers that I’m opposed to and condemn jihad then I don’t know what else I can say that will make it so; and there is probably nothing I can say that will persuade people like you - not even the fact that I’m a pacifist.
Last edited:
I read the following on my X / Twitter “For you” feed a couple of days ago -
“During the Nuremberg Trials, Herman Goering gave an interview to psychologist Gustave Gilbert and said:
’Of course the people don’t want war. Why would some poor farmer want to risk his life in a war when the best he can hope for is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, people don’t want war. No one wants war in Russia, England, America - not even in Germany. That’s obvious.
But in the end, it’s the leaders of a country who determine policy. And it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it’s a democracy , a communist state, or a fascist dictatorship.’
Gilbert objected:
’But there is one difference in a democracy - the people have a voice through their elected representatives.’
To which Goring replied:
’That’s all well and good, but whether the people have a voice or not, they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.’
Nuremberg Diary, April 18, 1946
Doesn’t it sound familiar?”
@Wrangler and his concealed identity church is following an old path in denouncing pacifism, even denying the early centuries of pacifism in Christianity history.
Had he lived in Germany during the years encompassing World War I and World War II, would he have “rendered to Caesar” his allegiance and fought for the Kaiser and the Fuhrer?
@Armour of God would you?
“During the Nuremberg Trials, Herman Goering gave an interview to psychologist Gustave Gilbert and said:
’Of course the people don’t want war. Why would some poor farmer want to risk his life in a war when the best he can hope for is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, people don’t want war. No one wants war in Russia, England, America - not even in Germany. That’s obvious.
But in the end, it’s the leaders of a country who determine policy. And it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it’s a democracy , a communist state, or a fascist dictatorship.’
Gilbert objected:
’But there is one difference in a democracy - the people have a voice through their elected representatives.’
To which Goring replied:
’That’s all well and good, but whether the people have a voice or not, they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.’
Nuremberg Diary, April 18, 1946
Doesn’t it sound familiar?”
@Wrangler and his concealed identity church is following an old path in denouncing pacifism, even denying the early centuries of pacifism in Christianity history.
Had he lived in Germany during the years encompassing World War I and World War II, would he have “rendered to Caesar” his allegiance and fought for the Kaiser and the Fuhrer?
@Armour of God would you?
NayborBear
Active Member
“The Crusade was a pilgrimage and thereby an act of penance. When Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095, he created a model that would be followed for centuries. Crusaders who undertook that burden with right intention and after confessing their sins would receive a plenary indulgence.”
Why Catholics Joined the Crusades: The Spiritual Truth
Discover the real spiritual motivation behind medieval Crusades. Learn what modern Catholics need to know about this misunderstood history. Read more.www.knightsoftheholyeucharist.com
@Wrangler, @Armour of God, @NayborBear what is your view on indulgences?
”One can never understand the Crusades without understanding their penitential character. It was the indulgence that lead thousands of men to take on a burden that would cost them dearly.”
What has come to be my understanding of plenary indulgences?
IS? Or WAS, anyways, like a "covenant", or agreement , or contract, if you will, between a "party or parties" with a "Church and/OR(?) God Himself! (In my particular case, would be that "strange act" of God working in and through me (NOT including any "assemblage of believers" regardless of denomination) OF THE WHICH, due to me not witnessing, or seeing ANY of these "acts/works/efforts" being displayed in, or from any assemblage I've been given opportunity in attending (considering "their "works", if you will, to be very much on the legalistic, or geared more TOWARDS legalism) in what I've called (because no one else I've ever encountered put a handle on it, save for Our Lord and Saviour/High Priest AND Kinsmen Redeemer Jesus Christ of Nazareth when He stated: "NO ONE comes unto the Father.....but BY (through) ME!") Jesus 2.0!
Which entails (how can I say) one's or ones' continuation OF one's, or ones' Spiritual Journey/ies of "CONTINUALLY SEEKING" the ONE who Sent His Good News WITH Christ TO mankind!
To wit! In this, or my "Plenary Indulgence" (thus far, anyway) is fighting "fire with fire", so to speak, using the "prince of the airs' weapon of broadcast/social "Media" in the "waging of war" in the ethereal Heavenlies!
TO WHICH? Certain (how can I say) "Allowances, or Grace, or Forgiveness" has been (extended?) to me, as I strive in "Saving the souls alive that Should NOT die" from those who would rather "Pollute the Father's Name for morsels of bread and barely in saving the souls alive which Should NOT live by promising them life!"
Because? I was told: "I GAVE 'em their Sacrifice and they have SINCE polluted even His Sacrifice!" "Now?" He further stated, "Homey don't play that "game" no more!"
Meaning? That there are "others", in fact many other righteous ones who are SAD, that the Father has not made sad! Because their Joy has been made "dormant" by those that lie and pollute for bread and water by those promising life!
So, should one, or ones' feel this way? Or are HIGHLY SUSPECT of what you are being "fed" at whatever "assemblage of believers" you attend or visit? There's are GODLY reasons why!
And?
YOU are NOT
ALONE!
But? To answer your question Matthias concerning the "single" word "indulgence/s?"
I likes Icecream, I likes smoking cigarettes.
AND?
I likes being retired, WITH a pension, I would have NOT obtained, had I NOT listened to God!
I would've gotten S.S. anyways (kinda, but not near as much) from previous labors of "gainful employment!"
Since the kingdom of God is not of this world, we do not fight physically for it. Scripture is very clear on this.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, 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.
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, 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.
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
NayborBear
Active Member
Well? Here's the "Crux of the Biscuit" so to speak Matthias:
God ALREADY KNOWS what these people in History said and did! What I was asked on more than one occasion?
"What does this "say/mean" to YOU?!"
(and yes!........you will be graded on your answer/s)
@Wrangler and @Armour of God are either of you familiar with what Martin Luther wrote about the Crusades?
“In his pamphlet’s On War Against the Turks (1529) and Military Sermon Against the Turks 1530), Luther clarified his position on the Christian response to Islam. Most significantly, he emphasized his absolute rejection of the crusade as blasphemous confusion of the spiritual and the secular. Christians as Christians were not to lead or even participate in battle.
Further, he argued that ecclesiastical attempts at military leadership angered God. Clergy should preach and pray, not bear arms and fight. According to Luther, soldiers had a right to protest a church-led military crusade through disobedience.
‘If I were a soldier and saw in the battlefield a priest’s banner or cross, even if it were the very crucifix, I would run away as though the very devil was chasing me!’ he wrote.
According to Luther, no religious cause justified military action against false Christians, heretics, or even Turks. Spiritual enemies must be fought with spiritual weapons alone. Crusade, or holy war, was never permissible. …”
(Gregory Miller, “From Crusades to Homeland Defense”)
christianhistoryinstitute.org
“In his pamphlet’s On War Against the Turks (1529) and Military Sermon Against the Turks 1530), Luther clarified his position on the Christian response to Islam. Most significantly, he emphasized his absolute rejection of the crusade as blasphemous confusion of the spiritual and the secular. Christians as Christians were not to lead or even participate in battle.
Further, he argued that ecclesiastical attempts at military leadership angered God. Clergy should preach and pray, not bear arms and fight. According to Luther, soldiers had a right to protest a church-led military crusade through disobedience.
‘If I were a soldier and saw in the battlefield a priest’s banner or cross, even if it were the very crucifix, I would run away as though the very devil was chasing me!’ he wrote.
According to Luther, no religious cause justified military action against false Christians, heretics, or even Turks. Spiritual enemies must be fought with spiritual weapons alone. Crusade, or holy war, was never permissible. …”
(Gregory Miller, “From Crusades to Homeland Defense”)
From Crusades to Homeland Defense | Christian History Magazine
Christian History Institute (CHI) provides church history resources and self-study material and publishes the quarterly Christian History Magazine. Our aim is to make Christian history enjoyable and applicable to the widest possible audience.
christianhistoryinstitute.org
NayborBear
Active Member
You'd better "wake up" buttercup!
We're 2,000+ YEARS from then!
If you wish to keep "sailing down some river in Egypt?"
Then you are oblivious to a "season!"
And "A time for EVERY PURPOSE under Heaven!"
Yes, God knows what they said and did. The average Christian doesn’t.
Similar threads
